|
Harper...insulting cheap shot artist (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Spam |
| What was so uncalled for in those comments? They're historical fact. What's so offensive? If anything I'd be pissed at the Liberal party for not apologizing for their shortcomings in the past, while at the same time labeling anyone who disagrees with them as being against human rights. What's worse? The hypocrite, or the one who calls on the hypocrite to own up to the fact? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
It's the cultural groups who are especially outraged...I could care less what the Liberals themselves think about it. If I was a Jewish descendent of someone refused entry into Canada prior to WWII, I'd be *livid* at such a callous, irrational comparison to the gay marriage debate. |
Livid, why? Other than the fact that the comments that the Liberals and the Star were ting their pants over was about 10 words out of 10 page speech, is there something wrong with telling the truth?
I find no indication in Harper's speech that he was "equating" Japanese internment or anti-semitic immigration policies to the gay marriage issue. Those tactics are for the Lieberals. Since they are so infuriatingly intent on being on their high horse and arguing on the basis of moral superiority, he just used those examples to take them down a few pegs, which I think was not only an acceptable tactic but also much-deserved on behalf of the Liberals.
And the Liberals' response was shameful. But then, I guess 30 years of being unaccountable for their actions will do that. I don't think they *ever* truly made amends for those things, so I'm sure they aren't about to start doing it now... |
|
|
| MarkT |
um...it's not a debate on historical fact...it's that it's completely irrelevant to the issue...and extremely insulting to compare those situations to the present time.
If Martin had said that, he'd be getting ripped by some of you right now (you know who you are ;) ) |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
um...it's not a debate on historical fact...it's that it's completely irrelevant to the issue...and extremely insulting to compare those situations to the present time.
|
The debate SHOULD be about historical fact. For perhaps 10,000 years marriage served us well. Now the Lieberals want to forget all about our history and traditions. They've done that MANY times before. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
um...it's not a debate on historical fact...it's that it's completely irrelevant to the issue...and extremely insulting to compare those situations to the present time.
If Martin had said that, he'd be getting ripped by some of you right now (you know who you are ;) ) |
The time period we're referring to is hardly "historical", and I think that makes all the difference here. It's pretty much the same Liberal party now as the party that did those things in the past, and I personally don't believe that they've changed or "grown up".
I'll repeat once again: If the Liberals (or anyone else, in any debate) is going to use morality as their primary argument, then it automatically opens the door to questions about their own moral character. The issues harper brought up were fair game specifically BECAUSE of the Liberals' tactics.
If I'm constantly telling you that you're bigoted and immoral because of some opinion you hold, I think you'd have every right to bring up my own bigotry and immorality (speaking in hypotheticals of course). And since the LPC loves so much to throw around words like bigot, racist, homophobe, etc., it makes perfect sense to highlight how the LPC in the past were bigots toward the Jews and the Japanese. It's not ABOUT the Jews or the Japanese themselves - it's about the Liberals!
The Liberals' own record of bigotry in the past has all the relevance in the world when they're levelling charges of bigotry against someone else. There is absolutely NO basis for being offended by those tiny 10 words of his thousand-word speech - this has NOTHING to do with debating historical fact and NOTHING to do with trivializing the tragedies of the past. This has to do with exposing hypocrisy where it clearly exists. |
|
|
| MarkT |
sorry DigiNut...again, I'm saying that's irrelevant to the issue at hand. (and WWII was 60 years ago...it's hardly the same gov't ;) )
the gay marriage debate has nothing to do with morality...let me correct myself...it *ought* to have nothing to do with morality, yet only many opponents of it (eg. various religious organizations) are trying to bring morality into the debate.
this is simply an issue of equality under the law...and in a liberal (small l), progressive society, there should be more of a laissez-faire attitude *if* the topic at hand doesn't affect you, regardless of your personal thoughts on the issue.
I've said this over and over again...and NO ONE has offered a compelling counter. One does not need to support, agree with, condone, etc. gay marriage...or even homosexuality in general...they're just being asked to allow this legislation to pass. If you think it's immoral, disgusting, etc....THAT'S FINE. What's NOT fine, is actively oppposing it on those grounds because that is nothing more than imposing your own beliefs, morality, etc. onto others.
in the context of this thread...Harper had no business bringing up those topics...irrelevant and insensitive. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
The funny part is that the left thinkers are always quick to slam the right for "imposing their believes" when that is exactly what left wingers do themselves. Also ironic is that left wingers berate religious christian people for intolerence. Meanwhile if half of what left wing people said about christians were said by a conservative about any other minority then they would be labelled a racist, homophobe, mysoginist, (insert buzzword here).
The fact is that what Harper said is absolutely no different than the tactics that the Liberals have been using to smear the right for years.
I dont support these tactics by anyone but its hardly credible for the Liberals to get on their high horse about this after all the sleaze they have been slinging themselves.
And for the record. Harper is right. The gay marriage vote is going to severly test the patience of the religious vote. And that religious vote includes ALL religions including the immigrant vote that the Liberals love to pander to. This could be the thing that finally takes down the Liberals. |
|
|
| MarkT |
who's getting on their high horse?
it was the cultural groups themselves who were critical of Harper's comments.
all I'm saying is that his comments were irrelevant and insensitive...and that people need to stop avoiding the ISSUE AT HAND by pointing to past events, morality, religion, etc.
this is about legalizing gay marriage and extending equality under the law (something already possessed by gays in most other contexts). If opponents to the proposed laws can't debate the issue on it's merits alone, then to me that illustrates how fundamentally weak and/or shortsighted their position truly is. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
Just as leaders of my country dont speak for me, i think many leaders for "cultural groups" dont speak for them either. Lets face it. Most immigrants are much more highly religious than the average canadian. Now, show me a religion that condones gay relations?
Im not a religious person. But im just pointing out the hypocrisy being shown by the left about harper and his position. May i further add that Harper supports gay unions being recognized by law. He just does not support it being called marriage. This is the way most people feel who are "against" gay marriage. If semantics is the only thing in the way then whats the big deal? Gays get their rights and religious people feel that their way of life is also protected. Tolerance works both ways. That is something that left wingers never seem to get.
I personally dont care because like you said it wont change the world. But obviously a lot of religious people DO care. I think civil unions are a fair comprimise. Let that ride for a while and if the need arises in the future to change it to marriage then change it then.
After all, San Francisco wasnt built in a day! |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
it was the cultural groups themselves who were critical of Harper's comments.
|
which ones? The Lieberal-friendly lobby groups set up to extract favours from the Party?
The vast majority of new immigrants are far more socially conservative than Canadian-borns.
| quote: |
this is about legalizing gay marriage and extending equality under the law (something already possessed by gays in most other contexts). |
A gay "marriage" can NEVER be equal to a straight marriage. Marriage has a special role - produce and raise chlidren to be productive members of society.
| quote: |
If opponents to the proposed laws can't debate the issue on it's merits alone, then to me that illustrates how fundamentally weak and/or shortsighted their position truly is. |
The entire Lieberal argument:
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler: "A right is a right is a right."
http://www.mcgilltribune.com/news/2...te-847123.shtml |
|
|
| nycionx |
| blah blah blah bull |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Just as leaders of my country dont speak for me, i think many leaders for "cultural groups" dont speak for them either. Lets face it. Most immigrants are much more highly religious than the average canadian. Now, show me a religion that condones gay relations? |
the point (again, it's being missed) is that it's not the Liberals who are being critical...so where does the "liberal high horse" crap come from?
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Im not a religious person. But im just pointing out the hypocrisy being shown by the left about harper and his position. May i further add that Harper supports gay unions being recognized by law. He just does not support it being called marriage. This is the way most people feel who are "against" gay marriage. If semantics is the only thing in the way then whats the big deal? Gays get their rights and religious people feel that their way of life is also protected. Tolerance works both ways. That is something that left wingers never seem to get. |
that argument can just as easily be turned around on the opponents though...if it's just a matter of semantics, than why not just call it what it is...a marriage? ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
I personally dont care because like you said it wont change the world. But obviously a lot of religious people DO care. I think civil unions are a fair comprimise. Let that ride for a while and if the need arises in the future to change it to marriage then change it then.
After all, San Francisco wasnt built in a day! |
point being...that's the religious groups' problem. It doesn't affect them *at all*...marriage isn't even necessarily a religious ceremony anymore, it still has to be recognized by the state to be legal, and you can get married at city hall. I fully respect religious groups' stance on homosexuality, but they have ZERO business being involved in a LEGAL matter.
Chruches are upset at their declining numbers and their loss of influence...that's my opinion. They're caught between a rock and a hard place...they can't "condone" homosexuality, because that goes against their teachings...but if they oppose it too openly, they risk alienating new generations of people who see their views (on other issues too) as outdated and not keeping up with the evolution of our society.
It's a tough spot...I really don't see them serving their best interests, or the interests of their members, by loudly decrying these laws. They end up looking silly. We all agree that this isn't going to change much for the average Canadian...so why don't the opponents shut up about it?
again...no replies...why is this a problem for people whom it does not affect? no reply will come again, I'm sure...I love this "debate" where the opponents will debate ANYTHING BUT the actual issue itself, LMAO. |
|
|
|
|
