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

LifeSiteNews ^ | 5/9/06 | John Jalsevac

[fanfan]

I'm sorry I thought I had a good answer in my previous response to you.

Nice to hear you apologize for your failure to address the issues you brought up.

I am sure the posse must be a fun thing.

The posse thing again.

Just because several people believe you are overwhelmingly fixated on one subject, and some of us happen to be from Canada, does not make us a posse. We ping each other occasionally to let each other know what is happening.

My primary purpose, in the political sense, for joining FR was my anger over some conservatives total disrespect of GWB on the illegal immigration issue.

That is a bald faced lie. You haven't been discussing politics with anyone, you've only been casting blame.

The majority of your posts have been on literal scripture, and gay mounties in Canada.
Refute that!

What are your solutions to these problems?

The topics you've posted on since joining are mostly bible related, with a good bit of homophobia.

First, remember just how much self righteous crap has come out of Canada that has been uncooperative with and critical of the US.

First remember that Canada has been ruled by a liberal/socialist party for 13 years, and the Canadian people have voted the thieves out of power.

Second, don't take it personally when someone says Canada has an image problem, you do.

What makes you think I'm taking it personally?
It's your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

I am smart enough to take the opinion from where it comes, and discount it accordingly.

Third, don't expect you get a free pass just because you have changed administrations, let's wait and see what the new administration does, people have memories.

One would require KNOWLEDGE before one can remember.

You might want to see how we Canadian FReepers fought, for years, to achieve a Canadian Conservative government.

This is Jim's house. A wonderful place for conservatives to discuss life, game plans, and how great the world can be. I don't see you contributing in any way to this end.

Fourth, don't expect that everyone is going to like you.

You don't like me? I guess I'm shattered.

...and maybe you never get to know what others may be thinking.

I wish I would take Rush Limbaugh's advice.....never argue with an idiot.

[Tax-chick]

Oh, that was excellent!

[fanfan]

Thanks TC.

:-)

I am so sick of trolls.

[spatso]

"I went a step further to very patiently (IMHO) explain (more than once) the likely strategy behind dealing with it."

This is true. It was interesting and for a moment I thought you were a little less goofy than some of the other posse members. So, I did a search and found a different conclusion on the likely success of the strategy. I clearly asked you who was right and you launched an attack on me for misrepresenting the information. I had given you the source and had no doubt you would look at it. I have no idea why you were so upset. I actually thought you were more upset with the guy who wrote the opinion piece, but apparently not.

[spatso]

"That is a bald faced lie. You haven't been discussing politics with anyone, you've only been casting blame."

You sir have misrepresented the truth. Please consider the following post as a reflection of my political thought. I will deal with the slander of some of your other comments when I finish supper.

To: coconutt2000
"How do you propose to solve the problem while remaining within the confines of the Constitution, statutory laws, and conservative principles of limited government?"

I think you have asked the right question. I would have added the notion of "conservative principles of free enterprise and limited government." As the days go by I think the President has a winner in this plan. Most of the opposition to the plan sounds petulant and irritating. Opposition to the President is grounded in the simple belief that it is important to do whatever is necessary to send or make them go away. This righteous posture fails to grasp there is probably an equal size group who regardless of circumstances wants to have everybody, already here and coming, to be able to stay.
My guess is the majority of Americans disagree with the simplistic thinking of both those positions. They want to do what is right and fair. Therefore, the President has proposed an elegant plan for a really complex matter. If, for example, you have two people. Suppose one is hardworking, honest and a positive contributor to society, the other is a thief and a criminal. One side of the debate wants to send them both back, the other extreme says they should both stay. The President is saying it is not that simple. The American people steeped in their tradition of fairness occupy the middle ground. They will endorse the President's plan. They know that one is given the opportunity to stay. The other must leave.

128 posted on 05/25/2006 5:04:34 AM PDT by spatso

[Tax-chick]

Trolls make us all cranky. You can use James' picture if you want :-).

[GMMAC]

"I have no idea why you were so upset. I actually thought you were more upset with the guy who wrote the opinion piece, but apparently not."

I'm 'upset' because:

A. Upon examination & considered in it's entirety, your source didn't support what seems to be your point.

B. Your blase' (disingenuous?) assumption that all on the thread would check it out to find the stated conclusion about a Canadian issue was at least half justified via American sources.

Yes, a supposed self-proclaimed conservative employing dishonest debating tactics with other conservatives is worse to me than the self-serving prattlings of yet another homosexual apologist and/or activist.

Why?
Because I'm not a moral relativist.
(ask a Priest should you require further explanation of the above)

[fanfan]

LOL!

[spatso]

"The topics you've posted on since joining are mostly bible related, with a good bit of homophobia."

That sir is also a misrepresentation. I make no apologies for my love of the Bible, I have a degree in theology from a Catholic University. However, the comment on homophobia is clearly desperate on your part. My only comment on the morality of gay marriage is noted below.


To: Mr. Silverback
I had a conversation with my wife about the initiative to deal with gay marriage. She said that the gay marriage debate is an attempt to change the focus away from the immigration debate. She also said that gay marriage was never a threat to our marriage. She said that the biggest and only threat to our marriage had been my drinking (a few years ago). She said if Congress was serious about doing something about threats to the family they should look at alcoholism, drugs, absent fathers, violence and abuse. My wife does not have a great passion for politics so it surprised me how angry she was about the gay marriage initiative.

87 posted on 06/05/2006 2:57:05 PM PDT by spatso
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[spatso]

"B. Your blase' (disingenuous?) assumption that all on the thread would check it out to find the stated conclusion about a Canadian issue was at least half justified via American sources."

I made no such assumption. I was clear, I assumed that you would look at it, I gave you the reference. As to the inadequacy of the opinion I do not have enough knowledge about the strategy to arrive at that conclusion.

[King Prout]

wow.
I think this is the first time I've seen you tear someone a new gastroenterotic outlet.
well done.

[spatso]

"The majority of your posts have been on literal scripture,"

Nothing could be further from the truth. Literal scripture implies a rigid dogmatic interpretation of scripture. My experience involves the study of sacred message and mystery in scripture. The posting below is about as far removed as you can get from a literal application of scripture.


To: HarleyD
"We only know that all things happens for our good. Regardless of whether good or evil takes place, we are to bless the name of the Lord."

I would have thought the meaning had more to do with Job teaching us how we can speak to God in the face of human suffering. Job's responds to his trials by invoking a broad range of rhetorical styles. He invokes popular faith, silence, doubt, theological notions as well as prayer including prophetic, charismatic and, even, mystical speech. In the end, God only rejects the interventions of his two friends but accepts each and every one of Jobs interventions, "for not speaking truthfully as my servant Job has done." (42:7) God rejects the language of the scholarly interventions but, accepts Job's honest language of the heart.
I think on the question of the meaning of Job's suffering God remains incredibly silent. One can only conclude that suffering is a part of life.

8,030 posted on 06/07/2006 10:47:00 AM PDT by spatso

[Fair Go]

Let's be honest. There are homosexuals in every society. As I recall up to 10% of any population is possibly homosexual. As for a Mountie being homosexual - so what! Rugby League is a pretty tough form of football. Some years ago one of our leading players came out. Did they kick him off the team? Of course not. While I think it inappropriate and politically unwise for gay people to encroach on traditional marriage, I think they are entitled to the right to act as each others next of kin etc and to have their relationships recognised through some form of civil union. In the past gay people occupied all sorts of positions and no doubt there were some in the RCMP and the FBI. However, unlike today, society did not know about it. Gay people did not come out. As for people who would continue to persecute gay people, perhaps they should remember what Christ said about throwing the first stone. If conservatism is to thrive and prosper, it must show some compassion.

[Fair Go]

I should have added that I find offensive the conduct of some of the radical homosexual groups. There is no need to march naked down the street to display 'gay pride'. That is blatant exhibitionism. However, such groups do not represent all homosexuals and more than the far left represent all Americans, all Canadians, or all Australians......

[kanawa]

Well said, Fair Go

[Heartofsong83]

If there was a referendum on the issue, the gay activists would get trounced in almost every part of Canada. That is why they are fighting tooth and nail against such.

[Heartofsong83]

We need her as a candidate in the next election in one of the three London seats held by the opposition.

[Fair Go]

I have no doubt. I think it was very foolish of them to encroach on traditional marriage and it seems they have adopted a very aggressive approach.

[fanfan]

The posting below is about as far removed as you can get from a literal application of scripture.

You were discussing Job's life, and you think it's not literal?

What point are you trying to make?

[spatso]

"That is blatant exhibitionism. However, such groups do not represent all homosexuals and more than the far left represent all Americans, all Canadians, or all Australians......"

I agree. I have never had an issue with gay Mounties as such. I have an issue with gay Mounties being allowed to take over your political agenda. I have an issue that Canada is being colored gay by the rest of the world. The notion that somehow I have created this issue is bizarre at best. I suspect if you looked deeply into all areas of social policy, especially health care, Canada is probably doing better than the US. But, today, social policy has to take a back seat to security, immigration and the war on terrorism. Personally, I don't think gay marriage is appropriate because it offends several thousand years of religious tradition. I don't dispute gay unions and unions extend everything (legally) that marriage does. Like you, I think the outrageous displays of gay pride are really inappropriate, but that is their mistake. If the purpose of the parades is merely to attract attention I fear they are working as I am more inclined to watch and laugh at the outrageousness of their displays.