Election!

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

If we agree he's a "crusader" who gives speech after speech on topics and positions most commonly identified with a left wing agenda, why would you ask a question like: "What is his motivation?" Wouldn't it be self-evident?

And if he's a scientist with a left wing agenda, why wouldn't you question the results of his science? Wouldn't that be as much common sense as questioning the science put out by those employed by a chemical company?

Hmm.. I guess I don't see Suzuki's motivation as 'self-evident' because I labelled him a crusader. He's clearly fighting for a cause, but I don't know exactly what he's getting out of it. Major endorsement deals? Wads of cash and beautiful women? Power? I'm at somewhat of a loss... unless you think he does it for the fame?

While he isn't a member of any party, Suzuki said the Greens are the only group in the national arena that recognize the environment isn't just a political issue -- "it's what keeps us alive."

Makes sense to me.

And no, I don't compare him to Chomsky.

I'm not sure what sort of comparison could be made. The one I'm referring to is the fact that both are seen on this board as extremely marginilized leftist-academics with no touch with reality. If you don't believe that... kudos, I'm with you.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by fotze

Someone once said "Insanity is doing the exact same thing over and over and expecting different results".

Tell that to those Liberal voters

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Ah yes, the dreaded left wing Fiberal bias over at The Sun. They'll do anything to keep the Liberal party in power.

Either you have not yet learned how to read or you are currently employed by the Fibs as their election spinster:

Ottawa (CP) - ....

The Sun merely copy & pasted from the national news source as with all newspapers' standard practice on non-local news.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by fotze

And Harper in grand style, chooses to lose the election in his first day. In 30 years this **** will be looked upon the same way as those who opposed the abolition of black rights.

You act as if a significant majority of Canadians support the redefinition of the word marriage.

Also, the analogy to those who opposed black rights is not accurate. There is no movement to deny gay unions the same rights as married couples enjoy, merely a movement to respect the definition of the word.

Not that a Liberal (TM) supporter would bother to look past propaganda for the truth.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

You act as if a significant majority of Canadians support the redefinition of the word marriage.

Well... if a significant majority of Canadians support the 'traditional' definition, then they got really screwed a wihle ago and were _very_ quiet about it when it was legalized. I recall few public protests, and really the event affected myself (and this city) in a pretty minimal way. If a majority of people are against it, they certainly don't care enough to make an issue out of it.

Also, the analogy to those who opposed black rights is not accurate. There is no movement to deny gay unions the same rights as married couples enjoy, merely a movement to respect the definition of the word.

You don't see the semantics in this? 'There was no movement to deny blacks the same rights as whites enjoy, merely a movement to respect the traditional definition of race (ie, whites are better than blacks, back then it was science!).

If you're 'for' the 'traditional' definition of marriage, then, by default, you are 'against' the rights of homosexuals to get married. Period. Anything else is semantic exercise (see above).

[Agamemnon]

Double-post.

[Bobblehead]

I just saw the cover of The Sun. I think they might be biased!</shock>

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Incinerator

Either you have not yet learned how to read or you are currently employed by the Fibs as their election spinster:

Ottawa (CP) - ....

The Sun merely copy & pasted from the national news source as with all newspapers' standard practice on non-local news.

Ha ha. You sure showed me.

Any inference (like yours!) that the Sun newspaper chain is Liberal biased or would print Liberal propaganda, no matter where it came from, is ridiculous.

You don't even know who wrote the story but you know it's from a FIB-BIASED JOURNALIST. How do you know that? What is it in this line...

"Conservative Leader Stephen Harper would try to reinstate the traditional definition of marriage if Parliament supported the move in a free vote."

...that automatically makes this a liberal-slanted story? The mere fact that the writer brought up the topic? I thought the majority of Canadians, according to many conservatives and people in this thread, want to reinstate it.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

You don't see the semantics in this? 'There was no movement to deny blacks the same rights as whites enjoy, merely a movement to respect the traditional definition of race (ie, whites are better than blacks, back then it was science!).

If you're 'for' the 'traditional' definition of marriage, then, by default, you are 'against' the rights of homosexuals to get married. Period. Anything else is semantic exercise (see above).

Actually, I am fully aware of the semantics in this. This truely is a battle over a word, nothing more. It has been blown up into more by left-leaning hypocrites attempting to turn it to political favor.

There is no issue with a gay union having the same legal rights as a hetro marriage. Nor do I see any reason why a gay union needs to be called a marriage. No more than I see any reason why a common-law union should be called a Marriage.

[Cowperson]

Its not a fib to state that Stephen Harper "would try to reinstate the traditional definition of marriage if Parliament supported the move in a free vote."

That's exactly the truth.

By the way, the Canadian Press link above has been updated and now starts this way:

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper launched his campaign Tuesday by steering it straight into the electoral turbulence of gay marriage.

The starting gun for the eight-week race still rang in the air as Harper went out of his way to reopen a politically noxious debate. A Conservative government would move to restore the traditional definition of marriage if Parliament supports the idea, he said. "It will be a genuine free vote when I'm prime minister."

The link also states Harper's promise to preserve the 3000 gay marriages already performed in Canada.

Cowperson

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

How do you know that? What is it in this line...

"Conservative Leader Stephen Harper would try to reinstate the traditional definition of marriage if Parliament supported the move in a free vote."

...that automatically makes this a liberal-slanted story?

It's not the fact that the writer brought it up. It is where it is found in the article and the context in which it is written. Bringing it up in the headline of the article, clearly shows the intent of the writer. Had it been mentioned near the bottom of the article, it would have had a different meaning.

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Ha ha. You sure showed me.

Any inference (like yours!) that the Sun newspaper chain is Liberal biased or would print Liberal propaganda, no matter where it came from, is ridiculous.

You don't even know who wrote the story but you know it's from a FIB-BIASED JOURNALIST. How do you know that? What is it in this line...

"Conservative Leader Stephen Harper would try to reinstate the traditional definition of marriage if Parliament supported the move in a free vote."

...that automatically makes this a liberal-slanted story? The mere fact that the writer brought up the topic? I thought the majority of Canadians, according to many conservatives and people in this thread, want to reinstate it.

How would the reporter who wrote the article know Harper "would try to reinstate...." when Stephen Harper himself never said anything about trying to reinstate anything. He said he will put it through a free vote, which is how democracy is supposed to work as I said in my last post. If you're so scared of the free vote because you know same-sex marriage isn't the wish of the majority of Canadians (social liberals or not) then you will believe whatever the left-wing media feeds you. Just like how you are demonstrating it right now. Numerous Fibs backbencher had come out to say that neither they nor their constituents believe in same-sex marriage's terminology. This whole mess was invented by Martin and his pupper judges who the Fibs appointed at the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Resolute 14]

Harper might as well have opened with the gay marriage debate. Only a blind, deaf, dumb fool would have believed the Liberals would not have made it an issue. By mentioning his plans himself, he spares himself the trouble of having to defend against Liberal lies and propaganda.

There is his stand, take it or leave it. Anyone looking logically would know that he would be unlikely to have such a motion pass in a minority situation, so the chances of redefining marriage back to tradition is slim.

[RougeUnderoos]

Harper made a point of raising the thorny issue even after his handlers had cut off questions from reporters. He believes same-sex couples should be recognized through civil unions that set out economic rights but don't infringe on traditional marriage.

I tells ya, it was some goddamn Liberal journalist who went and hypnotized him!

Anyhow, it seems to be the consensus in here that the majority of Canadians want this debate re-opened. I disagree. I believe there is a far-left side and a far-right side that are passionate about this issue. The vast majority of Canadians, as evidenced by their behaviour since this law passed 6 months ago, don't care.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by fotze

He should have lied about it then changed his mind once elected. Wouldn't be the 7 millionth time that has been done.

1. Nobody would have believed him. Lying on this issue would merely play into the "hidden agenda" fabrication of the left.

2. Harper is trying to differentiate himself from Martin and the Liberals.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Harper made a point of raising the thorny issue even after his handlers had cut off questions from reporters. He believes same-sex couples should be recognized through civil unions that set out economic rights but don't infringe on traditional marriage.

I tells ya, it was some goddamn Liberal journalist who went and hypnotized him!

Anyhow, it seems to be the consensus in here that the majority of Canadians want this debate re-opened. I disagree. I believe there is a far-left side and a far-right side that are passionate about this issue. The vast majority of Canadians, as evidenced by their behaviour since this law passed 6 months ago, don't care.

I agree with your disagreement . . . . its over and done with and one thing the courts won't let you turn back now.

Cowperson

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Out of curiosity, are you, and everyone else who has stated they are voting green, voting green because you support their platform and ideals, or like their candidate in your riding, or is it merely a protest vote because you dont like the three main parties?

Protest, but helping out with the % of popular vote, is the only way I think my vote can count for anything. Conservatives will sweep Alberta, Liberals will win a minority. If you don't vote, you can't complain. So I'm voting so I can complain against the government.

[MarchHare]

Nor do I see any reason why a gay union needs to be called a marriage.

I've mentioned this several times before in other threads, but it's worth repeating.

Why do you suppose the religious right wants to deny the use of the term 'marriage' to homosexual couples but (at least some of them, anyway) are open to allowing them to have a union with the exact same rights? Because to them, the word 'marriage' holds some greater significance than "civil union". So too, do homosexuals feel the same way. So when you have large swaths of society on both sides of the issue claiming that the word 'marriage' holds some special significance, do you not see how it's discriminatory not to allow one group of people the right to marriage?

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I've mentioned this several times before in other threads, but it's worth repeating.

Why do you suppose the religious right wants to deny the use of the term 'marriage' to homosexual couples but (at least some of them, anyway) are open to allowing them to have a union with the exact same rights? Because to them, the word 'marriage' holds some greater significance than "civil union". So too, do homosexuals feel the same way. So when you have large swaths of society on both sides of the issue claiming that the word 'marriage' holds some special significance, do you not see how it's discriminatory not to allow one group of people the right to marriage?

This is why the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, and provide licenses for civil partnerships only. The government will never come up with a definition of marriage that will make everyone happy, so don't even try. Let the people come up with the definition of marriage that suits them best. Marriages certificates can be provided by the religious institution of your choosing.

[Bertuzzied]

Remember Calgary WEST. Vote for anyone but Rob Anders.

On another note, i'm sure most people at the Calgary Sun hate the Liberals but why the hell did they run that stupid cartoon on their front page??!
Once again it demonstrates why it definitely is the Toilet Paper of Canada.