Posted on 02/26/2007 12:01:13 AM PST by Princip. Conservative
"Please stop telling me what I know to be true while reluctantly & only partially conceding my point Canadians generally are more aware - for a host of reasons - of what goes on Stateside than Americans are in the reverse."
Stop making false statements about Canada then - I'm really getting tired of hearing your unsubstantiated arguments. You won't accept this, even though it's a simple fact. Canada is a liberal, screwed up nation that deserves little more than reproof. For goodness sake, even California is more conservative than Canada in many respects. I feel sorry for you, because I'm sure it's hard to have to acknowledge that the curtain of morality has largely dropped on your country. Get real, please.
"I'd add, never once has Canada failed come to America's aid in time of any domestic catastrophe but yet again - and not withstanding your usual subsequent backpedaling - your initial sniping comment "With friends like these, who needs enemies?" clearly reveals you personally as an arrogantly unappreciative neighbor as well as unrepresentative of the vast majority of your fellow countrymen."
Your comments reveal someone who doesn't want to accept reality. Do I think Canada is as bad as Al Qaeda or the Taliban as someone earlier suggested? Absolutely not. But they're not half the friend they used to be and YOU KNOW IT. Canada's enmity with the United States is rooted in the moral darkness that rules your land.
"Is that why Rush Limbaugh has such a large following?
What's your point with that statement anyway?"
My point is that we extremely frequently have conservative things happening in the States to report. Consider that, even in 2006 when the GOP took quite a hiding, we still passed 8 out of 9 gay marriage bans in individual states, we approved an anti-affirmative action measure in Michigan, we got some conservative immigration measures approved, some states rejected attempts to legalize medicinal marijuana, one state approved an advisory referendum to bring back the death penalty and so on - we even almost defeated an embryonic stem cell research measure that was supposed to be a slam dunk. On top of that, we had a host of court rulings, both state and federal, that were anti-gay marriage. There were many other things like actions of state legislatures and so on, too. But I follow the Canadian news, too, and I don't remember reading much good news like this happening in Canada. I remember reading how the Alberta legislature was thwarted in one of their attempts that was deemed anti-gay marriage. That's my point!
"Please cite examples with links.
Thank you."
I don't know exactly what links you would like me to give you. I've given examples of conservative happenings in the United States. If you want me to give you links to those I can, but there are so many it will take awhile.
But perhaps I'll give you a few links to some of the liberal things that have happened in Canada of late (I'm mainly using a conservative site):
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06051004.html
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06110109.html
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06050307.html
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/dec/06120805.html
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07011805.html
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07011805.html
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/06040504.html
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=b647b9da-a58d-4d56-bdd1-368ed2e8aace&k=84098
I trust this helps.
"There's a world of difference between "making false statements about Canada" & having a contrary - & dare I say, far better informed - perception of concrete reality. Quite simply, you can't cite a single demonstrably "false" thing I've said because nothing I've stated is factually untruthful and you've made that slander in a pathetic attempt to back-up mere ill-informed opinions & attendant self-righteous, holier-than-thou bigotry when it comes to Canada & Canadians."
Whoa, boy, are you ever mad. Unfortunately, you're a pretty typical chip-on-the-shoulder Canadian, and I've known your type since I was a kid. I don't want to hear how Canada has given platitudes of help to the United States. I know they've been an ally for many years, but they've strayed massively in recent years. But that's not even what we're talking about. We're talking about conservative values, of which Canada is almost completely bankrupt. You keep trying to sidetrack the debate, so we're talking about whether or not people like Harper will claim an alliance to the United States. Of course they will!
"The bottom line is you've got your panties in such a massive knot with respect to gay 'marriage' & related issues that you're prepared to pig-headedly ignore facts, logic & patient, good neighborly explanations as to how many things work differently and/or are reported up here."
For one thing, I don't wear panties. Perhaps that saying is on the tip of your tongue because of the massive homosexualisation of your beloved country that's corrupted even your mentality?? You've not provided a single link to almost anything conservative going on in Canada, except that Harper may try to appoint some conservative judges - good for him, btw, but too little too late. I've repeatedly and repeatedly (in this and other threads) said that I was referring to the absolute bankruptcy of conservative values in Canada. I've tried to be nice about it but you can't seem to get it past that huge chip on your shoulder that can't admit where Canada really is on the moral barometer. Oh and a difference in culture does nothing to legitimize gay marriage, prostitution, no death penalty or all the other things we've talked about here.
"Why else would you obviously & ungratefully duck the clearly stated FACT "... never once has Canada failed come to America's aid in time of any domestic catastrophe ..." or the - completely contrary to your own point-of-view & wholly confirming of mine - statement made just last Fall by America's own Secretary of State which my post #40 cites & documents ???"
If I've seemed to duck that, it's because I'm not talking about coming to someone's 'aid'. Even still, I notice you carefully say 'domestic', because you know that internationally Canada has fled the other way along with the likes of France in helping us battle our enemies and your crazily liberal immigration policies don't help one iota either.
"Even many of your own - albeit likely disingenuous & supposedly conciliatory - comments made after your initial ridiculously unsupportable & insulting claim "With friends like these, who needs enemies?" serve to undermine its veracity & expose it as a complete & petulantly uttered lie."
I've tried to be friendly yes, but I've not uttered one lie. And I stand by my statement that with friends like these, who needs enemies. I do not apologize for it. Canada has become a threat to the United States morally and in other ways, too. Sorry if it hurts your feelings but sometimes the truth does. There's nothing 'ridiculously unsupportable' about it either.
That said, I will say that I do not believe that all Canadians are like this or even like yourself. I've generally been referring to the various branches of Canadian government, which I will make no apologies to you or anyone else for rebuking their amorality. If Harper (who I really do feel for) can clean this mess, then I wish him Godspeed, but I want actions and not the words that I've seen fill this thread.
Until then, you can use as many superlatives and hyperbolic statements as you wish to describe what you deem as unfair allegations against your country. I have uttered no lie, but have said that truth but you don't want to hear the truth about Canada or America. And I've been willing to substantiate my claims of America's conservatism with a plethora of examples and links. To the best that I can see, you haven't given me any, except for a link about speculation of judges that Harper may appoint to the judiciary.
Some conservative immigration measures? You mean they built that fence on your southern border? Bank of Amigo credit cards for illegals? Restaurants accepting Pesos as legal tender?
Approved a referendum? Almost defeated? Wow, I'm in awe.
You seem to hold gay marriage up as the one important factor in being a conservative, so lets do a little navel gazing, OK?
BOSTON (AP) -- The group that spearheaded the push for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage has reset its sights on state legislatures, conceding it has little chance for success in a Democrat-controlled Congress.
The Rhode Island attorney general said that same-sex marriages performed in neighboring Massachusetts, the sole state where they are legal, should be recognized in Rhode Island. Responding to a request for a legal opinion from the commissioner of the Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education, Attorney General Patrick Lynch said Wednesday that the state prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation and did not explicitly prohibit same-sex marriage. ''Rhode Island will recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed in Massachusetts as marriages in Rhode Island,'' the seven-page opinion said. Lynch acknowledged that his word was just an opinion, without the force of law.
A Chicago Democrat wants Illinois to be the second state to legalize gay marriages. State Rep. Greg Harris plans to introduce legislation Thursday that will permit same-sex couples to get married. Although four states recognize civil unions among gays, only Massachusetts provides for gay marriages.
TALLAHASSEE - Gov. Charlie Crist dampened a controversial effort to constitutionally ban gay marriage Tuesday, saying the Republican Party of Florida should not give money to help the effort. Prior to Crist's November election, the party gave $300,000 to Florida4Marriage.org in late 2005 and 2006 in the group's unsuccessful petition drive to get the ban on the statewide ballot last year. That made the Republican Party the largest contributor to the group that has collected about $430,000 as it now aims for the 2008 election. Crist first said on Tuesday that he thinks the party should spend its money on other things,..
OTOH, Iran must be your kind of place......
Mahmoud Asgari, 16, and Ayaz Marhoni, 18 were publicly executed for having sex with each other. After an international outcry began to swell, the government also announced the boys were accused of raping a 13 year-old boy, although human rights campaigners have questioned these claims. According to some protestors, Iran is now hunting other boys named by the two executed, in a bid to “stamp out” homosexuality in the country.
G, we've seen folks like this before, they are our own liberals
who in order to feel proud of Canada
and smug in their moral superiority
need to denigrate the US.
This fellow is the flip side of the same coin
and surely with a friend like him who needs enemies.
BUMP!
You finally admitted it.
Are you Jay the Socialist, or are you Joe, showing your ugly anti-semetic self again?
*HUGS*
semetic = semitic
Wow, kanawa, you sure have a warped view of me.
I'm not interested in the time of day from your type either, because you know what time it is for you? Too late.
Hi fanfan,
"Some conservative immigration measures? You mean they built that fence on your southern border? Bank of Amigo credit cards for illegals? Restaurants accepting Pesos as legal tender?"
Strange argument you're making here, I'm afraid. The Congress did approve a measure to build 700 miles of fencing last year, yes, but I wasn't referring to that. I was mainly referring to some proposals/ballot initiatives approved in Arizona. For instance, Proposition 102 (approved with 74% of the vote) would "prohibit a person who wins a civil lawsuit from receiving punitive damages if the person is present in this state in violation of federal immigration law related to improper entry."
AZ Proposition 300 passed with 71% of the vote and provides "that in accordance with the federal Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, a person who is not a United States citizen or legal resident and who does not otherwise possess lawful immigration status in this country may not be classified as an in-state student or county resident for community college or state university tuition purposes." The measure also included many other restrictions on illegal immigrants. Also, another measure passed with 74% of the vote that made English the official language in Arizona. This is what I was referring to.
Your highlights on 'some states rejected attempts' and 'one state approved an advisory referendum' are puzzling. I was speaking holistically of many measures approved. What is your point? My point is that all across the nation, in separate states and on separate issues, social conservatism did remarkably well, with some exceptions. I know some liberal-leaning measures were approved in some places, too, but I think conservatism got the lion's share.
"Approved a referendum? Almost defeated? Wow, I'm in awe."
Strikingly weak point, I'm afraid, because you're highlighting only a couple of the points raised. I don't think it's unremarkable that a substantial majority of voters approving a pro-death penalty referendum in a state with a 'progressive' tradition like Wisconsin. The point I was making in reference to Missouri's embryonic stem cell research initiative was that the measure was originally expected to pass with ease, like with 65% or 70% of the vote, because it's regarded as being on the periphery of the pro-life movement and many pro-life politicans supported the measure. Yet, after an intense campaign from pro-lifers, it passed by a razor-thin 51%-49%. That's remarkable, because it means that abortionists will probably think twice before they present these measures in the future, thinking they'll pass in a heartbeat. It's even more impressive when you consider that Missouri's electorate is hardly the nation's most conservative.
"You seem to hold gay marriage up as the one important factor in being a conservative, so lets do a little navel gazing, OK?"
Navel gazing? Ahem. The reason I use this yardstick is that it's such a high profile way of viewing the progress of global liberalism in the world today. Unfortunately for your side of the debate, though, the stories you chose to highlight were obviously gathered very cursorily because they don't state what you actually think they do.
Let's have a deeper look:
"BOSTON (AP) -- The group that spearheaded the push for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage has reset its sights on state legislatures, conceding it has little chance for success in a Democrat-controlled Congress."
This is an empty story because the FMA didn't have any chance of passage in the Republican-controlled Congress, either, because of the 2/3 requirements for a constitutional amendment prohibitive for any partisan legislation. Just so you understand, the cardinal reason the Dems oppose the FMA isn't because they support legalizing gay marriage, but because they claim that the 1996 DOMA is sufficient. Virtually all GOP members of Congress oppose gay marriage, but so do most of the Dems, including high-profile leaders like Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.
"The Rhode Island attorney general said that same-sex marriages performed in neighboring Massachusetts, the sole state where they are legal, should be recognized in Rhode Island. Responding to a request for a legal opinion from the commissioner of the Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education, Attorney General Patrick Lynch said Wednesday that the state prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation and did not explicitly prohibit same-sex marriage. ''Rhode Island will recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed in Massachusetts as marriages in Rhode Island,'' the seven-page opinion said. Lynch acknowledged that his word was just an opinion, without the force of law."
The scenario in Rhode Island is actually more complex than this. This attorney general, who is a liberal Democrat, is offering an opinion, which as the article states, is legally non-binding. The actual decision to legalize same-sex marriage is up to either the courts or the legislature and the governor. For years now, in spite of overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of the state legislature (and the fact that the state is one of the most Democratic in the nation) have blocked considering gay marriage, thanks to heavy opposition on both sides of the aisle. However, even if the legislature did approve it (which would be very surprising), the state's GOP Governor Donald Carcieri opposes gay marriage and would almost certainly veto it. This development by Lynch is concerning but by no means legalizes gay marriage in the state of Rhode Island in a broad way. Note that this happened in Rhode Island, one of the nation's most liberal states, and not in conservative states like Texas or Alabama.
"A Chicago Democrat wants Illinois to be the second state to legalize gay marriages. State Rep. Greg Harris plans to introduce legislation Thursday that will permit same-sex couples to get married. Although four states recognize civil unions among gays, only Massachusetts provides for gay marriages."
This is just a media flare story. First of all, it's important to realize that Greg Harris, a liberal Democrat from Chicago, is openly gay and HIV-positive. He hardly represents even mainstream Illinois Democratic politics. Few people expect this legislation to pass any time soon, even though the Dems enjoy absolute power in Illinois. Even the state's leading homosexual activist Rick Garcia says: "I cautioned people—don't start planning a June wedding in Illinois, it's going to take awhile for us to get the support legislatively."
"TALLAHASSEE - Gov. Charlie Crist dampened a controversial effort to constitutionally ban gay marriage Tuesday, saying the Republican Party of Florida should not give money to help the effort. Prior to Crist's November election, the party gave $300,000 to Florida4Marriage.org in late 2005 and 2006 in the group's unsuccessful petition drive to get the ban on the statewide ballot last year. That made the Republican Party the largest contributor to the group that has collected about $430,000 as it now aims for the 2008 election. Crist first said on Tuesday that he thinks the party should spend its money on other things,.."
Governor Charlie Crist isn't America's most conservative Republican governor for sure, but, as you link states further down, he was a signatory on the amendment that he's suggest the GOP not spend any more money on. Naturally, he's playing politics, but not because he supports gay marriage but because he wants to avoid getting too involved in wedge politics in a state that already has a DOMA. However, he's on record as opposing gay marriage, though he's a bit softer on other gay rights, though he's on record as supporting the state's ban on gay adoption, too. Be aware, however, that the chances of any gay rights legislation are slim in the nation's fourth most populous state thanks to the heavy Republican majorities in the Florida legislature. Arnold Schwarzenegger also vacillates on gay rights a bit, but he has vetoed and vowed to again veto gay marriage legislation.
Your last story, I know, is intended to be insulting to me. Therefore, I know that you really don't intend for me to respond to it. I won't make a big deal out of it, though I know that there would be a great opportunity to discuss how the Canadian government seems to really like Muslim immigrants.
If you need any more elaboration, tips or links on these issues, please let me know.
"Oscar ratings down in Canada
Mon Feb 26, 8:46 PM ET
TORONTO (Hollywood Reporter) - The Oscar telecast was the most-watched TV event in Canada this season, according to ratings data issued Monday.
In the United States, the show averaged 39.9 million viewers, up from 38.8 million last year,"
Missed this one - LOL. Actually, I wanted to give you a couple of links of some conservative happenings in America of late, just to fill you in a bit of what I'm getting at, though this really hardly scratches the surface of things that have transpired over the past couple years:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/23/news/sandiego/16_01_562_22_07.txt
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070212/NEWS01/70212053
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/02/14/news/state/72-legigay.txt
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/special_packages/renewal/long_beach/16778904.htm
http://www.kget.com/news/state/story.aspx?content_id=5a55dfbe-8d42-48d4-b08a-38623f5e3684
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0227/p25s01-usju.html
I've got lots more, but I think that will do for now.
Best wishes,
Princip. Conservative
Wrong as usual. Try again, baby! I still maintain that ya'll sure are touchy.
No secret evidence? No indefinite imprisonment without charges? How Un-American.
"Wrong as usual. Try again, baby! I still maintain that ya'll sure are touchy."
Wow, you sure got that right.
I can tell.
The Congress did approve a measure to build 700 miles of fencing last year, yes, but I wasn't referring to that.
There seem to be quite a few people entering through that 700 mile "measure" of a fence.
Very conservative of the US to allow almost 15k undocumented 'people' across your southern border every day.
I think that's terrible. Frightening, actually.
I cheer for every conservative victory in the US, and I am not about to get into a contest of links with you.
Strikingly weak point, I'm afraid, because you're highlighting only a couple of the points raised.
My point is weak because I highlighted some of the points you made? Huh?
I disagree with what I perceive to be your premise, which I believe could be summed up like this.......
'Canada and Canadians are the worst neighbours America could ever have hoped for. Hate Canadians because they are not Americans.'
This is a conservative forum, and you are not contributing to very much with this kind of behavior.
If most people held conservative values, we wouldn't even need to discuss this.
Since we do, perhaps us conservatives should support each other?
"I can tell."
Now, why in the world would you highlight something like that? 'I'm afraid' is a very common phrase in the English language and when used colloquially has nothing to do with fear. You know this but are being testy. But since you highlighted it and just for the record, I'm not 'afraid' in the fearful sense. Why should I?
"There seem to be quite a few people entering through that 700 mile "measure" of a fence."
The fence hasn't been built yet.
"Very conservative of the US to allow almost 15k undocumented 'people' across your southern border every day.
I think that's terrible. Frightening, actually."
Like I've made abundantly clear in this thread and others, America is not perfect and we have our problems. One need only look at places like Massachusetts or Vermont to find liberal stuff and immigration on the southern border is one of our very serious problems.
"I cheer for every conservative victory in the US, and I am not about to get into a contest of links with you."
I appreciate that - I really do. My point of showing all the links of conservative things happening in the US is to debunk the spirit expressed in this thread that there's not much difference between Canada and the US. This is false. Even since I last posted, there was something that happened in the State of Hawaii where the state legislature killed a civil unions bill. I'm not going to get into the details there, but the point I've been repeatedly making is that there are lots of high-profile conservative things happening on a regular basis in the United States. This does not mean that no liberal things happen in the US or that we don't have our problems. My point has consistently been that it's deeply troubling that it's exceedingly rare to read of even one such headline or report (not just from the news media) of similar things happening in Canada. That's what should be really frightening to you.
"'Canada and Canadians are the worst neighbours America could ever have hoped for. Hate Canadians because they are not Americans.'"
My premise is not to hate Canada or Canadians, but to see Canada for what it is - and that's an extremely flawed nation that has been seriously and dangerously weakened through runaway liberalism.
"If most people held conservative values, we wouldn't even need to discuss this.
Since we do, perhaps us conservatives should support each other?"
We wouldn't need to discuss this if most people held conservative values because then Canada would be conservative!
But I agree conservatives should support each other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.