Right Wing Bigotry From Alberta

[bluealberta]

He supports this man his leader:

Has vigorously and actively opposed gay marriage. And would use the Notwithstanding Clause to override the Supreme Court’s definition of marriage.
Has called “vile” any comparison between civil rights and gay rights, and voted against including sexual orientation in hate propaganda laws.
Hired a former Winnipeg radio jock fired for saying that “diesel dykes (are) running the school board” to be his media spokesperson in his 2002 Alliance leadership bid.

He supports a bigot, so that makes him a bigot, and if you support him you are a bigot to. Candy coat it all you want.

Bull crap, and the same response to the "response" by the Rev. If you want the constituion to support gay marriage, then you have to support the consitution to have the nothwithstanding clause. Either or. Accept both, or get rid of both.

You know, calling someone a bigot does not make them a bigot. I have the "right" to call myself a woman, but that doesn't make me a woman. I do have the right in this country, however, to have my opinions, and if they do not fit with the leftist elites, so be it, could care less. What I see from the left is the desire to stifle any opposition to their viewpoint, and that is very scarey, and indicative of some sort of hidden agenda. If the Rev and Vanni want to stifle debate on issues and degrade anyone who disagrees with them, and they are NDP supporters, then by the logic they put forth when talking about me, then the NDP wants to stifle freedom of expression and a difference of opinion. Therefor, to vote for the NDP is to vote for curtailing freedom of speech, thought, and expression. And if the Rev and Vanni think this is not right, then quit making the same assumptions about the Conservative party and me.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Not much point in talking to silent swirl...he's wrong and twisted. It's an unfortunate birth defect. Usually first cousins marrying only leads to problems like close-set eyes and idiocy. Then there are the worst-case scenarios...

The internet forces us to acknowledge even the worst of the species though, so I guess I will respond to mr swirl. I would admonish his family to quit breeding with each other though.

That's not a point, it's a position. Notwithstanding your masterful posturing what's your point?

No, it's a point. If it'll save me five bucks tomorrow, I'll melt a looney down today. Your problem is that you can only think a couple hours ahead of time.

Okay, I read the rest of his post and he has failed to produce anything else that has the validity to require a response. If Swirl was a kitten, he'd be the retarded one that had to be euthanized before the other kittens killed it.

 

[bluealberta]

Not much point in talking to silent swirl...he's wrong and twisted. It's an unfortunate birth defect. Usually first cousins marrying only leads to problems like close-set eyes and idiocy. Then there are the worst-case scenarios...

Once again a ridiculous left wing response without any merit. Have no logical response? Slam and slander.

The internet forces us to acknowledge even the worst of the species though, so I guess I will respond to mr swirl. I would admonish his family to quit breeding with each other though.

See above

That's not a point, it's a position. Notwithstanding your masterful posturing what's your point?

No, it's a point. If it'll save me five bucks tomorrow, I'll melt a looney down today. Your problem is that you can only think a couple hours ahead of time.

Okay, I read the rest of his post and he has failed to produce anything else that has the validity to require a response. If Swirl was a kitten, he'd be the retarded one that had to be euthanized before the other kittens killed it.

See above yet again. Rev, sometimes you make my point so easily.

 

[bluealberta]

"suggest", "implies"... trite innuendo. At best you are accusing Blue of being a bigoted elitist, at worst you are accusing him of promoting eugenics.

Interesting you should mention that, as I wasn't going to...but now that you have:

Here's some insight into what blues party of choice has supported:

OVERVIEW OF CHURCH/STATE SEPARATION IN CANADA

Alberta: The provincial government passed a Sexual Sterilization Act in 1928 (5 years before Germany). From 1929-OCT to 1972-FEB, 2,832 sterilization procedures were performed in the province. "Some of the people considered "unfit" to bear children were new immigrants, alcoholics, epileptics, unwed mothers, the poor and native people." 1 By 1998-MAR, almost 750 victims had initiated suits against the government. On 1998-MAR-10, the Alberta legislature introduced Bill 26 which would have used the "not withstanding" clause to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Massive outcries from an enraged public and media motivated the government to withdraw the bill the next day.

This threat of invoking the Notwithstanding Clause was from Ralph Klein's neoconservative government...Harper's neocons have the exact same ideology, and get their policies from the same place...

So you tell me, what doubt is there that these f**ks are about the worst government this country could have?

If you want to quote policies from many years ago, go ahead. We can all come up with some. For instance, a Liberal governemnt refused entry to Canada of boatloads of Jews, who were sent back to Germany to be killed in the camps by horrible means of death. Are we even? The past is riddled with mistakes. We were not there, it was a different time and place. Here is an example:

In 1968 the Russians invaded Czechlosovakia (SP?). We heard about it on the news 2 - 3 days after it happened saw it on TV news broadcasts a couple of days after that. Now we see things, good or bad, as they happen. This illustrates how illogical and wrong it is to compare what happened many years ago to todays reality.

 

[SilentSwirl]

He supports a bigot, so that makes him a bigot, and if you support him you are a bigot to. (sic) Candy coat it all you want.

Forty seven percent of Albertans voted for King Ralph at the last provincial election. If anyone were to believe that 47% of Albertans are "bigots" it would make them a peabrain. If you believe 47% of Albertans are "bigots" that would make you a peabrain too. Candy coat it all you want.

It is interesting to note that when Bill 26 was introduced in 1998 "Massive outcries from an enraged public and media motivated the government to withdraw the bill the next day." Presumably the "enraged public" were Albertans (perhaps blue was one of them - have you asked him?), so apparently democracy is working and freedom of thought is alive and well in Alberta (or was in 1998).

The question now being posed by Blue, and seconded by me, is whether democracy is working, and freedom of thought are alive and well on Canadian Content.

Blue seems concerned that his right wing opinions and the fact he comes from Alberta automatically label him a "neoconservative" extremist, and make him the target of a neosocialist extremists conspiracy. Is he wrong?

 

[bluealberta]

Call the Rev a Communist and he'll edit your post so you're wearing a pink tutu.

But this is okay?

Not much point in talking to silent swirl...he's wrong and twisted. It's an unfortunate birth defect. Usually first cousins marrying only leads to problems like close-set eyes and idiocy. Then there are the worst-case scenarios...

The internet forces us to acknowledge even the worst of the species though, so I guess I will respond to mr swirl. I would admonish his family to quit breeding with each other though.

That's not a point, it's a position. Notwithstanding your masterful posturing what's your point?

No, it's a point. If it'll save me five bucks tomorrow, I'll melt a looney down today. Your problem is that you can only think a couple hours ahead of time.

Okay, I read the rest of his post and he has failed to produce anything else that has the validity to require a response. If Swirl was a kitten, he'd be the retarded one that had to be euthanized before the other kittens killed it.

Looks like one big personal attack to me, Rev.
And it's off-topic to boot.

Lady C!!! Thank God (if that's allowable on this thread) for a voice of reason. You have been missed. Welcome back!!!! 8)

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Right Wing Bigotry Fr

I see the yahoos are in here in force. Lock up your daughters and hide the chickens.

 

[LadyC]

Yup... when you run out of actual points to make, post some "clever" insults.

 

[mrmom2]

Moderator We need some more censorship :lol:

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Right Wing Bigotry From Alberta

Yup... when you run out of actual points to make, post some "clever" insults.

Hey, he can only go with his strengths. I think the chickens might be afraid of him though, because both my daughters think that he is funny. Harmless, illogical, but funny. :wink:

 

[bluealberta]

Moderator We need some more censorship :lol:

The Rev is the moderator.

 

[mrmom2]

I know Blue I was just giving him the gears for censoring me last night in Forum Games :lol:

 

[bluealberta]

I know Blue I was just giving him the gears for censoring me last night in Forum Games :lol:

Ok, sorry. Assuming we can all provide our opinions, these forums should get really interesting during the campaign. 8)

 

[Vanni Fucci]

If you want to quote policies from many years ago, go ahead. We can all come up with some. For instance, a Liberal governemnt refused entry to Canada of boatloads of Jews, who were sent back to Germany to be killed in the camps by horrible means of death. Are we even? The past is riddled with mistakes. We were not there, it was a different time and place. Here is an example:

In 1968 the Russians invaded Czechlosovakia (SP?). We heard about it on the news 2 - 3 days after it happened saw it on TV news broadcasts a couple of days after that. Now we see things, good or bad, as they happen. This illustrates how illogical and wrong it is to compare what happened many years ago to todays reality.

7 years ago blue...s-e-v-e-n...have things changed that much in Alberta in seven years? You still have the same f**ked in the head Premier you had back then...so I would have to say not...

Want more blue?

Alberta: In 1998-APR, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on a case involving a gay lab instructor who was fired by his employer because he was gay. He worked for a college run by the Christian Reformed Church. The court decided that the Alberta Individual Rights Protection Act violated the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They "read into" the existing law a clause giving equal rights for persons of all sexual orientations. The Government of Alberta was pressured to pass legislation using the "not withstanding" clause to strip homosexuals of equal rights. At the time, Premier Klein decided to abide by the Supreme Court ruling. However, he has announced that if the Federal courts extend equal marriage rights to gays and lesbians, that he would invoke the "not withstanding" clause.

Again, 7 years ago...this falls right in line with the Conservatives' hatred of homosexuals, which then evolved into your "centrist" posture of preserving the traditional definition of marriage...

One would have to be pretty f**king lame to fall for that bait and switch bullshit...

 

[mrmom2]

Agreed I like hearing both points of veiw on the whole mess that is Ottawa :lol:

 

[bluealberta]

If you want to quote policies from many years ago, go ahead. We can all come up with some. For instance, a Liberal governemnt refused entry to Canada of boatloads of Jews, who were sent back to Germany to be killed in the camps by horrible means of death. Are we even? The past is riddled with mistakes. We were not there, it was a different time and place. Here is an example:

In 1968 the Russians invaded Czechlosovakia (SP?). We heard about it on the news 2 - 3 days after it happened saw it on TV news broadcasts a couple of days after that. Now we see things, good or bad, as they happen. This illustrates how illogical and wrong it is to compare what happened many years ago to todays reality.

7 years ago blue...s-e-v-e-n...have things changed that much in Alberta in seven years? You still have the same f**ked in the head Premier you had back then...so I would have to say not...

Want more blue?

Alberta: In 1998-APR, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on a case involving a gay lab instructor who was fired by his employer because he was gay. He worked for a college run by the Christian Reformed Church. The court decided that the Alberta Individual Rights Protection Act violated the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They "read into" the existing law a clause giving equal rights for persons of all sexual orientations. The Government of Alberta was pressured to pass legislation using the "not withstanding" clause to strip homosexuals of equal rights. At the time, Premier Klein decided to abide by the Supreme Court ruling. However, he has announced that if the Federal courts extend equal marriage rights to gays and lesbians, that he would invoke the "not withstanding" clause.

Again, 7 years ago...this falls right in line with the Conservatives' hatred of homosexuals, which then evolved into your "centrist" posture of preserving the traditional definition of marriage...

One would have to be pretty f**king lame to fall for that bait and swith bullshit...

What you fail to mention in your diatribe was that this person obtained employment at a private religious school under false pretenses, and then used his sexual orientation to force a point. I suspect there are many gay teachers at the U of A, the U of C, the U of L, and the many public colleges in the province. Surely a private religious school, funded by the religious groups members should have the right to set the terms of employment as they see fit? Surely someone obtaining employment under false pretenses, anywhere, should not have his employment continued?

This gentleman used his sexaul orientation to make a cheap political point, nothing more, and nothing less. He knew that what the rules were prior to applying for a job, and lied on his application.

If this was one of the Universties or Colleges I mentioned above, I would agree with you. However, this was a privately run and more importantly, a privately funded school.

And you know, inappropriate language is the first sign of a weak mind. Take some mental excercises, okay?

 

[Vanni Fucci]

What you fail to mention in your diatribe was that this person obtained employment at a private religious school under false pretenses, and then used his sexual orientation to force a point. I suspect there are many gay teachers at the U of A, the U of C, the U of L, and the many public colleges in the province. Surely a private religious school, funded by the religious groups members should have the right to set the terms of employment as they see fit? Surely someone obtaining employment under false pretenses, anywhere, should not have his employment continued?

This gentleman used his sexaul orientation to make a cheap political point, nothing more, and nothing less. He knew that what the rules were prior to applying for a job, and lied on his application.

If this was one of the Universties or Colleges I mentioned above, I would agree with you. However, this was a privately run and more importantly, a privately funded school.

And you know, inappropriate language is the first sign of a weak mind. Take some mental excercises, okay?

You do know what the intent of the Notwithstanding Clause is right? You know that it's to opt out of legislation that would infringe upon the rights of an individual or group. It is NOT to be used to arbitrarily infringe upon the rights of others...

So tell me blue...what rights would have been infringed upon by upholding the Supreme Court's decision?

Did they ask him his sexual preference when he was interviewed for the job? If they did, that would have been grounds for a Charter challenge right there...also, I fail to see the relevance in the fact that the employer was part of a church organization...

I've not read any article or report that would suggest that he lied about his sexual orientation...I can only assume that the subject just never came up...

So how can it be said that he deceived his employer on something that was never discussed?

Now to the heart of the matter...the Alberta government would have used the notwithstanding clause to overturn the Supreme Court decision and protect the churches "right" to implement institutionalized bigotry against homosexuals...even they knew that was unconstitutional, and so Klein was forced to grudgingly relent...

 

[bluealberta]

Vanni Said:

Now to the heart of the matter...the Alberta government would have used the notwithstanding clause to overturn the Supreme Court decision and protect the churches "right" to implement institutionalized bigotry against homosexuals...even they knew that was unconstitutional, and so Klein was forced to grudgingly relent

Highlights added. Let's make sure we know that these are Vannis words, not the words of the court, Supreme or otherwise. The Notwithstanding clause is also to overturn legislation that does not meet with the approval of the majority, and is to protect the rights of the majority (you remember democracy, majorities, right?) against what is felt to be unfair and unreasonable legislation imposed on the populace by unelected judiciary. In the case of SSM, the majority in Alberta wish to retain the traditional definition of marriage. So if there are no SSM in Alberta, but happen to be in BC and/or Sask, then Alberta is only denying gays the right to marry in Alberta, but not elsewhere, and do not deny the right to SSunions.

Answer me this. If SSM is a right as you claim, why is there legislation in front of Parliament right now to have it legislated into law? Are not you and the Rev the same ones who say you don't need to legislate rights, because rights are absolute and above laws?

 

[Vanni Fucci]

The Notwithstanding clause is also to overturn legislation that does not meet with the approval of the majority, and is to protect the rights of the majority...

What rights blue? The right to descriminate against homosexuals...I hate to tell you this, but that will never be recognized as a right in this country...

Answer me this. If SSM is a right as you claim, why is there legislation in front of Parliament right now to have it legislated into law? Are not you and the Rev the same ones who say you don't need to legislate rights, because rights are absolute and above laws?

You are one twisted individual...how about the rights of women or natives to vote...were those rights recognized before the legislation to amend the Election Act was passed?

Obfuscation will not avail you, bigot...

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Right Wing Bigotry Fr

The important thing, Vanni, and let's not miss is it, is who Blue's mother might be. He got really defensive when I mentioned her, which I found odd.

My guess right now is that she's a member of that lesbian commune I donated sperm to as a wee lad. ;-)