Loney says camp closing because of his homosexuality

CBC News (Toronto) ^ | June 20 2006 | CBC News

[headsonpikes]

So, on the basis of a simple query you can tell that the two most popular (in terms of search frequency) gay politicians in Canada are Boisclair an a man named S. Brison.

Google "Svend Robinson" - the man must be humiliated by this apparent fall from #1 seed.

[proud_yank]

I googled "gay, politics, Canada,"

Ummmmm....

[proud_yank]

ROFLMAO!!!

[proud_yank]

Another favorite Simpsons quote: "Once something's been approved by the government, its no longer immoral!" - Rev. Lovejoy

[HitmanLV]

Some folks just think everything is about them.

[kanawa]

Google "Svend Robinson" - the man must be humiliated by this apparent fall from #1 seed.

Svend on hearing the news of his drop from the #1 spot...

[headsonpikes]

LOL! Those were the days!

There's nothing like a good public humiliation to warm the old cockles!

[SuziQ]

"We can't prove this. This is a concern that we have based on the sequence of events."

But we'll go ahead and publicly accuse them of it, just for spite.

[KoRn]

I'll be dammed if my boy goes to camp with an ass pirate. YES, lib lurkers that makes me a bigoted homophobe!

[spatso]

"has it occurred to you that the wholes issue of deviant, oddball, communist, etc, etc, etc, elected officials has little or nothing to do with national factors?"

Yes, clearly the differences are national factors that are somehow built into the attitudes of a nation's values and its will. It is also clear that Canada and the US are much more different than what the casual observer like myself might think. For example, why is there not a much more vicious attack of gays by Canadian FReepers? Instead, for the most part, I get a reasonably measured response that consistently affirms autonomy and respect for the individual gay person. Now a whole bunch of people are going to say that is nice but, it is also a significant compromise on a realistic moral agenda. Does no one fear that you at risk, at least metaphorically, of turning into a pillar of salt for your condoning aberrant behavior?

[spatso]

"Former New Democrat MP Svend Robinson, who left office after he was caught stealing a diamond ring, has confirmed he's making a political comeback...The former high profile Vancouver-area MP pleaded guilty to theft of a $64,000 diamond ring last year...describing the theft as unpremeditated madness...Robinson revealed that he suffers from bipolar disorder and had been prescribed medication. He wouldn't say Friday whether he was still on the medication, but said he sees a therapist regularly."

"He was also arrested twice for participating in anti-logging blockades in B.C. And in 1999, he was teargassed at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, and won a $10,000 compensation payment after saying he was hit in the leg by a rubber bullet shot by an RCMP member."

I read several of the stories on Mr. Robinson. Interesting to say the least. How was he able to be reelected so many times given his track record? The man's a thief.

[spatso]

"Brison ran for the leadership of the Progressive Conservatives on a platform of "new ideas", that consisted of Employment Insurance reform, more private involvement in healthcare, integrated defense strategy with the US, and socially liberal policies. Although he was widely judged to have run a strong campaign, at the leadership convention, he came in fourth place and threw his support to Jim Prentice. Prentice lost on the final ballot to MacKay (who won with the support of David Orchard). He fought publicly with other members of his party, particularly Elsie Wayne, over their opposition to same-sex marriage."

Would the above description of Mr. Brison serve as a good definition of a Canadian conservative?

[headsonpikes]

How was he able to be reelected so many times given his track record?

Because he's a fargin socialist - the public sector pigs and leftist feminazis thought he was a fine fellow, full of bullchit about caring and sharing.

Brain-dead, basically, the lot of them - I guess that's not really fair to the actually vegetative.

Svend's lot are alive, but intellectually bankrupt.

[spatso]

I went back and reread your post and my response (see #70 above) and I realized your key point deserved a better response. On reflection I think you are probably right. Local demographics would be the significant factor exactly as you suggest in terms of behaviors and choices. So, the local factor can explain the unique set of circumstances that makes a San Francisco happen. For example, one position might argue that local conditions have worked to create a gay magnet. San Francisco and California welcomes gays while most American cities and states tend to push them away. So, one extreme argument might be that a sodomite mecca has been created through repulsion and attraction. So, on your key point I will concede your argument.

[spatso]

"Brain-dead, basically, the lot of them - I guess that's not really fair to the actually vegetative."

But, if he gets elected, are you not talking about a substantial segment of the Canadian electorate? I have read something on Boisclair, Brison and Robinson. All three it appears ran for the nomination to head their party. Mr Brison stood for election to be the head of the conservative party. I think you would be deceiving yourself if you believed a similar situation could occur in the US.
It would appear that there has been a systemic invasion of the gay agenda into Canadian political life. It further appears that this invasion is probably not reversible. Indeed, from the attitude and language of most of the posters here on FR, it appears Canadian conservatives have accepted they have no great interest in reversing this trend.

[headsonpikes]

I think you would be deceiving yourself if you believed a similar situation could occur in the US.

LOL! Self-delusion is no defense against decadence. Frankly, I find your politicians even more degenerate than the Canucklehead versions.

Surely I don't have to name names. Just scanning FR on any given day should dispell any notion you may cling to about the morality of American politicians, whether public or private.

Enough of this. Good day.

[spatso]

"Surely I don't have to name names. Just scanning FR on any given day should dispell any notion you may cling to about the morality of American politicians, whether public or private."

My point was less about politicians and more about electorate. In Canada, there appears to be a strong presence of openly gay politicians who are successful. In the US, save a few exceptions (Barney Frank) the electorate is not favorably disposed towards electing gay politicians on the national scene. Surely that must say something about the different attitudes in respect of electoral values between Canada and the US.

[headsonpikes]

In Canada, we have no politicians elected "nationally" or provincially.

All politicians are elected locally only, so some very odd people form close local bonds and are re-elected again and again, to the amazement of folks who don't live in their constituency or riding.

Svend, for instance, appalled most people, but in multi-partry races, he only needed the support of about 40% of voters to be a landslide winner.

http://www.elections.ca/gen/rep/37g/table12_bc_e.html

According to official results, in the 2000 election, darling Svend received 37.4% of the vote in Burnaby-Douglas, defeating the right-wing Alliance candidate by less than 2000 votes.

There are at least 2000 members of CUPE in that riding. Electing Robinson does not mean that the people of Burnaby were happy with Svend, only that the lefty agitators got out their vote.

[GMMAC]

"I get a reasonably measured response that consistently affirms autonomy and respect for the individual gay person. Now a whole bunch of people are going to say that is nice but, it is also a significant compromise on a realistic moral agenda."

That "whole bunch of people" would include all practicing Catholics since "hate the sin but, love the sinner" is essentially the position of our Church when it comes to dealing with individuals engaged in deviant & sinful sexual practices.

Ergo, Christians who hate individuals, as opposed to hating their actions, are the ones compromising and/or being unrealistic about their own moral agendas.

Further, because this is a wholly consistent moral view, it also extends to not hating those who subscribe to religious Faiths we do not accept.
Thus, it would be just as morally wrong to hate all Muslims as it would be to hate all Jews.

Or, put another way, even though I completely share your outrage with respect to the on-going de facto invasion of America across her Southern border, it would be morally wrong for me to hate each & every Mexican since, aside from them being God's children like ourselves, many also number among my Catholic co-religionists.

[spatso]

But, Mr Brison came fourth in the race for the conservative leadership. This could not happen in the GOP. Never!