Canadian Conservative MP Calls Christian Political Activists “Taliban” and “Flowers of Evil”

LifeSiteNews ^ | 5/9/06 | John Jalsevac

[CaptainCanada]

Canadians often prove themselves to be self righteous and smug and quick to criticize others, especially if they are calling out those who have had the responsibility to carry the mail. So, it kind of surprises me how thinned skin you are when somebody puts a little legitimate criticism on your door step. In order talk the talk you first gotta walk the walk and I don't see any evidence here that any of you are prepared to do that

[Fair Go]

The reality is that whether it be Canada, the United States, Britain, Australia or any western nation, gay people will soon have access to what is called "civil union". Anyone who cannot live with this might have to seek political asylum in Iran.

[spatso]

"The reality is that whether it be Canada, the United States, Britain, Australia or any western nation, gay people will soon have access to what is called "civil union". Anyone who cannot live with this might have to seek political asylum in Iran."

I don't disagree. Civil unions don't bother me, although I think marriage should be between a man and a women. Having said that, my issue is very simple. Why are you guys starting threads on the story about the gay mounties less than a week after the story breaks on homegrown terrorism?

[Jorge]

“I have no time for groups in our society who try to force their morals, or their culture, on the rest of us.”

Except, of course, our GAY agenda, morals, culture which we WILL force down your throats -

Exactly! What a hypocrite.

[Dialup Llama]

“We said right from the beginning that Garth Turner wasn’t somebody that could be supported. A lot of people said we just have to vote Conservative regardless of the candidates. And here we’re paying the price.”

People in the US are getting the same idea too. Lesser of two evils doesn't work. You just get evil. Calling it pragmatism and realism won't trick us into accepting it any more.

[spatso]

"STFU"

Romans 10:10

[Ciexyz]

btt

[Fair Go]

This thread was not posted by a Canadian Freeper but by someone from Virginia. As I see it the Canadian Freepers don't want to see their new conservative government distracted by the issue of gay marriages and defeated on the floor of parliament before it has had a chance to show what it can do and thereby convert a minority to a majority at the next election. This makes great sense.
However, I agree with your stance on civil unions.

[Dialup Llama]

marriage should be between a man and a women

Hate to get too technical here. Not only should two men not marry but in fact two men CANNOT marry. The reason is that two men cannot have sex. Human reproductive anatomy doesnt match up that way. Whatever two men do, it is NOT sex. Two men can only simulate sex and simulate marriage.

[spatso]

"This thread was not posted by a Canadian Freeper but by someone from Virginia."

I am not sure what to say. If it is true, my primary criticism is answered and, therefore, I may have been error to press some of the points that I made. On the other hand, most of the general observations I made still stand.

[GMMAC]

" I posted the conclusion of the editorial exactly as it appears. "

Besides your self-serving quote being grossly out of context, what part of it's not a legitimate "Editorial" - as I also thoroughly substantiated in my post #77 - are you refusing to comprehend ???

Aside from the obvious fact that it's still merely one man's opinion!

Interesting that you place more weight on the views of an msm hack of who knows what sexual orientation and pushing who knows what agenda over the reasoned opinion/conclusion of myself; a known long-time & hopefully knowledgeable conservative activist.

Why not 'fess up?
In your desperation to make whatever point, you tried to slip one by & got caught.

[Das Outsider]

When a couple of guys come on this thread and rattle your cages a little over the homosexual agenda, most of you cut and run. If someone points out the lack of conviction Canadian conservatives have displayed you whine and snivel always saying "it was the other guys fault."

I am an American: what has this got to do with me? Frankly, I haven't taken a side on the gay issue in Canada, as I am only an 'honourary' Canadian.

[spatso]

"Hate to get too technical here. Not only should two men not marry but in fact two men CANNOT marry. The reason is that two men cannot have sex. Human reproductive anatomy doesnt match up that way. Whatever two men do, it is NOT sex. Two men can only simulate sex and simulate marriage."

I want to believe your not Canadian. Canadians, apparently, are not very happy to talk about gay relationships. Canada, we all agree, has bigger fish to fry than worrying about what men do or pretend to do together. Perhaps it is unfair to dump all this on the Canadian guys posting on this thread.

[spatso]

"In your desperation to make whatever point, you tried to slip one by & got caught."

I am not sure I understand the editorial point your making. Are you saying, when the editor of the editorial page writes on the editorial page it is not editorial commentary. Please explain.

As I said before, you said that you believed that the chances of reversing the gay marriage regulation would get better in the future. The commentary, on the other hand, clearly states the opposite opinion.

[Alexander Rubin]

"Institute for Canadian Values"

Just so you guys know, this is a thinktank and policy institute that is a fine example of Christians and Jews working together to try to bring a little morality and common sense back into Canada.

[kanawa]

http://www.canadianvalues.ca/

[GMMAC]

You're playing a semantics game as an "editorial" & a "commentary" are, by definition, two very different things.

An editorial, in the vast majority of cases & certainly within the CanWest chain which includes the Citizen, is unsigned because it represents the collective and/or the official position of the Editorial Board and/or the owners of the particular publication in which it appears.

A commentary (AKA an "opinion piece") is just that: comment from and/or the opinion of the individual who signs their name to it; irrespective of what title they may hold with the publication in which it appears.

I made this distinction above with respect to my friend Lorne Gunter who is both a columnist with and a member of the Editorial Board of the National Post. In short, Lorne signs in his first capacity & doesn't when called upon to serve in his second.

Whether you should put more weight in the author of the commentary's opinion or in mine might well logically be determined by which of us plainly wants to see the radical homosexual agenda rolled back & which of us doesn't.

One, like all self-serving advice on this topic from the left, essentially tells the Prime Minister that the battle is over & to give up. the other says we can still win but precise timing is of the utmost importance.

[spatso]

No I was not playing a game. And, I was certainly not attempting to intellectualize this matter by detailing around an obscurity to the point that the substance is effectively avoided. I assumed the "editor" of the editorial page is a substantive voice. You will note he is identified on the commentary as the "editor" and not as merely a member of the editorial board as you suggest. If you would rather that I use the term commentary rather than opinion, fine, it makes no change in the substance of my point.
If you review my post #72 you will see I provided a clear and reasonable avenue for your objection. I said, "I can only wonder. Are you being snowed by Harper? Or, are you trying to snow me? Or, is this paper trying to snow everyone?"
The substantive conclusion of this commentary was that gay marriage regulations were probably not going to be reversed in Canada and that over time the odds of reversal decrease rather than increase. Is that the point you don't want to concede or discuss?

[fanfan]

Why are you guys starting threads on the story about the gay mounties less than a week after the story breaks on homegrown terrorism?

Your post # 13 on this thread about terrorists in Canada first introduced your "issue" with gay Mounties.

It was politely suggested to you at post # 26 and 28, that if you wanted to discuss this issue, you should post a story about the gay Mounties yourself.

Now that an American has posted a thread on the subject, your twisted logic gives us this statement:

Having said that, my issue is very simple. Why are you guys starting threads on the story about the gay mounties less than a week after the story breaks on homegrown terrorism?

Your issue?

You might be right that this is your issue, as you haven't posted on any other threads but these two since the 8th of June.

On the other hand I think you have more than one issue.

I believe you have, as they say, Issues.

From post # 90, on this thread, we find this exchange:

Fair Go said "This thread was not posted by a Canadian Freeper but by someone from Virginia."

You said I am not sure what to say. If it is true, my primary criticism is answered and, therefore, I may have been error to press some of the points that I made. On the other hand, most of the general observations I made still stand.

I am not sure what to say.

How about "I was wrong. I apologize"?

If it is true, my primary criticism is answered and, therefore, I may have been error to press some of the points that I made.

IF it is true

IF?

Check for your self!

Of course, being a newbie, you probably don't know how.

Why don't you crawl back under whatever rock you lived under before you joined Free Republic, and leave the discussions to the adults.

I'm still waiting for your answer regarding what area of the world you live in.

[Irish_Thatcherite]

You might be right that this is your issue, as you haven't posted on any other threads but these two since the 8th of June.

On the other hand I think you have more than one issue.

I believe you have, as they say, Issues.

ROTFLOL!!