The conservative running for PM in Canada is a FUNDIE

[Joanne98]

And he has a chance of winning. Please Canadians don't put a fundie in charge of your country. The fundies will destroy Canada just like they destroyed us. George Bush is a fundie. Do you want him to have more influence in your country. HELL NO!!!!!!!!!! The election is June 28th. Let's help our fellow Canadian DUers save Canada from the "CHRISTIAN MENACE". Here's some websites to start with.
http://www.yuricareport.com
http://www.raputureready.com

You don't have much time. Alert the Canadians to the danger their in.
Stop the 'CHRISTIAN MENACE". Save Canada............

[GOPBasher]

1. How the hell does he have a chance of winning?

Canada is much more liberal than we are. The conservatives there are pretty much like the Democrats here. I have a hard time believing this. I don't think Canadians would elect a fundie.

[Minstrel Boy]

10. Here's my answer, and my expectation:

Harper is simply lucky to be benefiting from voters' Liberal fatigue. This is Martin's first election as PM, but the Liberals are trying for a fourth consecutive majority government. That's stretching their luck.

Harper is naturally playing to the middle, soft-peddling his extremism, because he knows Canadians are, on the issues, left of centre. (Look at the polling data below.) His lead is soft, and the Conservative numbers may have peaked. And the numbers are simply not there for a Conservative majority. Their popularity has stalled in the low 30s. The Liberals are 2-4 points behind, and the NDP are about 10 points back of the Liberals.

The French debate is tonight, and the English tomorrow. I don't think Martin will fare well. If the NDP's Jack Layton fares as well as I expect, the post-debate polls will be interesting to see. If Liberal support drops into the 20s, and the NDP shows momentum, there could be a cascading erosion of the left/liberal vote to the New Democrats.


The Toronto Star, June 12:
Contradictions revealed in poll
Voters show attachment to issues identified with Liberals,
yet disaffection driving them to Conservatives, survey shows

Though the Conservatives now have the lead and the momentum, with 34 per cent support against the Liberals' 30 per cent, the poll also shows significant voter attachment to issues closer to the platforms of Prime Minister Paul Martin and even the New Democratic Party.

"There is little sense that the country will be better under Harper-Conservative rule. In fact, most see the possibility of a Conservative government as weakening key areas of Canadian achievement," EKOS president Frank Graves says. "In essence, what we are seeing is disaffection with the Liberals overwhelming wariness of the Conservatives."

...

The preferred alliance in any future minority government is one between the Liberals and the New Democrats, with 26 per cent of respondents saying this would be best for the country. Next favourite is a Conservative-NDP government, with 20 per cent — an apparent indication that Canadians would like to see the New Democrats hold the balance of power no matter which party gets the most seats.

...

"Surprisingly, Mr. Harper is not being viewed as the guy to clean house in Ottawa," Graves says. "Rather, he seems to be filling the vacuum caused by the air leaving Paul Martin's rapidly deflating balloon."
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1086991811253&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467

[ironflange]

75. You're correct

We're at the point where we usually turf the Libs out briefly for a stint with the Tories. That's the ONLY reason the Conservatives are polling as well as they are. Harper may get a minority, but he'll soon do something to piss of the Bloc and we'll be back at this next spring. Let's hope this happens before any big tax cuts and big deficits appear.

[Joanne98]

2. A guy from the Canadian public channel was just on C-SPAN

He said that. I think it was in the Globe and Mail. I'll try to find it.

[KharmaTrain]

5. Henry Champ From The CBC...A Very Good Reporter

I see him regularly on "The National"...the nightly CBC Newscast that is available here on some cable systems and on satellite by News World International...that's the network Al Gore just bought.

There was one caller that made me laugh...he mentioned how Canada needed a "godly man" as PM and one who supported Bunnypants. His fundamentalism oozed as he said that all media in Canada is Liberal and then said there was no "right wing"...and then decided to retract it saying "well right wing isn't really a good term to use". Hmmm...has the worm turned that far? Kudos to the Canadians who have been a beacon of sanity to those of us in the U.S. over the last few years.

Champ is a very good reporter and Peter Mansford is an excellent host/interviewer. I highly recommend checking out "The National"...a great counter-balance to anything the American networks show.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

92. I agree..

(but his name's Peter Mansbridge, and yes, he's the greatest!)

[Joanne98]

3. Another good "Christian Menace" website............

"The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States is a Christian nation."
Texas Republican Party Platform, 2002,

Here we are in the year 2004 and a small group of religious extremists have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. This web site demonstrates how we got here and how the media, even the progressive media is missing what is the most important story in modern American politics.

Please don't misunderstand the title: the Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party. This site is not about religion, nor about Christianity, nor about Republicans. This site is about how a small group of Republican strategists targeted a religious constituency to expand the base of their party, and how a small group of religious extremists targeted the Republican Party to bring the United States government under religious control.

http://www.theocracywatch.org
It doesn't take to amny fundies to get things done. There small but there a cult and they're very stealth and very effective. Look what they're doing to Texas. Wake up Canada.

[LittleApple81]

4. Is it true that TONY BLAIR is a fundie? I seem to remember that

it was mentioned that it was one of the reasons he and Bush get along so famously and have the same ideas about exporting their brand of "democracy". But to me Blair was supposed to be a liberal, and implemented liberal policies?

[Joanne98]

7. Yes the Fundies are there own secret cult.

They infiltrate political parties and organizations. They're very stealth. I doubt if the Canadian people even know that much about them. This is terrible.

[SidDithers]

12. We know what fundies are...

We're not exactly political neophytes up here, you know. We actually have an informed populace, and a much higher voter turn-out than the US.

Unless I'm just not catching your sarcasm...

Sid

[Minstrel Boy]

17. We know. We made merciless fun of the former leader

of the "Canadian Alliance" - now the Conservative Party, after a somewhat hostile takeover of its more moderate rival on the right - for doubting the age of the Earth and believing dinosaurs and human beings coexisted. I think he was followed on the campaign trail in 2000 by a guy in a Barney costume.

[Joanne98]

6. here's the article

Ottawa — Liberal MPs have urged Paul Martin to focus on re-establishing the Liberal Party's credibility in the televised leaders debates tonight and tomorrow night, but the Conservatives are plotting an aggressive strategy of their own in a bid to push Mr. Martin back on the defensive over a series of corruption scandals.
The two main contenders are locked in a close campaign in which Stephen Harper's Conservatives appear to have taken the lead, and the momentum for the remaining days of the race could be set in two debates -- two hours in French tonight and a two-hour English-language face-off tomorrow

http://www.globeandmail.com

[TrogL]

55. You should watch the debates - they're a hoot

None of these scripted affairs we see in the States.

The moderator puts on his flak jacket, asks a question then ducks out of the way as the debates spend the next 10 minutes screaming at each other. The closed caption guy tries to keep up then just posts "everybody talking at once".

[SidDithers]

8. The sky is not falling in Canada...

Yes, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives do stand a chance of forming the next government. But, there's still 2 weeks left in a very close campaign, and the televised leaders debate is coming up soon.

You have to understand something about Canadian politics. Every once in a while, the populace feels the need to turf out the existing government, just to keep everyone honest. That seems to be the sentiment right now. The Liberals have been in power for 12 (?) years, and there's a large portion of the population that feels the need to punish them for the impression that they've becoming arrogant and wasteful.

The Conservatives might form the next government, but I would be VERY surprised if they won enough seats for a Majortity government. A minority govenment, either Liberal or Conservative is much more likely. That's the joy of having a multi party system.

A minority Conservative government would not be able to do ANYTHING that would be considered socially conservative. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc (who, despite being Separatists, are still quite socially progressive) would all probably vote against it and the government would fall on a non-confidence vote.

A Liberal minority would probably have to be more liberal than they've been for the past number of years. In order to stay in government, they would need to ensure that the NDP and Bloc vote with them, and both the NDP and Bloc (at least in my opinion) are more "left" than the Liberals.

Sid

[trogdor]

11. Sounds like a well-functioning system to me.

I wonder if there's anything for techies to do in Kingston, ON.

[SidDithers]

16. Some more info...

Further to above.

Link to CBC info about upcoming election:
http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/

Including stories like this:
BQ would defeat Tory minority over abortion

Sid

[Spazito]

33. I agree with your take on it, I believe it will end with a minority...

Liberal government working with the NDP in order to get bills passed and to remain in power. We will be back at the polls within 18 months though, I have little doubt.

[terrya]

9. Stephen Harper the next PM? I simply don't believe it.

Ontario and Quebec would have to vote Conservative. Granted, some people in Ontario are pissed right now at Preimer McGuinty, but please.

[ironflange]

79. He can do it

Harper doesn't need Quebec for a minority, he just has to do reasonably well in Ontario and sweep the West. There's absolutely no chance of him winning a majority, not ever.

[outinforce]

13. "Christian Menace"???

You know, it seems to me that your post reads -- with one exception -- very much like the sorts of things I uded to head as a kid.

As a kid in the late 1950's and 1960's, I used to hear all the time about the "Red Menace" --- it was sometimes also called the "Communist Menace".

There were people who were just convinced the Communists were everywhere -- that they had infiltrated organizations, usually by "stealth", and that they were just waiting to spring into action.

These Communists that were everywhere wanted nothing more than to grab power and then to deny the rest of us our rights as Americans.

There was on Senator from Wisconsin who used the "Red Menance" as a particuarly effective means of destroying people and their careers.

[Spazito]

15. Fundamentalist faux "christians" are dangerous to a democracy...

as we see with bush and blair. True Christians do not act as these men do and Harper would be just like them. His party is extremist and will NOT win a majority government and will probably come in second.

[Joanne98]

19. How come the Globe and Mail article

Has Harper pulling out in front. I hope it's not true. But I never underestimate the fundies. They're extemely effective. The RW is using this money scandal. I bet you anything they're getting funding from the fundies down here. You can't be too careful.

[outinforce]

22. "Funding from Down Here"

Ooooohhhh, No.

Not fundie funding from outside Canada.

Oh, that would be just awful -- non-Canadians trying to influence the outcome of a Canadian election.

The very idea!

Perhaps the fundies down here (the ones that are supposedly trying to influence the outcome of a Canadian election) got the idea from a member of the Canadian Parliament who suggested that he would work very hard and lend his support to influence the outcome of the next US Presidential election.

[SidDithers]

24. Who dat?

"a member of the Canadian Parliament who suggested that he would work very hard and lend his support to influence the outcome of the next US Presidential election."

Any idea who this was?

Sid

[Joanne98]

28. Are you a fundie? Why are you defending them?

Would you like a George Bush clone for PM?

[outinforce]

36. I Was Waiting For This Question

It was a question that was often posed by those who trotted out the notion of a "Red Menace" during the "Red Scare" several years ago.

Those who were so hysterical about the "Red Menace" could not abide anyone who disagreed with their silly view of the world-- especially when it came to their view of the dangerous "Red Menace".

And so, they were quick to assume that anyone who did not see the world they way they did -- and who had the courage to say so -- was also a "Red" -- another member of the "Red Menace".

Why in the world would you think that I am a fundy?

And why in the world would you think that I would want a George Bush close for your PM?

[outinforce]

21. "Dangerous to a Democracy"

Ooooobhhh --- the big, bad, dangerous fundamentalist faux "Christians".

They are such a threat.

Whenever I hear this sort of thing, I am reminded of what the right wing has to say about progressive folks -- that progressive folks are "dangerous to a democracy" They like to use the "guil;t by association technique (Jones would be just like them). They sound hysterical to me.

[Spazito]

23. So I can assume you like what your fundie president is doing to...

your country, never mind what he is doing in Iraq?

[outinforce]

27. You Can Assume

You can assume whatever you want.

If you were to ask me, though, if I like the direction that Bush is taking our country, I would say no.

And if you were to ask me if I like his policies in the Middle East -- including Iraq -- I would also say no.

But why would you make an assumption, based upon what I have posted here, that I "like what" my "fundie president is doing to" my "country, never mind what he is doing in Iraq?

[Spazito]

30. When one defends extremism and their president practices

extremism, it seems appropriate to extrapolate from that the assumption that the same person would support their extremist president. Fundamentalist "Christians" are faux Christians and use their religion as a battering ram against the rights of others as we see bush doing to his own citizens and attempting to do it to other countries as well.

[Joanne98]

38. Interesting isn't he?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[outinforce]

39. You're In Canada, Right?

Isn't there some sort of "hate speech" law that you have up there?

Doesn't that law say that it is illegal to utter any speech that makes homosexuals feel bad?

I am gay, but I have to tell you that I consider that law to be extreme -- sort of ther result of people using their beliefs as a battering ram against the rights of others to speak freely.

And, please, do point out, if you will, exactly where I have defended extremism and the practices of the president of my country.

[Spazito]

46. I am very proud of our "hate crimes law", it is not a "hate speech"

law, only the fundies use the term "hate speech law",fyi. To protect against hate is something to be proud of, given you are gay one would think you would be glad to have a law that protects you from being beaten or killed solely because you are gay.

[outinforce]

50. A Gay WebSite Would Disagree

"only the fundies use the term "hate speech law",fyi"

I did not know that.

I'm sure the folks at gay365.com will be quite surprised to learn that they are fundies:

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/04/042804svendSpeech.htm

It sure looks to me as though the freedom of speech in Canada is not quite what it is here in the "fundie dominated" USA.

[Spazito]

58. ROFL, sorry, I am at a loss! We don't have the "Patriot Act" here...

and so I will take my freedoms very happily, thank you. Canada protects its' minorities and if that means that someone cannot incite violence against another without penalty, I am proud of that. Here is the actual law for your perusal:

Canadian Criminal Code Section 319


Public Incitement of Hatred

... / Wilful promotion of hatred / Defences / Forfeiture / Exemption from seizure of communication facilities / Consent / Definitions / "communicating" / "identifiable group" / "public place" / "statements".
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace if guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against and identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence undersection 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such convictions, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(7) In this section,

"communicating"
includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;
"identifiable group"
has the same meaning as in section 318 (i.e. any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin);
"public place"
includes any place to which the public have access as a right or by invitation, express or implied;
"statements"
includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electromagnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: Although at some of this section infringes the right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by section 2(b)of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms it has been ruled that it constitutes a reasonable limit on that right and is therefore valid legislation: R. v. Keegstra (1991), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 110, <1991> 4 W.W.R. 136, 79 Alta. L.R. (2d) 97 (C.A.).

TOP


Bill C-250 added sexual orientation to "identifiable group":





C-250
Third Session, Thirty-seventh Parliament,
52 Elizabeth II, 2004


house of Commons OF CANADA


BILL C-250


An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda)


AS PASSED BY THE HOUSE OF COMMONS FEBRUARY 2, 2004



























Summary
This enactment expands the definition “identifiable group” relating to the area of hate propaganda in the Criminal Code to include any section of the public distinguished by sexual orientation.





3rd Session, 37th Parliament,

52 Elizabeth II, 2004

House of Commons of Canada

Bill C-250







An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda)



R.S., c. C-46
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:


L.R., ch. C-46


1. Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:




Definition of “identifiable group”
(4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.



2. Paragraph 319(3)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

[outinforce]

62. Little By Little

That's how rights are taken away.

You say, "Canada protects its' minorities and if that means that someone cannot incite violence against another without penalty, I am proud of that."

But look at the text of the law you posted:

Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace if guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction."

See what it says?

You can be found guilty if you say something that does not actually incite violence. You can be found guilty is a judge rules that what you say "is likely to lead" to violence. So, you had better watch what you say. Not only can you not incite violence -- you cannot say something that "is likely to lead" to violence.

It gets worse.

"(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against and identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction."

Here, you can be found guilty simply by saying something that someone thinks is hateful. That's all it takes.

I esepcially enjoyed the "note" at the bottom of the law: "Note: Although at some of this section infringes the right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by section 2(b)of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms it has been ruled that it constitutes a reasonable limit on that right and is therefore valid legislation: R. v. Keegstra (1991), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 110, <1991> 4 W.W.R. 136, 79 Alta. L.R. (2d) 97 (C.A.)."

Big Brother in Canada will determine what rights Canadians have -- and will even tell Canadians that their rights to freedom of expression, as guaranteed in their own Charter can be "infringed".

You may not have the Patriot Act in Canada. But you seem quite comfortable with a government that is able to tell you and your fellow Canadians what is acceptable to say and what is not.

I feel sorry for the people of Canada.

[Spazito]

64. I see you left out the protections in your above post so I will post them.

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

[outinforce]

68. Thanks

It was, I suppose, good of the government of Canada to provide a means for its subjects to defend themselves against charges that they used their freedom of speech in inappropriate ways.

Still, one might have hoped that the Government of Canada would have trusted its own people instead of treating them like children and saying, "You can not say this, unless you say it for a reason that we approve of".

[Spazito]

71. And what does your "Patriot Act" say to the people of the United

States? I will take our Hate Crimes Act over your Patriot Act any day, thanks for your sympathy but I would suggest you save it for your own citizens when they can be arrested and sent to Gitmo without charges, tortured and murdered and all with the consent of the people, again, through your Patriot Act.

[outinforce]

73. You Do See My Point?

I really am sorry to have lectured you a bit about a law that your own country has.

I'm sure you didn't care to have some foreigned pointing out his observations about the laws of your country.

I don't really like it when some person who is foreign to the USA does it to me.

You do see my point, I trust.

[Spazito]

77. LOL

Apology accepted, it was a good debate!

[SidDithers]

66. Oh my, where to start....

Ah, nevermind. There's no point.

Wallow in your ignorance. Continue to feel sorry for us.

Sid

[outinforce]

70. Thanks

I was not aware that I was "wallowing" in ignorance.

I'm sure it feels good to live in a place where the government tells you what you can and cannot say, 'though I think that it probably does sting a bit when a foreigner points that out. (I nkow it always stings just a tad when folks from outside the USA try to tell me that I am noty really free).

I'm sure you are sincere when you ask me to continue feeling sorry for the fine folks of Canada. Please be assured that I am equally sincere when I say that I will.

[SidDithers]

76. You're Welcome..

See, we're polite as well as in need of your pity. Now, as you said in post #43:

"Here's a suggestion -- why don't you tend to your garden, and we'll tend to ours?"

Sid

[Cheswick2.0]

26. some fundamentalist are a threat to democracy

Christian reconstructionists/ Dominionists.

[Joanne98]

18. I did that on purpose.

The fundies are a MENACE. It's a good way to call attention to them. They are sooooooooo STEALTH. It's hard to get the spotlight on them. Maybe the meme "Christian Menace" will work. Anyway I'm not going to argue about it. Anybody who doesn't know how evil they are hasn't been paying attention. Read the Yurica Report before you complain.
http://www.yuricareport.com

There's NO doubt they're a menace. A big dangerous menace.

[outinforce]

25. It's Effective, I'll Give You That

It most certainly is an effective way to demonize those with whom you disagree. The right wing perfected the technique back in the late 1940's and the 1950's.

It was called the "Red Scare" back then.

It, too, called attention to a "menace".

It, too, said that that menace operated with stealth (It's always a good idea to build up distrust of everyone).

It, too, used "guilt by assoication".

It, too, said that those with whom they disagreed were "evil".

It, too, said that those who refused to believe in the "menace" were idiots who were j ust not paying attention.

It, too, said that there was "no doubt" about the danger of the menace.

It, too, was on a crusade to rid the world of this menace.

Sen. McCarthy used this technique most effectively.

He had his supporters were, I am sure, truly surprized when people asked them if they had no shame.

[Joanne98]

42. I didn't know you were such a fundie lover.

Why don't you explain why fundies AREN'T A THREAT and quit focusing on the language. Your splitting hairs. The fundies want to create a theocracy in the US that means: executing gays, executing women who have abortions, destroying the public school system, waging a "HOLY WAR" in the middle east just to mention a few of their plans. I suppose wanting to "execute sinners" is not menacing to you?

[outinforce]

45. "Fundie Lover"????

Are you in the habit of tossing personal attacks at other people on DU?

Why would you say that I am a "fundie lover"??

Your comments about the fundies and what they want to do here sound not so much different from the sorts of things we were told that the Communists wanted to do -- they wanted to have only one falvor of ice cream (vanilla). And they wanted to force children to denounce their own parents. And they wanted to execute anyone who prayed. And they wanted to do all sorts of evil, terrible things.

They had plans. Menacing plans. And people were asked "I suppose wanting to destroy your choice in the flavor of ice cream is not menacing to you?" (The implied message, of course, being 'If you don't agree with me about the menace, then you are an idiot').

[Joanne98]

61. It seems to me

That everytime I start a fundie thread I start getting attacked. Not by people who want to debate the issue but by people who get offended at my use of language. I'm coming to the conclusion that their just trying to get my threads pulled. In fact one of my threads did get pulled because of two words in it. I'm going to be more careful with my words from now on, making sure I use the word "fundie" instead of Christian BUT since the "fundies" are Bush's BIGGEST voting block I think it's perfectly appropiate to bash fundies on this web site. I find it curious that anyone finds that offensive. John Asscroft is a fundie, Tom Delay is a fundie, George W. Bush is a fundie. I think we have enough fundies in the GOP to considered them a legitamite target.
I'm not talking about REAL christians, I'm talking about FAKE christians. Leo Strauss christians. Everybody on this board who's paid attention knows this is a problem. I don't think I should have to defend my threads. I apologize to all the REAL christians on this board it I offended you. But, I'm not backing down on this subject. the fundies ARE a MENACE.

[outinforce]

65. Really?

"I don't think I should have to defend my threads."

If you will excuse me for saying so, I think you may have found part of the reason why some folks question your threads.

At the outset, let me say that I have no desire to have your thtread pulled.

But it does seem to me that this thread, at least, begins with a premise that I found disturbing.

I was disturbed not so much by the word "Christian" but more by the word "menace".

That word, for me at least, says that people who have a different view of the world, or whose politics are different are a "menace". I find that use of words like that are not really useful in poilitcal discussions, since once a word like that gets introduced into a discussion, it becomes a word that any group can use against people with whom they disagree.

You wish to call fundies a "menace". Fundies wish to call liberals a "menace". Pretty soon, every one will call every other group a "menace".

You yourself questioned me -- simply because I said that I found the use of the word "menace" objectionable - -like what the right wing did during the '50's -- if I was a fundy.

You were so convinced that there was a menace that you were not really able to see the point that I was trying to make.

You did not think you had to defend your position -- you thought that it was completely self-evident.

I might suggest that the entire process of having to defend one's postion is often very healthy. It compels a person to examine what they have said and to question if it might not be so self-evident (or true) as they once thought it was.

You might want to give that a try.

This is not an "attack" only a suggestion.

[Joanne98]

78. People don't question my threads

FIRST OFF. Only a small but vicious minority who seem to come out of the woodwork everytime I post a fundie thread.
SECOND You still have not addressed whether the fundies are a menace or not. You're just complaining about the language and the word menace because the NAZIs used it in the 50's. Just because they were lying doesn't mean I am.
The question is are the fundies a menace or not. You still haven't addressed this point. If the fundies AREN'T a menace please state why.
Otherwise your just making a big deal about one word in my thread.
Are the fundies a menace or not. Yes or No/ If No please explain why.
I think since the fundies are the GOP's most dedicated voting block you would at least have to agree that they are a menace to the Democratic Party's effort to get John Kerry elected. The fundies HATE Kerry if you haven't noticed. Therefore the fundies are a menace to our efforts. If you can't agree with that than you must care more about fundies than getting Bush out of office in November. If I'm not being fair to fundies so what? Who cares. Fundies aren't democrats anyway.

[outinforce]

86. "Fundies"

You say; "since the fundies are the GOP's most dedicated voting block "

Hold on there.

That is not my understanding.

I read just over this past weekend that men are more likely to vote Republican.

Not fundies. Men.

You suggest that anyone who does not like John Kerry is a "menace to our efforts".

The group of people that do not like John Kerry is much larger than fundies. I think I have even seen some posts here on DU from people who would hardly describe themselves are fundies, but who also express not love for John Kerry.

Would you call the supporters of Ralph Nader a menace?

And you suggest that it was the Nazis who conjured up an image of a Red Menace in the 1950's. They were certainly on the right, but I do think it would be a stretch to say that they were Nazis.

YOu also suggest that they were lying. I'm not so sure they were. I think that in order for someone to lie, s/he has to know the truth and not tell it. I think the people who conjured up a "Red Menace" in the '50's really thought that there was a "Red Menace". They didn't lie -- there were just wrong.

I have no doubt that groups of fundamental Christians are probably organizing their efforts to express themselves at the ballot box this Fall. And I have no doubt that they are most likely not going to vote for John Kerry.

But does that make them a "menace"?

I guess if you want to call them that, you'd also have to call groups that are not fundamentalist Christians and who are organizing their efforts for this Fall's elections "menaces". Groups like the National Rifle Association. And the Insurance Industry. Oh, yes, and those who support school vouchers.

That's the problem with trying to identify "menaces". Doing so merely says, I think, that there is a group that has different political views which is organized.

There are some folks who would say that Labor Unions are a menace to our society.

I wouldn't say that, but there are some folks whose hatred for Unions is so deep that they write obsessively about the menace from Labor Unions. Sometimes, these folks will even start a thread encouraging folks in other countries not to bring labor unions to power, and warning the folks in other countries about the menace posed by labor unions.

[Wednesdays]

34. On huge exception...

>> As a kid in the late 1950's and 1960's, I used to hear all the time about the "Red Menace" --- it was sometimes also called the "Communist Menace".

There were people who were just convinced the Communists were everywhere -- that they had infiltrated organizations, usually by "stealth", and that they were just waiting to spring into action.

These Communists that were everywhere wanted nothing more than to grab power and then to deny the rest of us our rights as Americans. <<

One huge difference: the Christian Coalition has succeeded in winning many government seats, while the 1950s Communists didn't.

The Christian Coalition is very real, not an illusion. A former girlfriend was once one of Pat Robertson's "foot soldiers for God," and she won a precinct delegate position for the state GOP convention--which means that she and her friends could vote in a bloc, influencing platforms and candidates alike. I have copies of some of her propaganda newsletters from Robertson, containing much of the rhetoric noted above.

She pried herself away from the cult shortly before we got together. It was a cult: her pastor went to our college, to try to persuade her professors to help him "bring her back to Christ," and her "sisters in Christ" rummaged through her trash, trying to find out why she had "fallen into sin." Needless to say, this opened her eyes enough that she never returned to them.

[outinforce]

41. Oh, But Don't You Recall?

It may be true that the 1950's Communists never won any elections.

But don't you recall just how influential they "Red-baiters" said they were?

They were in the State Department.

They were in the Defense Department.

In fact, the people who believed in the Red Menace were responsible for creating an atmosphere of hysteria that led to the deaths of two people.

Two people who were never elected to any post.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were their names.

See how dangerous the notion of any "menace" can be?

[Wednesdays]

44. And

And the point of my post was to show that the Christian Coalition is not an illusion.

[outinforce]

48. Yes, And.....?

It's really no news at all the the Christian Coaliion is not an illusion.

They have been around for years.

One year, their leader, Pat Robertson tried to become President.

He lost.

Big Time.

Remember?

And, when you say this:

"A former girlfriend was once one of Pat Robertson's "foot soldiers for God," and she won a precinct delegate position for the state GOP convention--which means that she and her friends could vote in a bloc, influencing platforms and candidates alike. I have copies of some of her propaganda newsletters from Robertson, containing much of the rhetoric noted above.",

I really see no difference between the Christain Coalition and many of the other groups within the US political system.

Groups such as NARAL, Human Rights Campaign, the National Education Association, and others do exactly the same thing.

It is called organizing. Convincing other people to "vote in a bloc", and to "influence platfotms and candidates alike".

You got a problem with that?

Is that why you think that the Christian Coaltion is a menace? Because they use the toos available to every other political group within the USA?

And when you say this: "She pried herself away from the cult shortly before we got together. It was a cult: her pastor went to our college, to try to persuade her professors to help him "bring her back to Christ," and her "sisters in Christ" rummaged through her trash, trying to find out why she had "fallen into sin." Needless to say, this opened her eyes enough that she never returned to them.", I really do not get too upset. Anyone who deviates from any groups "orthodoxy" is usually shunned by that group.

[Wednesdays]

84. "They are zealous. They will stop at nothing."

>> It is called organizing. Convincing other people to "vote in a bloc", and to "influence platfotms and candidates alike".

You got a problem with that? <<

Yes! In terms of their tactics, of which I just gave a personal anecdote above...but you seemed to ignore.

The underhanded tactics, going through trashcans, etc., are common procedure with these folks. In my girlfriend's words: "they are zealous. They will stop at nothing." Those are her words, not mine. If you want to argue further, you can take it up with her--someone who was actually one of them. I can re-print some of the newsletters here, if that would be enlightening.

>> I really do not get too upset. Anyone who deviates from any groups "orthodoxy" is usually shunned by that group. <<

She wasn't merely shunned, she was harassed.

and

>>I really see no difference between the Christain Coalition and many of the other groups within the US political system. <<

No comment necessary.

[outinforce]

87. I Misunderstood

I must have misunderstood your earlier post which said,

"A former girlfriend was once one of Pat Robertson's "foot soldiers for God," and she won a precinct delegate position for the state GOP convention--which means that she and her friends could vote in a bloc, influencing platforms and candidates alike. I have copies of some of her propaganda newsletters from Robertson, containing much of the rhetoric noted above.

She pried herself away from the cult shortly before we got together. It was a cult: her pastor went to our college, to try to persuade her professors to help him "bring her back to Christ," and her "sisters in Christ" rummaged through her trash, trying to find out why she had "fallen into sin." Needless to say, this opened her eyes enough that she never returned to them"

When I read the second paragraph, I assumed that her pastor and her "sisters in Christ" were trying to get her to return to the Christian Coalition. And I assumed that they were not necessarily trying to change her politics.

I'm quite sure that they wer zealous, but I'm not sure what they were zealous about -- was their zealotry aimed at getting your girlfriend to vote a particular way? Or was their zealotry aimed at getting your girlfriend to attend the church that they attended?

[Joanne98]

88. Thankyou

And that's another reason why the word menace applies. A big reason and it's called STEALTH. When the NAZI's started their unamerican activities bull shit, that was total BS. They called their enemies "the red menace" because they were hidden or stealth. But in their case it was rw proganda. The stealth communists were never found. Not in any organized way. But the Christian right on the other hand is a real live organized "stealth" operation, which is exactly why they have been so successful. I think "the fundie menace" is a perfect disciption. They might also be described as a "fifth column". They fly under the radar and people who try to bring this FACT out shouldn't have to get into nitpicking debates about it.

[outinforce]

91. Stealth?

I think you yourself said that the fundies are the GOP's largest bloc of voters.

This is stealth?

I do think that you are nopt entirely correct when you say that "the stealth communists were never found".

You might recall the name Alger Hiss. Or Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

The people who were so convinced of the Red "menace" back then had to find someone. These are the folks they found.

And, I guess you are correct. If there is someone who is jsut convinced that s/he has total knowledge about the "facts", then that person most likely will view any discussion that does not simply parrot back to her/him her/his own views as being little more than a "nitpicking debate".

[Joanne98]

94. They're stealth because they hide their real agenda

and go around pretending their just "christians". I listened to their radio shows for a year in 1996, when they were still talking out loud. I was stunned at how evil they were. Nobody took them seriously back then. BIG mistake. They've gone from a joke to a "menace" in just 8 years.

[outinforce]

96. Really?

'They're stealth because they hide their real agenda"

Is that a fact?

You, however, seem to know their true agenda:

"The fundies want to create a theocracy in the US that means: executing gays, executing women who have abortions, destroying the public school system, waging a "HOLY WAR" in the middle east just to mention a few of their plans. I suppose wanting to "execute sinners" is not menacing to you?"

How stealthy is that?

[sandnsea]

99. Yeh, they were Christians!!

The same ones who are running around screaming about the Islamic menace now are the ones who were screaming about the Red Menace then. THEY are the menace, the poster is absolutely right. I'm no longer a Christian. I cannot put myself in the same category as any group of people who have caused as much havoc as Christians have in this world. Same goes for Jews and Muslims. Enough already. If this is "God's plan", it's time to give plain old human plans a try.

[outinforce]

100. Surely You Are Not Suggesting

"Yeh, they were Christians!!...The same ones who are running around screaming about the Islamic menace now are the ones who were screaming about the Red Menace then."

You aren't saying, are you, that all the people who were Christians back in the 1950's believed the "Red Menace" notion?

While it is no doubt true that most (or all) of the people who tried to scare us into believing that "reds" were engaged in a stealth campaign to take over our government and remove our rights were Christians, trying to say that ALL Christians back then believed or advocated that notion makes about as much sense as saying today that all Muslims advocate suicide bombings.

[sandnsea]

101. Don't care anymore

I'm sick of it. If the Christians who don't believe this stuff aren't willing to stand up and stop the others, then I don't find anything beneficial in Christianity at all. Just where I'm at, take it any way you want.

[Joanne98]

14. I started a thread in Politics and Campaigns

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=114389#114390

They don't get buried as fast. This is TERRIBLE news. We need to warn them. George Bush is a fundie, Tony Blair is a fundie. Tom Delay is a fundie. Please Canada, DON'T DO IT.

[SidDithers]

20. <Sigh>

As I and others have tried to point out - without any effect it seems, Canada is not about to go "Fundy". (Though we do have the Bay of Fundy, which is lovely this time of year) While your concern is appreciated, your hysteria is misplaced.

If you want a thread about the "Fundy Menace", you might get a better response discussing it in terms of US politics.

Sid

[Joanne98]

31. It is about US politics.

I don't want Christian zealots in control of the country next to me. We got enough problems with them here. You need to read those websites I put up. Then you would know why I'm "hysterical".

http://www.yuricareport.com
http://www.theocracywatch.org

There's alot to be "hysterical" about. Please read and you'll see.

[outinforce]

43. Do You Hear Yourself?

You don't want Christian zealots in control of a country next to you?

Can you imagine how you would react if you were to hear an American say that s/he doesn't want a bunch of socialists in control of a country next to her/his?

Here's a suggestion -- why don't you tend to your garden, and we'll tend to ours?

[Cheswick2.0]

29. your term Christian Menace is offensive

I think the STUPID DIVISIVE MENACE is a much bigger threat to democracy. There are plenty of us christians here on the left. Call the people you oppose what they are, even calling them fundies is not all that accurate since many fundamentalists are also leftist.

They people we are all threatened by are the Christian Reconstructionist or Dominionists.

[Joanne98]

35. Okay I'll change it to "The Fundie Menace"

How's that? You seem to know what I'm talking about. REAL Christians need to speak up on this more. The FUNDIES are giving ALL Christians a bad name. I've been waiting for years for good Christians to stand up and deal with this but they haven't so far. Times UP. The fundies are evil and we need to start talking about what to do about them. I'm not going back to the dark ages just because "The Christian Taliban" wants me to.

[camero]

32. What I don't get

There are two liberal parties in Canada. If one of them becomes corrupt and most of the people call themselves liberal then why not just vote for the other liberal party?

I ask even though I've had this discussion with someone and the explanation given was that it's almost the same thing as our dems and greens. Looking for other opinions but that explanation makes sense to me.

[Minstrel Boy]

37. There aren't two liberal parties. In fact,

some may argue there's barely one. :evilgrin:

The Liberal Party is centrist, at least as Canadians understand the centre. At the best of times - say, under Trudeau - the part is centre-left. Paul Martin is taking it centre-right.

The NDP is socialist. Most New Democrats would shudder to be called "liberal."

[camero]

40. That's true I forgot about that

Another thing I had thought of was that the Conservatives could form an alliance with the Liberals since the Liberals are more pro-business and centrists like you say. Not very likely I know I just wonder why the NDP doesn't have more support.

[Spazito]

47. Canadians, as a whole, tend to be centrists, not wanting to go..

either too far right or left. We tend to be pragmatists rather than idealists and so we look for our representatives to straddle that center line with an occasional veer to the left or right depending on the issue. (This is only my take on it though)

[outinforce]

51. I Think

you have also pretty well described the US electorate.

It explains why Bill Clinton was the one Democrat elected to the Presidency since 1976.

Americans like centrists.

People seen as being too extreme -- either too Left or too right -- do nnot do well in Presidential elections.

[Spazito]

59. I agree, I believe most Americans are centrists at heart

not unlike Canada. I see the breakdown in the US as this:

30% solid party base republican

30% solid party base democratic

10% moderate republican

10% moderate democratic

20% independent

It is the 20% independent that seems to determine elections.

In Canada, we have less party affiliation and more independent voters, imo.

[outinforce]

72. Well,

you're Canada.

We're the USA.

Two different countries.

You wouldn't expect us to be the same as you, now would you?

After all, you can't seem to master our spelling of certain words, right, neighbor?

[camero]

53. I have heard that one too

But as a whole they are more liberal than us and the conservatives have been shifting some provincial politics to the right. Hence my thoughts on this.

[Minstrel Boy]

49. It's been frustrating over the years because,

though the NDP form popular provincial governments, federally the Liberals have traditionally campaigned to their left, and governed from their right. And when they've been reduced to a minority and have struck bargains with the NDP, the following elections they've claimed credit for the progressive legislation and the New Democrats have been marginalized.

However, fear-mongering about Conservatives aside (and they are not going to form a majority government), there still exists historic opportunities for the NDP this election.

The NDP, surveys show, is the party of second choice of most Canadians. And a recent poll had a hefty percentage of Liberal supporters admit they would vote NDP, but weren't because they considered the Liberals the most likely to stymie the Conservatives. Enough, if they actually voted New Democrat, to lift the party to a tie with the Liberals in popular support. If Martin stumbles in the debates tonight and tomorrow, and Layton does well, strategic voting may begin to actually work against the Liberals.

Another poll shows that, even though the Conservatives enjoy a slim lead, Canadian values are decidedly liberal/socialist values, and if there's a minority government, "Canadians would like to see the New Democrats hold the balance of power no matter which party gets the most seats." http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1086991811253&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467

Canadians don't want conservative government, what they want is an alternative to the Liberals, but with left/liberal policies. It's possible, despite the corporatist editorial agenda which wants to limit the options to Liberal-Conservative, that the NDP may yet emerge as a credible alternative.

[camero]

52. Thanks for that.

I see it much clearer now. I also had heard that the other parties are using the "tax and spend" meme on the NDP in their campaign.

I'm hoping that the NDP can garner more support and you make a good case for that.

[Minstrel Boy]

54. the old "tax and spend" meme

That's getting pretty tired. NDP provincial governments have been among the most successful at reducing deficits and creating surpluses. It's Conservative governments which have been most ruinous to the balance sheets.

The NDP has costed every one of its campaign promises, and they cost less than the Conservatives. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are pledging massive tax cuts, the purchase of two hybrid aircraft carriers, and saying "don't worry, everything will be fine" about social programs.

[camero]

56. That's true

NDP provincial gov'ts have had more surpluses just like the Dems have down here and they have found good ways to get that surplus. It's a tiring meme down here too. I think a better term is investment. Investing in your country and from the link you provided, polls show that Canadians want to do exactly that.

[Spazito]

60. Hmmm, you have to make an exception for the British Columbia...

NDP which ran up huge deficits and were almost destroyed by the corrupt government of Glen Clark. I am saying that having voted for them in their first term but not their second.

[Minstrel Boy]

63. Glen Clark.

Agree. BC seems to have the worst luck with governments, whichever party is in power. Glad the provincial NDP has bounced back from the Clark years and is now leading in the polls, though that's thanks largely to the sheer awfulness of Gordon Campbell's Liberals.

[Spazito]

67. Yes, they have bounced back only because of how bad Campbell...

is. The NDP party must take responsibility for the Clark debacle and prove that they are not the same party they were at the time they decimated the province. I have yet to see that, unfortunately, but am still holding out hope. I am so tired of having to hold my nose when I vote.

[ironflange]

81. You're right, I never noticed

Bill Bennett, Vander Zalm, Clark, Campbell, ugh. We hate Ralph Klein here, but he does at least seem to know a little about governing.

[camero]

69. I do remember reading about that.

I was making runs to Vancouver and Burnaby delivering flowers at about that time. I thought it was also because of the rift between Clark and the business community. They did run up big deficits at that time. Point taken.

[TrogL]

83. *screams* Aircraft Carriers???!?!?!

:wtf: are we supposed to do with aircraft carriers?

Our enemies, assuming we have any, have a problem invading Canada - geography. Suppose, I dunno, France wants to invade. They have to cross the Atlantic. Presumably they would use a major fleet, either of ships or aircraft, to do it. Up against this is our fleet of two lonely aircraft carriers. This accomplishes...what?

Suppose Russia invades. Global warming problems aside, the Arctic is still pretty much landlocked (OK, icelocked). You're going to park the aircraft carriers...where?

Suppose the US invades (probably the likeliest scenario). You're gonna park the aircraft carriers...where? Lake Erie? How are you going to get them through the Welland Canal?

[TrogL]

57. I think he's gonna put his foot in it bigtime

Either that, or alienate his own supporters.

I've been hearing a variety of rumours (to be taken with a grain of salt - OK a bucket of salt)

• Harper announced on TV that his supporters must support gay rights or drop out of the campaign :wtf:
  
• lower "c" conservative businessmen don't like the look of his economic plan and will be voting Liberal
  
• a local high school had a mock "vote" and put in the NDP
  

[Spazito]

74. I love how Harper says "choice" is not on his campaign agenda...

so he is saying I don't have it on my agenda so you shouldn't ask what my policy is, just trust me. We all know what the policy of the Reform/Alliance/faux Conservative party is BUT it is NOT on Harper's campaign agenda for good reason, it would prove the extremist beliefs he and his band of zealots hold.

[TrogL]

82. I thought it wasn't on the agenda "for the first term"

I'm hoping most women have figured out that to prevent it being on the agenda for the second term, you simply don't give them a first one.

[Joanne98]

89. He should be asked point-blank if he's pro-life or not.

It doesn't matter if it's on his agenda. If he's pro-life it will be. He'll just be "stealth" about it and do things like get judges appointed, attack the public school system, increase prison sentences for sinners, weaken civil rights etc. We all know the story. Think 1981 who would have thought the "fundies" would have been able to take over our country back then. Now we have John Asscroft. It's a slippery slope. Canadians should beware.

[outinforce]

93. Surely You Are Not Saying....

Surely you are not saying that the fundies have been able to take over ouro country.

Are you?

If so, then please explain:

1. Why you are able, without being thrown into jail, to publicly criticize the fundies.

2. Why I, as a gay male, am still alive.

3. Why people who live together but are not married are not in jail.

4. Why abortion is still legal.

5. Why Roman Catholic churches, Jewish synagogues, and Moslem mosques are still open.

I would have thought that the fundies, if they were in charge, would have done at least these things.

[Joanne98]

95. Because they haven't got the Supreme court yet.

But wait a few years. As a gay-male your first on the execution list.
Patriot 2 is also being passed (in secret) by the fundie John Asscroft. They are way to sneaky to show themselves too soon. But they're coming. You can put that in the bank.

[outinforce]

98. Did You Ever See The Movie?

Did you ever see the movie, "Invasion of The Body Snatchers"??

I'm talking about the original one -- from the 1950's, with Kevin McCarthy in the lead role.

At the end of the movie, the Kevin McCarthy character is standing in the middle of a crowded freeway screaming to anyone who will listen, "You're Next! You're Next! They're Coming! You're Next!"

I think you have captured quite well the entire premise of that film.

Now excuse me while I go make sure that my bomb shelter has all of the necessary items.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

80. Vote Liberal!!! I'm an American, I like the Liberals but.....

I though the NDP would be the best choice for Canada. Seeing this, I hope that all Canadians vote for the Liberals!!!

We cannot have another fall to the right wing!

[Minstrel Boy]

85. Vote your conscience. As has been said, the sky isn't falling:

the numbers are not there for a Conservative majority.

There are 308 ridings. For a bare majority government, the Conservatives need to win 155 of them.

75 seats in Quebec, and the Conservatives will not elect a single member. That leaves 233 for them to find 155 victories.

106 seats in Ontario. The Liberals now hold virtually all of them. Though the Conservatives now lead in Ontario, it's a slim lead, and the NDP stand to make gains as well. But let's give the Conservatives an absurdly generous 60 seats.

That leaves 127 seats. Alberta has 28 and, for the sake of argument, let's give them all to the Conservatives.

That leaves 99, and we've already conceded the Conservatives 88. They still must win 67 of the remaining 99 seats in Atlantic Canada, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, BC and the territories to win a majority government.

They're polling in the low 30's. In voter rich BC, they're polling below the former Canadian Alliance. They'll be losing seats. It ain't gonna happen for them.

[Lautremont]

90. I'll vote with my conscience,

but I can easily afford to, because my riding is that rarest of animals, the "NDP stronghold." Even if I conceded a panic vote to the Liberals, it wouldn't make a difference here. But the breakdown you've provided is most reassuring. I get a little jittery every time I see the marble eyes and that unbelievable hair of Stephen Harper.

[Joanne98]

97. Another "the fundies are coming thread"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x621505

Having to do with a poll. The more religious you are the more you like Bush.

[Joanne98]

102. Hi Kim

Welcome to DU. The greatest think-tank on the web. Go DU