babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » harper in hospital for asthma... god's punishment for being a bigot?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: harper in hospital for asthma... god's punishment for being a bigot?
profit mohammed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11868

posted 27 January 2006 06:27 PM      Profile for profit mohammed        Edit/Delete Post
...and yet he is against kyoto and cleaning up the quality of the air we breath?

[ 29 January 2006: Message edited by: profit mohammed ]


From: ottawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Yukoner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5787

posted 27 January 2006 06:50 PM      Profile for Yukoner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Funny thing: He was in and out within an hour......I've been to emerg with my kids plenty of times and never once has it been under 2 or 3 hours.

I guess those maximum wait times are already working


From: Um, The Yukon. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
profit mohammed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11868

posted 27 January 2006 07:00 PM      Profile for profit mohammed        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Harper brought up his asthma during an October 2002 House of Commons debate, when an NDP member of Parliament accused his party of not caring about the environment because it opposed the Kyoto Protocol.

"Mr. Speaker, it always amazes me that a number of Canadians on that side of the spectrum, particularly in the NDP, seem to think they are the only people who have any concerns about living in the environment. I do not know where they think the rest of us live," Harper said.

"We all have fairly serious concerns about the environment and about our health. In my personal case, we are talking about the contents of the atmosphere and I have been a lifelong sufferer from asthma. I am very concerned about my respiration and how this agreement will affect my respiration."


interesting. so what exactly IS his solution to air quality?


From: ottawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 27 January 2006 07:11 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by profit mohammed:
...and yet he is against kyoto and cleaning up the quality of the air we breath?

He has no problem with cleaning up air quality. He does have a problem with Kyoto, which has nothing to do with air quality.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 27 January 2006 07:17 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
. . . Kyoto, which has nothing to do with air quality.

That's a rediculous statement.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 27 January 2006 07:20 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Kyoto critical for clean air, health, say physicians
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 27 January 2006 07:28 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Seriously, Heywood. Do you suppose that greenhouse gas emissions are somehow pristine; that CO2 is pumped out all on its lonesome, sans NOx, sulphur dioxide, ozone, PAH and all the rest of it?
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Andy (Andrew)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10884

posted 27 January 2006 07:30 PM      Profile for Andy (Andrew)   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What does KYOTO have to do with then Heywood Floyd?

I'd imagine if he was in and out in an hour it may have been an urgent attack. I don't want to assume he got rushed in because he was PM.


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 27 January 2006 07:31 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by 'lance:
Seriously, Heywood. Do you suppose that greenhouse gas emissions are somehow pristine; that CO2 is pumped out all on its lonesome, sans NOx, sulphur dioxide, ozone, PAH and all the rest of it?

Of course not. But Kyoto isnt designed primarily to deal with these gasses. Dealing with these gasses though Kyoto is like dealing with Toronto's hand-gun crime issues with the long gun registry.

[ 27 January 2006: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 27 January 2006 07:34 PM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
was it wrong of me to experience a sense of happiness and excitment fromo reading the thread title?
From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 27 January 2006 07:34 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andy (Andrew):
What does KYOTO have to do with then Heywood Floyd?

I'd imagine if he was in and out in an hour it may have been an urgent attack. I don't want to assume he got rushed in because he was PM.


Greenhouse gasses. CO2.

You should assume that.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 27 January 2006 07:34 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
was it wrong of me to experience a sense of happiness and excitment fromo reading the thread title?

Yes.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Kanada Dry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4214

posted 27 January 2006 07:36 PM      Profile for Kanada Dry     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
You should assume that.

So the position of Prime Minister does have its perks, eh?


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 27 January 2006 07:36 PM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post
The citizens of South East Calgary, Harper lives in the North West, were in a fight to the death quite literally over the issue of sour gas wells almost at their back doors..They won the battle but I am not sure if the people of Alberta will win the war. But they have their 400 dollars.
From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 27 January 2006 07:37 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But Kyoto isnt designed primarily to deal with these gasses. Dealing with these gasses though Kyoto is like dealing with Toronto's hand-gun crime issues with the long gun registry.

That's equally ridiculous. You could argue there's a weak (or no) correlation between long-gun ownership and handgun crime in cities. But it would be foolish to argue there's a weak, or no correlation between greenhouse emissions and health-threatening air pollutants.

A simple example: for the amount of energy produced, burning coal produces the most greenhouse gases of any fossil fuel. Even oil is measurably better; gas, better yet. Both the US and Canada could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions just by switching away from coal.

But the burning of coal in power plants causes something like 20,000 premature deaths per year in the US alone.

No, Kyoto wasn't formulated specifically to deal with this problem. But it's not only pedantic, but simply wrong to insist that Kyoto and air quality have nothing to do with each other. Were it implemented, a drop in the number of air pollution-related deaths would be an unintended but welcome side benefit, and an entirely predictable one.

[ 27 January 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Maxx
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4819

posted 27 January 2006 07:40 PM      Profile for Maxx     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Please tell me he is unable to perform his Prime Ministerial duties.....
From: Don't blame me... I voted Liberal. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Andy (Andrew)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10884

posted 27 January 2006 07:44 PM      Profile for Andy (Andrew)   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
was it wrong of me to experience a sense of happiness and excitment fromo reading the thread title?

No it was not.


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 27 January 2006 07:44 PM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Maxx:
Please tell me he is unable to perform his Prime Ministerial duties.....

LOL. Lets hope so.


From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
profit mohammed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11868

posted 27 January 2006 07:45 PM      Profile for profit mohammed        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
was it wrong of me to experience a sense of happiness and excitment fromo reading the thread title?

yes, i think it was. he is, imho, wrong on the issues, but i don't wish him any harm. that is just mean, which, again imho, is a trait more common with conservatism than progressivism.

editoadd: when i signed up for this forum, i read that babblers

quote:
agree to avoid personal insults ... You will not post material that is hateful

expressing joy over the hospitalization of anyone suffering from illness is, in my opinion, a little hateful and insulting. not to be a party pooper or anything, but... im new, so maybe this kinda thing is more common than i expected, but it isnt helpful to a debate on a serious issue

[ 27 January 2006: Message edited by: profit mohammed ]


From: ottawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 27 January 2006 07:49 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Yukoner:
Funny thing: He was in and out within an hour......I've been to emerg with my kids plenty of times and never once has it been under 2 or 3 hours.

I have twice gone to emergency with severe asthma attacks. In both cases I was seen and treated immediately, even before any information was taken or my OHIP card looked at.

An asthma attack is life-threatening. Were your kids' problems life-threatening?


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 27 January 2006 07:55 PM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
meh. Well, I dont wish him any harm either but if he receives any harm, I wont cry over it.
From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
profit mohammed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11868

posted 27 January 2006 08:00 PM      Profile for profit mohammed        Edit/Delete Post
well indifference to the suffering of another is different than actively celebrating in the suffering of an other, but not by much. but i digress

in any case, it turns out it was not asthma at all, but pneumonia. and apparently the prime minister, which is he is not yet, do have a private doctor and staff and they do not wait in any wait rooms.


From: ottawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
chilipepper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11377

posted 27 January 2006 08:54 PM      Profile for chilipepper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andy (Andrew):
What does KYOTO have to do with then Heywood Floyd?

I'd imagine if he was in and out in an hour it may have been an urgent attack. I don't want to assume he got rushed in because he was PM.


Kyoto is more to do with buying credits from China and the like - while they go on polluting we pay them big time.


From: GTA | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 27 January 2006 09:01 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by chilipepper:
Kyoto is more to do with buying credits from China and the like - while they go on polluting we pay them big time.

1) We could have easily put forward a plan that involved reducing our own emissions and at least spent Kyoto tax money locally as opposed to buying emissions credits from other places.

2) Kyoto expires in 2012, and they are beginning talks to determine what happens next. I personally support using those talks to get places like China and India to agree to reduce their emissions as well.

The main aspect of Kyoto is that it's an acknowledgement by the international community that we have a problem and have to take steps to correct it. Once this basis is established, it's much easier to talk about solutions, and identify what works and what doesn't.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 27 January 2006 09:12 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe this is the US response to his belligerent anti-Americanism vis the Arctic. Opponents of the US have a history of suddenly aquiring strange medical conditions.
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 28 January 2006 12:28 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
harper in hospital for asthma...

How do we know it wasn't just someone trying to smother the son of a bitch?


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Kevin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3645

posted 28 January 2006 12:31 AM      Profile for Kevin   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe we should send him a pretzel?
From: Simon Fraser University | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
simonvallee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5141

posted 28 January 2006 12:51 AM      Profile for simonvallee   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Kyoto protocol was very well though with the credits IMO. The corporate world, due to its unflexible approach where only the bottom line matters (it's so true that often they'll simply include penalties in their calculations to have the more profitable situation), whatever the people in the corporations would prefer. By setting up the credits, you provide incentives in a form that the corporate world knows well, through some kind of market. The ones who pollute too much will want to reduce their pollution to pay less for the credits while the ones who pollute less will not want to pollute much more because then they'd have less credits to sell.

If there is one major criticism about the protocol it is that it didn't go far enough. The fact that major world polluters refused to sign on is not a legitimate critic of the protocol, it should rather be a reason to criticize those countries who don't have enough vision to think beyond the immediate 4 years and too selfish to accept norms that might damage a little their competitivity in the short-term.


From: Boucherville, Québec | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Yukoner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5787

posted 28 January 2006 02:12 AM      Profile for Yukoner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:

I have twice gone to emergency with severe asthma attacks. In both cases I was seen and treated immediately, even before any information was taken or my OHIP card looked at.

An asthma attack is life-threatening. Were your kids' problems life-threatening?


Thanks for asking. Yes, in fact the 3 month old was medivaced to Stollery in Edmonton twice, the first time he waited 3 hours to even see a doctor.

Understand thet I live in a small jurisdiction, typically a single ER doc (several nurses*) on the ward and their clients are typically 'revolving door' customers who tend to be a bit tipsy but take priority because of their advanced addictions.

*My sis in law is an ER nurse here


From: Um, The Yukon. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Paul Gross
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3576

posted 28 January 2006 02:26 AM      Profile for Paul Gross   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The reports of Harper's (lack of) breath have been greatly exaggerated.

quote:

Harper illness prompts false asthma report

Prime minister-designate Stephen Harper's late-night visit to an Ottawa hospital for a chest inflammation Thursday launched a fevered round of asthma speculation and renewed the debate over just how much privacy our political leaders deserve.
..
"I'm fine. I have a chest cold so we just went for a precautionary checkup," Mr. Harper said as he slipped into his waiting government limousine.

Aides are downplaying the seriousness of the incident, saying Mr. Harper did not suffer an asthma attack — as some media reported — and simply was prescribed antibiotics for a possible respiratory infection



From: central Centretown in central Canada | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 28 January 2006 02:39 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bums like that, abusing the system...
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Diane Demorney
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6183

posted 28 January 2006 03:03 AM      Profile for Diane Demorney   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let me get this straight. He went to the hospital (it doesn't say, in the article, whether he went to emerg) because he has a cold? I've been sicker than a dog for over a month and a half, and all I did was go to the walk-in clinic to make sure I wasn't dying. Then I had to wait 3 hours. I was prescribed anti-biotics (which I couldn't afford) for something that is more than likely viral. Maybe I should have gone to the emergency room. Then they would have given me the meds for free.
eta:
"Asked by CBC on Friday morning if he felt he got speedy prime ministerial treatment, Mr. Harper's response was phlegmatic.

"I got whisked as much as you can get whisked in our health-care system.""
He just couldn't resist that little snarky jab, could he? If he was in and out of the hospital, or even seen within in an hour of arrival... yes, he got preferential treatment. IMHO

[ 28 January 2006: Message edited by: Canadian Socialist ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 28 January 2006 03:03 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Bums like that, abusing the system...


Doncha mean "welfare queens" riding around in their limousines?

(Thank you Ronald RayGun.)

[ 28 January 2006: Message edited by: siren ]


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
a lonely worker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9893

posted 28 January 2006 03:10 AM      Profile for a lonely worker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Globe and Mail Paul Gross quoted ended with the following:

quote:
Asked by CBC on Friday morning if he felt he got speedy prime ministerial treatment, Mr. Harper's response was phlegmatic.

"I got whisked as much as you can get whisked in our health-care system."


Let's see how much "whisking" will occur after he guts the system.

Does this guy have even one remotely human quality?

Edited to add: sorry Canadian Socialist, I didn't notice that you picked up on this bizarre quote as well.

[ 28 January 2006: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]


From: Anywhere that annoys neo-lib tools | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 28 January 2006 07:27 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
agree to avoid personal insults ... You will not post material that is hateful

quote:
Originally posted by profit mohammed:
expressing joy over the hospitalization of anyone suffering from illness is, in my opinion, a little hateful and insulting.

The rules you quoted apply to how we treat fellow babblers and are not meant to limit expression of our opinions on public figures. The opinions expressed about Harper are mild compared to those you'd see if it were George Bush or the pope who was ill.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 28 January 2006 09:40 AM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Globe and Mail says Harper's reply was phlegmatic? Maybe our healthcare system really is broken..isn't that what he was treated for?
From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 28 January 2006 07:21 PM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Yukoner:
Funny thing: He was in and out within an hour......I've been to emerg with my kids plenty of times and never once has it been under 2 or 3 hours.

Do tell, what were your kids suffering from? Obviously from a two or three hour wait your kids were not an emergency. The worst walk in clinic wait I've had with kids was just under an hour.

From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
profit mohammed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11868

posted 28 January 2006 07:26 PM      Profile for profit mohammed        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The rules you quoted apply to how we treat fellow babblers and are not meant to limit expression of our opinions on public figures. The opinions expressed about Harper are mild compared to those you'd see if it were George Bush or the pope who was ill.

well i think that is sad. there is very little common ground that i and either the pope or bush share, but i dont wish them, or anyone for that matter, ill will.

i guess i just believe compassion and empathy apply to all. actually, that's why i consider mysself a progressive.

but i agree, actually, that people should be free to express their views on public figures and should not hold back. i only hope that any possible bush or pope supporters are free to the same in this forum.


From: ottawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 28 January 2006 07:33 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by profit mohammed:
i only hope that any possible bush or pope supporters are free to the same in this forum.

One could, I suppose, say they admire the pope or Bush. However it would be difficult to say why one admires them without running afoul of the rules. For example, both openly advocate discrimination against homosexuals. That is not acceptable here. Both advocating denying women the right to choose. That's not on either.

Both men are directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people from war and AIDS. Except for the fact there are others to take their place, it's hard to imagine how their deaths from natural causes could be anything but a good thing for the world.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
profit mohammed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11868

posted 28 January 2006 07:53 PM      Profile for profit mohammed        Edit/Delete Post
good post, except for the last sentence. i agree with everything you wrote, except the part about their death being anything but a blessing - i mean, there are about a billion catholics and about 50 million bush voters, and if you see bush or the pope as evil people whose deaths should be celebrated, than you are essentially celebrating the death of everyone who agrees with them.

i dont agree with the pope or bush on most issues (i agree with the pope in regards to his anticonsumerist messages and his position on the war, for example), but i know many people who do, and they are good people and i dont wish their deaths just because i disagree with them.

the retort my be that these followers dont have the power of bush and the pope, adn thus dont do as much harm as these two, but remember that those who agree with the pope and bush would presumably not change course on the issues with which we disagree and which they do agree with.

i think one who takes pleasure in the death of an other or the suffering of an other is as uncompassionate as the pope or bush. and i also think that in some respects, the pope and bush are compassionate people, just not in the way that i see compassion.

its like jon stewart always says. these people are not evil. they believe that what they are doing is right. we just disagree with what they see as right.

actually, noam chomsky makes the same point when uses the analogy of slavery as an institution and the slave holder himself. the former is an evil, the latter may no be.

[ 28 January 2006: Message edited by: profit mohammed ]


From: ottawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 29 January 2006 06:46 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To join in RB and Profit Mohammad's conversation over this:
quote:
Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
was it wrong of me to experience a sense of happiness and excitment fromo reading the thread title?

Totally, first of all it's just terrible form and manners, secondly the guy does have kids, a wife, and other relatives, who are essentailly innocent and suffer and worry when he suffers.

If somebody dies and you have good and bad views of the person, focus on the good, if you have no good views of the person, shut up. Perspective is important.

[ 29 January 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 29 January 2006 06:57 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
The people that evil men like the Pope and Stephen Harper have spent their lives trying to hurt not only have friends and families too, but unlike those bastards, only want those fucking pricks to leave them alone.

They dehumanized queers LONG before queers and their friends and families started returning the favour. Those low-life pricks can end this anytime they want. If they don't, as I said, they're deaths can only be seen as a blessing by their innocent victims.

How do you have the nerve to talk about manners? Has their been ANYTHING polite about their hate-mongering?

Let me put it as clearly as possible - if I had the opportunity to save Stephen Harper's life, I would not do so. And as he died, I would tell him why I chose not to.

[ 29 January 2006: Message edited by: RealityBites ]


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 29 January 2006 07:00 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Speaking of perspective, he ain't dying. He suffered an inconvenience. I'm cool with being happy about that.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 29 January 2006 07:16 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
Speaking of perspective, he ain't dying. He suffered an inconvenience. I'm cool with being happy about that.

Yeah, inconvenence is fine. Hell, I wish the guy as much inconvenence as possible.

quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
The people that evil men like the Pope and Stephen Harper have spent their lives trying to hurt not only have friends and families too, but unlike those bastards, only want those fucking pricks to leave them alone.

They dehumanized queers LONG before queers and their friends and families started returning the favour. Those low-life pricks can end this anytime they want. If they don't, as I said, they're deaths can only be seen as a blessing by their innocent victims.

How do you have the nerve to talk about manners? Has their been ANYTHING polite about their hate-mongering?

Let me put it as clearly as possible - if I had the opportunity to save Stephen Harper's life, I would not do so. And as he died, I would tell him why I chose not to.

[ 29 January 2006: Message edited by: RealityBites ]


Yeah totally fine, I'm not against you there. But what the hell good is it going to do? John Paul was only replaced by Ratzinger, whose worse, Harper would only be replaced by another biggotted prick who would continue the agenda of taking away rights.

On the other hand, I can't know the sort of bullshit that you guys go through, I can't understand or comprehend what it's like to have a group of people wanting my rights taken away for who I am.

Fuck, I'm probably not one to talk about this anyway.


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
FabFabian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7496

posted 29 January 2006 07:19 PM      Profile for FabFabian        Edit/Delete Post
Speaking as an asthma suffer, this man is a complete idiot. He can't tell the difference between an asthma attack and a cold and he is our PM. He goes to the Emerge and asks for antibiotics? You have a cold. Now be a good boy and go to bed, get some rest, take so Neo whatever and shut the fuck up. BABY!
From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
profit mohammed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11868

posted 29 January 2006 07:32 PM      Profile for profit mohammed        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
They dehumanized queers LONG before queers and their friends and families started returning the favour.

how has stephen harper "dehumanized queers". i know he is in favor of civil union instead of marriage, and that he would put this to a vote, but im not sure how favoring civil union instead of marriage "dehumanizes queers". perhaps dehumanize is too strong a word.

if there are examples where he has actually dehumanized queers, and im sure we would have heard about during the campaign, then i would like to know.

has harper ever said he considers gays or lesbians less than human? has he done anything, besides favoring civil marriage, to lead you to this conclusion?

do france and england and south africa dehumanize gays and lesbians by allowing them civil unions and not marriages? perhaps the argument can be made.

in any case, what has harper actually done to dehumanize gays and lesbians? what HATE MONGERING, as you put it, realitybites, has Harper done.

you celebrate the death of another and accuse others of hate mongering? you seem to filled with an equal hate.

and you didnt address a single point i raised in my previous post.

[ 29 January 2006: Message edited by: profit mohammed ]


From: ottawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 29 January 2006 07:42 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by profit mohammed:

how has stephen harper "dehumanized queers". i know he is in favor of civil union instead of marriage, and that he would put this to a vote, but im not sure how favoring civil union instead of marriage "dehumanizes queers". perhaps dehumanize is too strong a word.

if there are examples where he has actually dehumanized queers, and im sure we would have heard about during the campaign, then i would like to know.

has harper ever said he considers gays or lesbians less than human? has he done anything, besides favoring civil marriage, to lead you to this conclusion?

do france and england and south africa dehumanize gays and lesbians by allowing them civil unions and not marriages? perhaps the argument can be made.

in any case, what has harper actually done to dehumanize gays and lesbians?


First off, civil union is not civil marriage. It is a second-class status, and yes, it is absolutely dehumanizing.

As the South African court ruled (get your facts straight, buddy):

"The second guiding consideration is that Parliament be sensitive to the need to avoid a remedy that on the face of it would provide equal protection, but would do so in a manner that in its context and application would be calculated to reproduce new forms of marginalisation. Historically the concept of 'separate but equal' served as a threadbare cloak for covering distaste for or repudiation by those in power of the group subjected to segregation. The very notion that integration would lead to miscegenation, mongrelisation or contamination, was offensive in concept and wounding in practice. Yet, just as is frequently the case when proposals are made for recognising same-sex unions in desiccated and marginalised forms, proponents of segregation would vehemently deny any intention to cause insult. On the contrary, they would justify the apartness as being a reflection of a natural or divinely ordained state of affairs. Alternatively they would assert that the separation was neutral if the facilities provided by the law were substantially the same for both groups."

I won't even go into the fact that Harper consistently, repeatedly voted to deny gays and lesbians any sort of legal protection whatsoever, INCLUDING civil union.

I will mention to you though, that supporting second-class status for minorities is grounds for banning.

quote:
and you didnt address a single point i raised in my previous post.

Hmm... do you think that might have given you a hint I was responding to someone else, namely WestCoatGreeny?

[ 29 January 2006: Message edited by: RealityBites ]


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
profit mohammed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11868

posted 29 January 2006 07:50 PM      Profile for profit mohammed        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I will mention to you though, that supporting second-class status for minorities is grounds for banning.

you have to kidding me. how dare you bully me. where in the HELL would you get the idea that i have in any way supported second class status for a minority that i am VERY close to and have probably done more than you defend in court and the larger society (and not just in a internet forum) how dare you.

get your head out of your ass. i will not be lectured on gay rights by anyone, let alone a bully who wont even engage in a civil debate and cant even answer some simple questions.

i said that perhaps the argument can be made the civil union is dehumanizing. but i asked you to make the argument. you can not. perhaps i can make it for you if you are unable to

i asked to list any examples where stephan harper has dehumanized gays and lesbians outside of his stance on civil union (thus implying that he was dwhumanizing them) and you were unable to give any examples.

i have not, in any way, broken, nor have i come close to breaking, any rule of this forum.

if you are unable to properly debate, do not stoop to bullying by threatening to have me banned.

the gltg community does not need haters like you. you may have been here longer than me, but i will not stand for someone insulting me by insinuating that i support a second class status of gays and lesbians.

how dare you

[ 29 January 2006: Message edited by: profit mohammed ]


From: ottawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
karmapolice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10374

posted 29 January 2006 07:56 PM      Profile for karmapolice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
The people that evil men like the Pope and Stephen Harper have spent their lives trying to hurt not only have friends and families too, but unlike those bastards, only want those fucking pricks to leave them alone.

They dehumanized queers LONG before queers and their friends and families started returning the favour. Those low-life pricks can end this anytime they want. If they don't, as I said, they're deaths can only be seen as a blessing by their innocent victims.

How do you have the nerve to talk about manners? Has their been ANYTHING polite about their hate-mongering?

Let me put it as clearly as possible - if I had the opportunity to save Stephen Harper's life, I would not do so. And as he died, I would tell him why I chose not to.

[ 29 January 2006: Message edited by: RealityBites ]


anyone who would not help another human in need simply because they disagreed with their politics or their beliefs is trully evil, because, no matter all the supposed differences, we are all the "same" ie, living human beings. but, apparently, some people are so petty and immature that they cannot set their differences aside.

[ 29 January 2006: Message edited by: karmapolice ]


From: T Dot | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 29 January 2006 08:00 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by profit mohammed:
i said that perhaps the argument can be made the civil union is dehumanizing. but i asked you to make the argument. you can not. perhaps i can make it for you if you are unable to

I don't have to make the argument. It's a given, and if you don't understand that we don't have to defend our rights to equality here, then you don't understand babble. Nor am I obligated to, yet again, list all the ways in which Harper has dehumanized gays.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 29 January 2006 08:02 PM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Hey Profit, why can't you get it through your thick skull that advocating civil unions for gays is advocating second-class citizenship, which is dehumanizing to them. Spare us your long-winded rhetoric, and keep your mouth shut regarding queer rights if you are not entirely supportive. I have no patience for the likes of your, who have the nerve to make apologies for hate-mongering bigots on of all places a progressive forum. Get the fuck lost.
From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
profit mohammed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11868

posted 29 January 2006 08:04 PM      Profile for profit mohammed        Edit/Delete Post
you have insulted me by insinuating that i support a second class citizenship for gays and lesbians and i believe i am owed and apology, as nothing in my posts would lead you to believe i was doing anything but making the argument that those who support civil union are not evil people and that to wish them death or discomfort is as evil as anything from bush or the pope. i invite you to re-read what i have posted in this thread.

how dare you take what i have writen to mean that i in any way advocate a second class citizenship for any minority in this country.


From: ottawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 29 January 2006 08:08 PM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
You come on here, try and tell me that advocating marriage rights be rescinded from gays is NOT dehumanizing, and now YOU WANT AN APOLOGY FROM ME?

GO FUCK YOURSELF.


From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
profit mohammed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11868

posted 29 January 2006 08:09 PM      Profile for profit mohammed        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
have no patience for the likes of your, who have the nerve to make apologies for hate-mongering bigots

please, kevin, do point out where i in any way made apologies for hate mongers. i believe i have only asked for examples of harper hate mongering OUTSIDE of his position on ssm.

has he ever said or done anything else? i would honestly like to know. this is information i would like to have for use in the future.

but if one can not even ask this question without an overreactive response, than what does that say about free speech on this board. i know that this is a sensitive subject, which is why i have paid close attention to the rules and the sensitivities of others.

it is you kevin, and to a lesser extent reality bites, who are being insulting and breaking the rules. not i.


From: ottawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
karmapolice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10374

posted 29 January 2006 08:09 PM      Profile for karmapolice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin_Laddle:
Hey Profit, why can't you get it through your thick skull that advocating civil unions for gays is advocating second-class citizenship, which is dehumanizing to them. Spare us your long-winded rhetoric, and keep your mouth shut regarding queer rights if you are not entirely supportive. I have no patience for the likes of your, who have the nerve to make apologies for hate-mongering bigots on of all places a progressive forum. Get the fuck lost.
yes Profit, keep your mouth shut, since you are a second class citizen who cannot voice their opinion without getting shouted down.

From: T Dot | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 29 January 2006 08:09 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by profit mohammed:
you have insulted me by insinuating that i support a second class citizenship for gays and lesbians and i believe i am owed and apology, as nothing in my posts would lead you to believe i was doing anything but making the argument that those who support civil union are not evil people

That is not a good argument to be making here. Civil union is bigotry, pure and simple. Those who support it are bigots.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 29 January 2006 08:10 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by profit mohammed:

snip ...

how dare you


Do you think if Harper was proposing that blacks not be allowed to marry, but instead had to be satisfied with civil unions,that this would not be "dehumanizing" to Blacks?

And as for your claims that RB didn't answer you demand to be given an example of where Harper dehumanized gays other than his stand on gay marriages, well he did exactly that ... he told you that every single time Harper had an opportunity to vote on issues effecting gays, he voted against gays ... like for instance in 1996 when he had a chance to vote for legislation amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; guess which way he voted? Yeah, that's right ... he voted against "humanizing" gays by allowing them to live without fear, and instead voted to allow gays to be fired without cause just for the fact that they were gay. You don't call that "dehumanizing"?

Now, don't give me any shit about "how dare you", because I for one want to know "how dare you" come to this forum so completely uneducated on the history of Harper and then lecture us on how unfair we are for recognizing a Harpercon lie for what it is.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
TheStudent
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11410

posted 29 January 2006 08:18 PM      Profile for TheStudent        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by profit mohammed:
i said that perhaps the argument can be made the civil union is dehumanizing. but i asked you to make the argument. you can not. perhaps i can make it for you if you are unable to.
RB did make the argument by citing from the ruling of South Africa's supreme court. Those justices made a very eloquent case far why segregation ("separate but equal" or otherwise) is an indication that the repressive group believe that the repressed group is less than them, and thus less than human. "Separate but equal" has long been a shield for backwards bigotry and civil unions are no less than "seperate but equal" for the LGBT community. If you need any further evidence that "separate but equal" is anything other than dehumanizing bigotry, I suggest you look up the ruling in a little case known as Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, argued at the United States Supreme Court.

From: Re-instate Audra Now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
profit mohammed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11868

posted 29 January 2006 08:23 PM      Profile for profit mohammed        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"how dare you" come to this forum so completely uneducated on the history of Harper and then lecture us on how unfair we are for recognizing a Harpercon lie for what it is.

please, read what i write before you attack me. "lecture"? excuse me? yes, i am uneducated on harper's past in regards to the gltg community. that is why - DUH! - i have asked the question!!

why so over reactive!? i am on your side. and i do not deserve, based on what i have writen, to be accused of supporting or defending those who do support civil unions.

i just happen to know that those, at least most who i know, who do support civil union are not evil, as RB believes. evil, as far i am concerned, is the opposite of empathy. empathy means understanding where someone is coming from. many people who support civil unions and not full marriage are not evil. if you sought where they are coming from you would understand this.

this can only happen by letting them give their points. if they are not being insulting, and not breaking forum rules, they should be allowed to speak.

apparently we have a different understanding of what open discourse involves.

i happen to have many, many gay and lesbians friends who do not even WANT the marriage right because they see marriage as a stupid inherently unequal bourgoise institution.


From: ottawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
profit mohammed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11868

posted 29 January 2006 08:31 PM      Profile for profit mohammed        Edit/Delete Post
the large majority of canadians, btw, support civil unions. support for hetero exclusive and full ssm is about equal but less than civil union support.

thus, the large majority of canadians, according to realitybites, are bigots.

wow. and how do you, RB, propose we reach out to the majority and win them over? by calling them bigots and professing we celebrate their deaths?


From: ottawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 29 January 2006 08:34 PM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Shut the fuck up already. On babble, it is a settled matter that if you are against equal marriage, then you are a bigot, and bigots are not tolerated around here. That's the way it is, and if you don't like it then leave.

(By the way, why the hell don't you use any capital letters, numbskull?)


From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 29 January 2006 08:39 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
You do know, don't you, that you're busy writing your ticket out of here?

Look - get it through your head - we've heard all this shit before and we are NOT going through it again. Supporting civil union is not acceptable here. Speaking on behalf of those who support it is not acceptable here either.

If you wish to continue here, I suggest you drop it, because it WILL lead to you being banned. That's not a threat and it's not bullying. I'm not the one who makes that decision.

As the one who DOES make that decision wrote just four days ago:

quote:
This site is supposed to be a safe place for gays and lesbians to come and openly participate as equal citizens in our community. This site was not created to give gaybashers a free forum to spout their nastiness.

If you can't handle that, too bad. But no, I'm sorry, we're not going to "live long enough" to allow people to debate on babble why gays and lesbians should be second-class citizens, or why gays and lesbians who are angry at homophobes like Desjarlais are "bigots" or "hatemongerers" for feeling that way.

It's just not up for debate here. Just like Holocaust denial, interracial marriage, why all feminists are actually just hairy bitchy dykes, and why whites are the master race are not up for debate on this forum. Deal with it, or go somewhere else more to your liking. The internet is a big place.



From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 29 January 2006 08:42 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
profit, you are very new here and maybe you don't understand that on babble "marriage" means marriage for all citizens including two men; two women; one woman & one man. The argument is finished here on babble. If you want to argue about civil unions, go away and argue somewhere else.

Better yet, search for "SSM" or "same sex marriage" [the old outdated terms] and read the many old threads where your feeble arguements have already been demolished over and over.


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 29 January 2006 08:43 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by profit mohammed:
the large majority of canadians, btw, support civil unions. support for hetero exclusive and full ssm is about equal but less than civil union support.

thus, the large majority of canadians, according to realitybites, are bigots.


Untrue, the majority of Canadians now Support SSM marriage. And it will only increase over time. So please stop repeating lies. This subject has also been done to death here already, so if you want to achieve some sort of 'understanding' with progressives, just let it go. There's more important things to worry about now.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
karmapolice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10374

posted 29 January 2006 08:47 PM      Profile for karmapolice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
You do know, don't you, that you're busy writing your ticket out of here?

Look - get it through your head - we've heard all this shit before and we are NOT going through it again. Supporting civil union is not acceptable here. Speaking on behalf of those who support it is not acceptable here either.

If you wish to continue here, I suggest you drop it, because it WILL lead to you being banned. That's not a threat and it's not bullying. I'm not the one who makes that decision.

As the one who DOES make that decision wrote just four days ago:


yes, Profit, tow the Party line. we are all of one mind here. no intelligent discussion allowed, comrade.

From: T Dot | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 29 January 2006 08:47 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:
Untrue, the majority of Canadians now Support SSM marriage.

There is one poll, done by the conservative firm Compas, that showed 66% support for denying marriage rights to gays and lesbians if they were offered civil unions - something we all know is impossible under Canadian law.

Since that one poll came out, Conservatives have been trumpeting it as the one and only measure of opinion on the subject, ignoring the fact that every other poll ever taken shows majority support for equality.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
profit mohammed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11868

posted 29 January 2006 08:48 PM      Profile for profit mohammed        Edit/Delete Post
well i can accept that. i did not know that there was a history of people coming here to start shit. but i was not trying to start shit myself.

but i will not be accused of gaybashing in any way what so ever. if you think i have, please point out where and i will immediately apologise, for it was not intended.

as for kevin, i have no interest in responding to someone that rude.

but RB, i do think it is important to expand support for ssm, which is not actually very high in this country. if the law was changed to civil union most canadians would not care.

but one cannot hope to expand support by calling those most likely to move from civil union to full inclusive marriage bigots.

but i now recognize that this forum is not the place to debate anything less than fully inclusive marriage, which i support, and have writen nothing that would lead anyone to any other conclusion, i believe.


From: ottawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 29 January 2006 08:52 PM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by karmapolice:
yes, Profit, tow the Party line. we are all of one mind here. no intelligent discussion allowed, comrade.

Intelligent discussion is certainly allowed, and encouraged. However, discussing whether gays should be stripped of their civil rights IS NOT "intelligent discussion".

Do you consider discussions about whether gays should be stripped of their civil rights intelligent? (Be careful how you answer this).


From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 29 January 2006 08:59 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by profit mohammed:


please, read what i write before you attack me. "lecture"? excuse me? yes, i am uneducated on harper's past in regards to the gltg community. that is why - DUH! - i have asked the question!!

My Response:
And you were told that every chance he had he voted against the GLBT community ... you refused to even acknowledge that fact.

why so over reactive!? i am on your side. and i do not deserve, based on what i have written, to be accused of supporting or defending those who do support civil unions.

i just happen to know that those, at least most who i know, who do support civil union are not evil, as RB believes. evil, as far i am concerned, is the opposite of empathy. empathy means understanding where someone is coming from. many people who support civil unions and not full marriage are not evil. if you sought where they are coming from you would understand this.

My Response:

As with any form of discrimination, the ones who practise it don't see themselves as "evil", and if they ask the victims of the discrimination and are told that they are acting in an evil manner, the response is one of shock and horror of being "unfairly" accused of evil ... How about instead of going out and asking the victims of evil why they consider the perpetrators of evil as being evil, and then being outraged by getting the expected reply, maybe you should be asking the people who perpetrate evil why they don't think that they are causing evil .. then you can be all upset and indignant when they attack you for calling them evil, rather than coming here and demanding that the people being persecuted have respect for their persecutors.

this can only happen by letting them give their points. if they are not being insulting, and not breaking forum rules, they should be allowed to speak.

apparently we have a different understanding of what open discourse involves.

My Response:
Open discourse does not include having to be polite to bigots ... bigots have learned that in order to be given a hearing for their bigotry by the uninitiated that if they give their bigoted views in a polite manner, that some people are stupid enough to take that bigotry seriously ... Bigots are given no such hearing on this forum. Been there, done that, got sick and tired of having to be politely give bigots a "fair hearing".

i happen to have many, many gay and lesbians friends who do not even WANT the marriage right because they see marriage as a stupid inherently unequal bourgoise institution.

My Response:
And this applies exactly how? I know many straight people, black people, Asian people, etc who believe the same thing about marriage. Does this mean that we should tale away marriage rights from all these types of people?

If these people have an argument with marriage, then by all means, voice that opinion all they want ... they could even come to this board, and as long as they weren't against marriage in a manner that discriminated against specific groups, then they could do so as much as they want ... but if they came here and started spewing that marriage should not be an acceptable institution for a specific legal group of fellow humans, then they would get a very cold reception.




From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
profit mohammed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11868

posted 29 January 2006 08:59 PM      Profile for profit mohammed        Edit/Delete Post
i do not, no. nor, i believe, do people who advocate civil union, as civil union has all the rights of hetero exclusive marriage. people who do advocate civil union, which i do not, do not see civil union as denying any right that a hetero married couple enjoy. the only difference is the name.

if i am wrong, and civil union does not include all the rights of marriage save the actual name, than i would like clarity.

but as for the polls, i was under the impression that it was about 50% civil union, and about 25% inclusice marriage 25% exclusive marriage. and while most, over 60%, see the issue as settles, i do not think the greater public would put up much stink if the it changed to civil marriage. i hope i am wrong.


From: ottawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
karmapolice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10374

posted 29 January 2006 09:03 PM      Profile for karmapolice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin_Laddle:

Intelligent discussion is certainly allowed, and encouraged. However, discussing whether gays should be stripped of their civil rights IS NOT "intelligent discussion".

Do you consider discussions about whether gays should be stripped of their civil rights intelligent? (Be careful how you answer this).


do i think gays/lesbians have the right to be married? of course, yes.

do i think that discussion be allowed re: the right of gays/lesbians to be married? yes. why? free speech.

so, whilst i support gay people and their marriage rights, i also believe that is important that their detractors are allowed to debate that right freely without persecution. they are not bigots in my opinion, simply people in a "free society" who disagree. while i may disagree with these people, i do not hate them, nor consider them to be evil.

[ 29 January 2006: Message edited by: karmapolice ]


From: T Dot | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 29 January 2006 09:03 PM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
RB is my hero.
From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
profit mohammed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11868

posted 29 January 2006 09:06 PM      Profile for profit mohammed        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And you were told that every chance he had he voted against the GLBT community ... you refused to even acknowledge that fact

yes, eventually, i was. this was exactly the kind of info i was looking for.


but why do you say you are from: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005

what the hell is traditional marriage and why are you defending it?

and if you think i am a bigot or have defended bigots than say it and prove it and leave your real name.


From: ottawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 29 January 2006 09:06 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
Civil union, by definition, CANNOT include all the rights of marriage.

But please - if you care to inform yourself on the issue, go do your own research on it. We've been through it time and time again.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 29 January 2006 09:08 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by karmapolice:
i also believe that is important that their detractors are allowed to debate that right freely without persecution. they are not bigots in my opinion, simply people in a "free society" who disagree.

Yes, they are bigots, by any rational definition. They are people trying to take legal rights away from others they hate. In all seriousness, what the fuck do you think a bigot is???

They can debate whatever the hell they want. Somewhere else, where bigoted scum are welcome. That's not here.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
profit mohammed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11868

posted 29 January 2006 09:09 PM      Profile for profit mohammed        Edit/Delete Post
so.... haper - environmental bigot? does he "hate" the environment? DEBATE

i say yes.

(lets get this back to harper and kyoto and away from shadenfreude over a supposed asthma attack that never happened)


From: ottawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
karmapolice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10374

posted 29 January 2006 09:15 PM      Profile for karmapolice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:

Yes, they are bigots, by any rational definition. They are people trying to take legal rights away from others they hate. In all seriousness, what the fuck do you think a bigot is???

They can debate whatever the hell they want. Somewhere else, where bigoted scum are welcome. That's not here.


mea culpa. whatever. i give. you win. i back out of this thread.

From: T Dot | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 29 January 2006 09:17 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes he does.

His official car will be a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado convertible, hot pink, with whaleskin hubcaps and big brown baby seal eyes for headlights.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
profit mohammed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11868

posted 29 January 2006 09:23 PM      Profile for profit mohammed        Edit/Delete Post
token right wing mascot? lol i thought this was a no bigot zone? or are you one of the few conservatives who embrace charter rights?
From: ottawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 29 January 2006 09:26 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
Heywood? He embraces pretty much anything that isn't buried.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 29 January 2006 09:31 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you wanted a hug all you had to do was ask.

*hugs*


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
profit mohammed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11868

posted 29 January 2006 09:33 PM      Profile for profit mohammed        Edit/Delete Post
lol
From: ottawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 29 January 2006 09:44 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by profit mohammed:
i do not, no. nor, i believe, do people who advocate civil union, as civil union has all the rights of hetero exclusive marriage. people who do advocate civil union, which i do not, do not see civil union as denying any right that a hetero married couple enjoy. the only difference is the name.

if i am wrong, and civil union does not include all the rights of marriage save the actual name, than i would like clarity.

but as for the polls, i was under the impression that it was about 50% civil union, and about 25% inclusice marriage 25% exclusive marriage. and while most, over 60%, see the issue as settles, i do not think the greater public would put up much stink if the it changed to civil marriage. i hope i am wrong.



If you actually believe that civil union is the same as marriage except for the actual name (which is not the case, but which we will consider as fact for the sake of this post,) then ask yourself one simply question ... why the need for a different name if they are exactly the same thing?

If Marriage and civil unions are just names, then here's a suggestion ... let homosexuals use marriage and heterosexuals use civil unions ... no big deal right?

You are falling for the right wing lie ... they tell you that there is no difference between civil union and marriage and have no idea why gays should be so demanding in having their life partnerships called marriages ... then go out and declare they will fight to the death to protect their exclusive right to the "meaningless term" marriage. "oh no, ther eis absolutly nothing at all behind that door, and I will fight to the death from allowing you to opening it and seeing for yourself."

They're not fooling anyone with that nonsense (well, actually they are, but only the dimmest of bulbs shoul dfall for that line of flawed reasoning.)


as for your other post:

quote:
why do you say you are from: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005

what the hell is traditional marriage and why are you defending it?

My Response:
Traditional marriage since that date is equal marriage, and I defend equal marriage rights.

and if you think i am a bigot or have defended bigots than say it and prove it and leave your real name.

My Response:
At the time of the post everything I read proved to me that you supported the rights of bigots to spew bigotry but not the rights of others to call a bigot a bigot ... I'm not sure if that is still the case, of if that perception was correct, so you can clarify if you wish ... do you believe that bigots should be allowed the right of free speech in order to speak and promote bigotry without a reciprocal right of free speech of others to speak against that bigotry, and to identify a bigot for what they are?

Is it the right of a bigot to speak out against gays, but not the right of gays supporters to speak out against the bigots?

That's certainly how you presented your argument until the most recent posts ... all sympathy for the poor innocent bigots trying to exercise their God given right to protect their civil institutions from the ravages of gays, but all outraged and put upon by gays and their supporters speaking out against such bigotry.

The way I look at it, it's the bigots who are actively taking actions to keep rights from being equally applied ... we on the other hand are not trying to take any rights away from the bigots, Hell, they can hate whomever they want, they have that right ... the right they don't have is to take away rights from people and groups based on that hate.

You don't see any of "us" voting in legislators who run on a platform of taking away rights from heterosexuals ... so when someone comes here and tries to pretend that we are the people who are being offensive, that just doesn't fly.





From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 29 January 2006 09:48 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:

There is one poll, done by the conservative firm Compas, that showed 66% support for denying marriage rights to gays and lesbians if they were offered civil unions - something we all know is impossible under Canadian law.

Since that one poll came out, Conservatives have been trumpeting it as the one and only measure of opinion on the subject, ignoring the fact that every other poll ever taken shows majority support for equality.



Fifty five percent PRO in all the others I saw. Why I don't take most self described conservatives seriously anymore. Nother reason is I heard what they were actually saying....


Edited cause I'm also myopic as a bat.

[ 29 January 2006: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Tiger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10186

posted 29 January 2006 10:23 PM      Profile for West Coast Tiger     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Harper and other Conservatives on SSM and gay people and their rights:

quote:
"It will come as no surprise to anybody to know that I support the traditional definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, as expressed in our traditional common law."

- Stephen Harper, Hansard, Address in the House of Commons on Bill C-38, February 16, 2005.


quote:
"I think it's a typical hidden agenda of the Liberal party... They had the courts do it for them, they put the judges in they wanted, then they failed to appeal -- failed to fight the case in court... I think the federal government deliberately lost this case in court and got the change to the law done through the back door."

- Stephen Harper, attacking the Liberals on same-sex marriage by claiming a conspiracy, News Hound, September 7th 2003.


quote:
"Regarding sexual orientation or, more accurately, what we are really talking about, sexual behaviour, the argument has been made ... that this is analogous to race and ethnicity.... (For) anyone in the Liberal party to equate the traditional definition of marriage with segregation and apartheid is vile and disgusting."

- Conservative leader Stephen Harper, 2003.


http://www.intheirownwords.ca/harper.html

And others from his clan:

quote:
"The fact is that homosexuals aren’t barred from marrying under Canadian law... Marriage is open to everybody as long as they’re a man and a woman."

- Conservative MP Jason Kenney, Punjabi Editorial Board Interview, January 30, 2005.


quote:
"I want the whole world to know that I do not condone homosexuals. I do not condone their activity. I do not like what they do. I think it is wrong. I think it is unnatural and I think it is totally immoral. I will object to it forever whenever they attack the good, traditional Canadian family unit that built the country." - MP Myron Thompson.

quote:
"When you go into the issue of homosexuals and lesbians it's in the interest of society to have the right to discriminate against that group in areas of ... schools is one that comes to mind."

- Conservative Party Natural Resources critic Dave Chatters arguing in favour of discrimination against gays on a radio station in Westlock, Alberta, on April 30th 1996.


(Although I don't believe Chatters is an elected member anymore)

quote:
"For instance, I'm not opposed to gays, but if you bring one of those suckers into my school and they try to push their crap on my students, I have a problem with that. "

- MP Myron Thompson opposing education promoting understanding of gays in the Belleville Intelligencer, April 29th 1994.


quote:
"The danger in having sexual orientation just listed, that encompasses for example pedophiles. I believe that the caucus as a whole would like to see it repealed."

- Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant on CTV News, June 5th 2004, attacking proposed hate propaganda legislation that would protect homosexuals.


quote:
"That's my guess, yes, especially where you have alcohol and drugs and mix that with very short-term changing sexual relationships... There's a lot of jealousy... they [homosexuals] are vengeful, and their health isn't very good. [Skinheads bashing gays] is one kind of marginalized group doing its thing against another marginalized sub-group, which essentially has nothing to do with human rights before the law. It's purely one gang going against another gang."

- New Westminster-Coquitlam Conservative MP Paul Forseth opposing legislation to protect gays from hate crimes, March 18th 1995, House of Commons.


(Recently defeated Forseth)

quote:
"When it comes to people who wish to live together, whether they are women or men, why do they have to be out here in the public always debating that they want to call it marriage? If they are going to live together, they can go live together and shut up about it."

- Conservative MP Elsie Wayne tells gays and lesbians to shut up.


(Wayne is no longer an MP)

quote:
"They probably should have used the notwithstanding clause as Ralph Klein has said he will do, but they're not doing that at this time and definitely we had hoped, the majority of the people had hoped, that they would appeal the decision on Ontario, but they haven't done that either."

- Conservative MP Elsie Wayne on gay marriage.


quote:
"In the 1950s, buggery was a criminal offence. Now it's a requirement to receive benefits from the federal government."

- Yorkton-Melville Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz commenting on same sex benefits, The Leader-Post, March 3, 2000.


(Don't know what happened to Breitkreuz)

http://www.intheirownwords.ca/tories.html

Hope that clears the air for those who are looking for information. There's a lot more stuff on the 'net if you look for it.

I apologize for posting this obscene crap.

[ 29 January 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Tiger ]


From: I never was and never will be a Conservative | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
profit mohammed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11868

posted 29 January 2006 10:37 PM      Profile for profit mohammed        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If you actually believe that civil union is the same as marriage except for the actual name (which is not the case, but which we will consider as fact for the sake of this post,) then ask yourself one simply question ... why the need for a different name if they are exactly the same thing? ... You are falling for the right wing lie

good point. there is a counter arguement of course, but i will not make it. i said i will not be seen further defending civil union, however indirectly, anymore here.

but do not tell me what i am or am not falling for when you have misread what i have writen. i asked you to post anything bigoted i had writen, and you could not.

quote:
Traditional marriage since that date is equal marriage, and I defend equal marriage rights.

well you can easily see how one could misread that as you saying that SINCE equal marriage has become law you have decided to defend the traditional definition. equal marriage does not have much a tradition in canada. to call equal marriage "traditional" marriage is confussing. again, it reads as though you are defending traditional marriage now that equal marriage is law. traditional marriage is an oppressive authoritative and unequal institution. why would you want to call equal marriage traditional? maybe in a generation or two it will become traditional. but not yet.

maybe you have misread what i have writen much as i have misread what you have writen - though i am not sure how you could have misread what i have writen. i mean, again, you found nothing offensive in what i wrote.

quote:
everything I read proved to me that you supported the rights of bigots to spew bigotry but not the rights of others to call a bigot a bigot ... I'm not sure if that is still the case, of if that perception was correct, so you can clarify if you wish ...

like WHAT, exactly? and you know very well, if youve actually read what i wrote, that i have been very clear.

quote:
do you believe that bigots should be allowed the right of free speech in order to speak and promote bigotry without a reciprocal right of free speech of others to speak against that bigotry, and to identify a bigot for what they are?

yes i do. i believe free speech is just that - free. if you do not believe that those with whom you disagree with most have right to free speech than you do not believe in free speech at all.

i also believe that there is a world of difference between advocating civil union and actually calling for harm to be done to the gltg community. and i think there is a world of difference between giving gays and lesbians all the rights of marriage in a civil union and not giving them any rights at all.

but again, i am not, lest i confuse you, defending civil unions over equal inclusive marriage. i am just saying it isnt black and white.

quote:
Is it the right of a bigot to speak out against gays, but not the right of gays supporters to speak out against the bigots?

of course not. but im not sure you even believe bigots have that right anyways. but how else to get them out in the open. my point is that not all those who prefer civil union to equal marriage are bigots. ill informed, but not bigots. bigot is too strong a word. im not even sure most heteroexclusive marriage advocates actually want harm done to the gltg community. maybe i am naive or have not met the evil people you have.

quote:
That's certainly how you presented your argument until the most recent posts ... all sympathy for the poor innocent bigots trying to exercise their God given right to protect their civil institutions from the ravages of gays, but all outraged and put upon by gays and their supporters speaking out against such bigotry.

that most certainly is not. if it was, you would cite instances. "sympathy for poor inocent bigots"? please.

quote:
the right they don't have is to take away rights from people and groups based on that hate.

agreed. and since this is not the forum to debate civil marriage, i will not ask which rights, say of inheritance or adoption, are lost in civil unions.

quote:
You don't see any of "us" voting in legislators who run on a platform of taking away rights from heterosexuals

we do it all the time. its called section one of the charter - no rights are guaranteed in this country. same sex marriage would not be affected by section one, however, again, lest i implant more confusion for you


look, if you believe people who support civil unions are evil, than we disagree. they may be ill informed, maybe they lack some empathy, but they are not evil. that is the only point i was making. harper is wrong on this issues, but as layton said in the cbc townhall, he isnt evil.

if you think he is evil than i think you are much an extremist as you think he is. i think it is more nuanced than some manichean evil good dicotomy.


From: ottawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Tiger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10186

posted 29 January 2006 10:51 PM      Profile for West Coast Tiger     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by profit mohammed:
in any case, what has harper actually done to dehumanize gays and lesbians? what HATE MONGERING, as you put it, realitybites, has Harper done.

I think being the leader of the Conservative party, and allowing people into his party that have the above views, is in fact supporting the hate mongering and dehumanizing of gays and lesbians.

Furthermore, I feel that when he states, "...to the exclusion of all others...", he is in fact dehumanizing gays and lesbians.

Not everyone shares my point of view, but those quotes are enough proof for me.


From: I never was and never will be a Conservative | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
profit mohammed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11868

posted 29 January 2006 10:53 PM      Profile for profit mohammed        Edit/Delete Post
fair enough. exclusion is a form a bigotry. if you believe in exclusion you ARE probably a bigot.
From: ottawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 29 January 2006 10:55 PM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Regarding sexual orientation or, more accurately, what we are really talking about, sexual behaviour, the argument has been made ... that this is analogous to race and ethnicity.... (For) anyone in the Liberal party to equate the traditional definition of marriage with segregation and apartheid is vile and disgusting."
- Conservative leader Stephen Harper, 2003.


Thats a pretty "evil" thing to say.


From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Tiger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10186

posted 29 January 2006 11:06 PM      Profile for West Coast Tiger     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And just how important is it for gay and lesbian couples to have the same rights? A very good U.S. case in point...
From: I never was and never will be a Conservative | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819

posted 30 January 2006 12:10 AM      Profile for googlymoogly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Profit, I fail to see how bleating about your many many "gltg" friends who are against gay marriage is in any way relevant to the discussion. We all know that there are "gltg" people who are against SSM. Some of them are unfortunately working alongside the anti_SMM so-cons.

I have heard their arguments, and I find them condescending to those gay people who would choose to exercise this right. Some have expresed concern that people who are in favour of SSM are just trying to assimilate into the straight population. As if all GBLT people did everything in the same way. I was told to my face by one of those people that GLBT people who marry members of the same sex are simply trying to appear "non-threatening" to the heterosexual population, and are trying to silence other elements of queer culture.

Others argue that marriage is an archaic institution, for whatever reason. I didn't realize that those of us (including myself) were being duped into believing otherwise. I always thought that if they didn't want to marry a homosexual, they, umm...didn't have to?

I take personal offence to these views. I have to wonder how you could possibly think they would fit into the discussion, other than to legitimize your own personal views on the issue?


From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 30 January 2006 07:37 AM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
By the way, what is "gltg" supposed to mean profit, you ignorant fuck?

[ 30 January 2006: Message edited by: Kevin_Laddle ]


From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 January 2006 07:58 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by profit mohammed:
expressing joy over the hospitalization of anyone suffering from illness is, in my opinion, a little hateful and insulting. not to be a party pooper or anything, but... im new, so maybe this kinda thing is more common than i expected, but it isnt helpful to a debate on a serious issue

This from someone who started a thread asking whether his asthma attack was "god's punishment"?

Come on.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 30 January 2006 08:06 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

This from someone who started a thread asking whether his asthma attack was "god's punishment"?

Come on.


The thread title was changed after all this stuff happened.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 January 2006 08:12 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by karmapolice:
yes, Profit, tow the Party line. we are all of one mind here. no intelligent discussion allowed, comrade.

Listen, you are being completely unhelpful and trolling.

The rest of you: I doubt that Profit Mohammed is new since his IP address is very similar to that of a couple of previously banned trolls, and the screen name he chose in itself made me wait several days before approving his account (actually, I hit "approve" by accident since that's the default and then I thought, oh well, let's see what happens).

So, Profit Mohammed, the others are right. If you're going to come on here and advocate civil unions and claim that others here are "haters" for not accepting that, then you've got another thing coming.

RB, I really, really don't need you to shadow-moderate for me. If you think someone is breaking the rules, then write to me and tell me so instead of telling them over and over again that they're going to get kicked off. That just causes threads like this to go off track.

Not that a thread like this, started with a title like that, is anything but trolling anyhow.

Profit Mohammed, considering that you started a thread calling Harper's asthma attack "god's punishment" and then started berating people who picked up on your theme, then started into the whole "civil unions" debate, not to mention your screen name, I'm sure you can see how many people might just mistake you for a shit-disturbing troll. Choose your words more carefully next time, and hopefully this type of misunderstanding won't occur again.

Kevin_Laddie, chill out. If you have a problem with someone, write to me, please.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca