Thursday, November 30, 2006

Flinging Poo!

flinging_poo

I am sure you have all been wondering "What's up with Intolerant? (Then again, maybe not!) I took a little breather to surf the web for some stimulating Canadian political debate. What I came across was unbelievable...and yet very believable.

For those of you who read my last post I called my own Prime Minister to task for his double take on income trust funds. I headed over to another site where there was some typical conservative bashing and how the Prime Minister is a big fat liar, ad nauseum. I decided to take part in this particular debate to remind them of the last 13 years of a Liberal government that was so bogged down in scandalous corruption that they are the first political party in this nation to be under federal investigation. At least that was going to be my intent.

Then I was challenged by one of the biggest "Left wing nut's" I have ever come across in my entire life. He goes by the moniker of SolarisZen. For some reason he wanted to take the debate into the "gay marriage" territory. I have actually been trying to avoid this topic, for the time being, as it is always going to be there and I just wanted to change direction simply for the sake of change. But Solaris wanted to engage and being the tolerant individual that I am I decided to oblige him and indulge.

I am already well aware of how some of my left wing blogging buddies feel regarding the topic of gay mariage. But what I am about to display is the actual dialogue between myself and this (ahem)....you know what? I just do not have a nice word for him. Anyway, focus not on the topic but the content of this deluded individual. This crackpot measures above and beyond the typical left wing stereotype. In fact he epitomizes it with his name calling, accusations, rhetoric, and insinuations while avoiding any and all support/responsibility for his rationale and claims. On one point I ask him a total of five times to demonstrate his "evidence" for a ludicrous claim he has made regarding our Prime Minister as a racist. In fact anyone who contributed to the discussion that did not agree with him (regardless of the topic) was cast as a "Hateful, racist" (LOL I am laughing as I type this :))))

I will say this. I do have a greater appreciation for my left wing friends who continue to visit this site. Because of the level of maturity and mutual respect many of you have shown I know that despite people like Solaris not all "Lefties" are like him. I am also quite sure there are many of the "Right" persuasion who are just like Solaris.

I still have no idea what exactly he was trying establish. He was either drunk, stoned, or just plain stupid. I will admit as you read the dialogue that I am guilty of getting just a little bit RAW with the lad. Some of it tongue in cheek, some of it to provoke (just a little ;) and some just to drive him a little stir crazy (like using his own words against him like "hate" and "phobia") but what can I say? He was asking for it.

The following was our entire dialogue. I have left in all his bad grammar and spelling mistakes for good measure. Without further adieu sit back, grab your popcorn, and (hopefully) have a little chuckle. This guy takes the cake!

It all begins with my response to someone else:

TIO said:

Yeah those liberals were such a wonderful honest bunch. They would never screw anyone over would they? Hmmmm smells like remnants of "And if elected I will abolish that stupid tax the GST!" I assume you were saying the same thing back then as well?

SolarisZen said:

here is some info for you... it was Brian Malruny who brought in the GST!!! And I would rather the liberals than a party that are fundamentaly racist!!!

TIO said:

Actually it is Mulroney and I am well aware he brought in the GST. What exactly is your point? As far as your "racist" comment regarding Harper would you care to back that up with some concrete evidence? Or is it just another "angry" word you throw around loosely just like other term's such as homophobe, bigot, or my personal fave INTOLERANT? :p

SolarisZen

No problem, he brings up the whole gay marrige, a topic that is NOT nessessary and does nothing for those people with that sexual orientation,

TIO said:

It was never necessary to re-define the term marriage in the first place. Gays always had the RIGHT to marry therefore they were never discriminated against. He brought it up because...
A) 67% of Canadians never did support it (they supported civil union) B) Liberals are incapable of understanding or comprehending the term "Free vote" (Not forced vote on Cabinet Ministers)...
C) Gay marriage has everything to do with other people in this country who are now losing their own fundamental freedoms (moral conscience, religious) guaranteed to them under the Charter. If they cannot be protected (even though the Charter says they are supposed to be) then throw the Charter in the garbage can!


SolarisZen said:

Religon has NOTHING to do with people getting married!!! Also where are YOUR facts on this 67% when the MAJORITY or canadians are tolerant and want answers to real questions such as health care and education not what people do in the bedroom! )
Yea it is because if one loves someone theno they can get MARRIED and be reconized as a MARRIED couple. Not just a "civil union between two men" bull. Thanks for the spin but no thanks, I rather stick to reality!


TIO said:

Religious rights and freedoms have nothing to do with it? Is your head that far up your rear? Explain that to the numerous marriage commissioners (who are NOT gov't. employee's BTW) who lost their licenses to marry couples because the Charter that supposedly protected their rights failed them to accommodate a sexual lifestyle...Re: 67% December/03 Compas polling asked the question of Canadians regarding their views on gay marriage. Results: 30% don't recognize them at all.37% recognize them as civil unions, not as marriages. Only 31% percent supported while the other 2% had no response. That was neat how you deflected the onus off yourself from providing any evidence regarding you delusions of Harpers racism. Back it up or shut up! If what people did in the bedroom did not actually affect other's rights and freedoms we would not be having this debate. However if your so keen on sticking to reality (as you say) then I am sure you would be the first to defend those whose Charter rights who are being discriminated against by having both their religious and moral conscience freedoms trampled upon for not violating their supposed right to freedom of religious expression by marrying gay couples? You do recognize their rights as well do you not? Or are the only rights gay rights?

SolarisZen said:

The right to religion is that one can practice it. The right to marrige is that one can get married when two people are in love and be reconized by sociaty as religion in and of itself is reconized (i.e. the religion of BOB.) It is that simple! Religion does not trounce indevidual rights!!! I'm not here to convince you, since you are VERY angry and rather that you deal with your personal issues you are forcing your hate on others and that is not right in any religion or sociaty. No, religious rights do not! How many religions advocate violence like your own. Christianity accepts and promotes love but yet here you are spouting hatred towards people with different sexual orientation. Even with the "war on terror" where its muslims vs christianity. There is no such thing. Both religions teach tollerance but then there are people like you who turn it around it hate. those that do DESERVE to loose their licence and even a lot more!!! (take note of his "Tolerance")

TIO said:

LOL your response is so utterly typical and asinine. Your redundant rhetoric was so predictable that I could have written your response for you. One does not agree with gay marriage therefore they must hate homosexuals. Oh do shut up already! So far thru out this diatribe you continue to deflect the reality (again, which you claim to live in) and address the Charter and human rights issues that have already affected INDIVIDUAL Canadians. ALL are equal under the code. Homosexuals rights cannot trump individual religious rights and freedoms. It goes both ways. You cannot substantiate anything you say so you resort to accusing myself and others of hatred and intolerance. That's it? You cannot debate logically or intellectually so you bombard the other side with unfounded claims and name calling? Just like your "racist Harper" comment, which BTW, I am STILL awaiting your source of foundation for such a stupid remark. You accuse myself of anger yet when I read thru your list of comments to others you call them idiots and morons while making false accusations against them and others. Just who is the angry one here? So let me see if I understand you here by your venomous "rage of red" verbal diarrhea. I advocate violence? Do show me anywhere in my comments where I have done so. I spout hatred? Why is that? Because I disagree with gay marriage? Demonstrate where there is hate in such a statement. Or is that your idea of "Tolerance"? As long as someone agrees with you they are considered tolerant? If that is the case you would not know tolerance if it slapped you upside the head. Tolerance does NOT mean one MUST accept something they hold a moral conviction about, unless of course they live in your totalitarian world, in which case "Forced Acceptance" is tolerance.

SolarisZen said:

Isn't that interesting. Your first statment here describes you to a tea! I say no one should trumph indevidual rights. You come along and start ranting how religion is indevidual when in fact it is not and since not all people belong to your religion or even agrea with yoour ideals then you call us facist. Now I see you have no idea what you are talking about! Again no accusations here. Who is the one that goes on about morality and values? If you have such issues I think you need professional help. Not be here banging on on why it is ok for you to hate then lable and accuse other people of hatred since they are against your value system. Its idiotic to see why you are wrong but then its ok for you to spin and accuse us of being wrong while labling us as stupid and accusatory. Again. You think relgion is an "indevidual right" I didn't kow I was automatically part of your religion thus I have to obay your "morals/values" and you call me a facist? lol no accusations here. You practice your name to a tea. Again. there is plenty of evedence. a PM should NOT call Canada a "welfair state" or even take the rights of indevidual canadians away over hateful religions that ostracize INDEVIDUALS simply because of their sexuality!!! It has not affected indevidual Canadians? Why? Because religion has nothing to do with the indevidual. I agree my response is "typical," asinie? Nope since only a hate monger would view such comment as so. If you weren't homophobic then what is wrong with two people that love each other getting married? And no religion has nothing to do with love! Not everyone has a religion that is so "hell"bent on hate!

avatar
(Are you starting to get the picture?)

TIO said:

You clearly type with an angry hand. Let's see if we can penetrate your narrow minded, intolerant, bigoted, Christianphobic mind with some yet more reality. Under the Charter INDIVIDUAL Canadian citizens are guaranteed their freedom of religion and moral conscience. It does not read as a group. BTW there is NO mention of "sexual orientation" in the Charter as it reads today. Try reading it some time. Twice you accuse me of calling you fascist. Again another statement displaying your lack of credibility by putting words into my mouth that I have not said. If I did then quote me otherwise stop making false claims. You only end up reinforcing the claim that you are indeed accusatory. You seem to suffer from paranoid "delusions of grandeur" that anyone who opposes gay marriage is A) religious B) Hates homosexuals. Here is some more reality for you hotshot. There are many gay people who do not favor it either. And those of us who do oppose it are not all religious. AND some of us "religious" folk still have loved ones , working relationships and friendships with gay people. Sorry, Tolerant gay people who respect our right to disagree. In the real world it is quite possible to co-exist in society while not always agreeing. To be able to express one's viewpoint without being accused of hate where there is none. That is the true meaning of tolerance. Something you fail to realize. In your world it is "agree with me or I will hurl insults at you and accuse you of hate". I am not intimidated by such irrational thinking. The word homophobe is not even applicable in many cases. Many, like your self, use it to try and instill guilt and to shame others into silence so they will not exercise their democratic right to freedom of expression. If you want to label someone a homophobe, by definition of the word, you must first prove hate. Simply disagreeing with gay marriage is not hate. Thru out this dialogue you have continued rant and rave and yet when challenged you have backed up squat! YOU said Harper is a racist? Prove it! YOU said I hate gay people because I disagree with gay marriage? Prove it? (Prove it to my gay sister too). YOU said Christianity is full of hate? Tell that to the homeless (gay and straight) who are fed and sheltered by their many agencies. You have avoided every challenge to support your inflammatory accusations with evidence. Back it up or shut up!

SolarisZen said:

great lets see those facts!!! If there is no hate you wouldn't be spouting such rehtoric. Any normal, logical human being knows when two people lobe each other they can get married. YOU bring religion into it when it has NOTHING to do with the rights of an indevidual. I love to see these people who you claim are agianst such freedoms by warping religion to such a hateful adgenda. Again, you love using the word "accuse" or accusatory. Here is a hint. To accuse someone is to lable without knowing facts. Telling me "in your totalrian world" stats that you have accused me of being a facist, where you site "christianphobia" and religion over and over again to promote your hatred. Thus you have proven with FACTS that you are racist/prejudgist. Again, calling me angery and spouting off viteral of "Christianphobic." I like the "narrow mind" comment. Since you refuse to accept that people are not born christians at birth! They join a GROUP much later in life. I understand you don't know much about the charter but sexual orientation IS there. For instance one CANNOT discriminate based on sexual orientation such as a job.

TIO said:

Let's try this one more time Mr. Grumpy pants. Do you actually read what I write or do you skim over it quickly while having a tantrum? First you ask for facts? Since when have you provided one single fact yourself? For the FIFTH time, what do you base your delusional opinion on Harper being a racist? You have continued to avoid your own comment without any factual support while constantly demanding facts from me which I provided re: majority of Canadians who do not support gay marriage. You want more facts? Then start providing your own. Secondly the Charter reads as "sex" referring to gender NOT orientation. Supreme court judges have read it into the Charter but orientation is not in there. You are thinking of the human rights code. It's no wonder you cannot provide facts. You cannot seem to get them straight. Regarding my "Christianphobia" comment, that was an intentional shot to show you how ridiculous you sound when you espouse "homophobia" every time someone does not agree with your perception. Re-read what I said. Just because someone disagrees with gay marriage that does NOT make them a homophobe!!! Re: "groups". I guess then it would be fair to "label" the gay community as a group as well? Re: fascist. Go back and read your own comments thru out this thread. You have accused everybody of being fascist. And calling me racist?!?! Now I know you are truly disturbed. Speaking as a Caucasian male my aboriginal wife just about fell over laughing when I showed her your dumbass statement. It is quite clear you are incapable of backing up anything you say but you are very good at avoiding responsibility or accountability for your own comments. Thereby invalidating your weak points. The rest were not points at all. For all the name calling and false accusations you have hurled my way you clearly display your close minded, Christianphobic, religiously intolerant, and bigoted attitudes towards all who do not agree with your way of thinking (or lack of). If the "politically correct" of society were to remove all penis's from statues because they deemed them "not gender friendly" you would be the first one in the crowd to ignore the facts and instead blame it on the Christians saying that we said it was too pornographic. It has been a blast watching you substantiate absolutely nothing you have said. I am off to hold an intelligent conversation with my 7 year old. Hope one day you can get over your "hateful" ways :)

There you have it folks. The entire onus is on me to prove everything well Solaris was able to rant and rave and do everything else he accused me of. That was the best laugh I had all week.

Now we have all heard the expression that "If you do not have nothing nice to say then do not say anything at all". Fine then, how about I just tell the truth? Solaris...when you talk you come across as a moron.

Until next time...

Monday, November 13, 2006

Tit for Tat!

Recently a bloggin' buddy of mine posed the challenge "I'd like to see you take someone to task from your own side (politically, that is). As I am almost always up for a good challenge I thought why not?

If we truly consider ourselves respectable, mature, and somewhat intelligent individuals capable of responsible verbal dialect even in the midst of heated passionate debate and disagreement then we should also be just as responsible in owning up to the reality that those people/politicians/ideologies we stand by and support will at times fall short. We must come to expect that there will be those on the other side of the forum who will be quick to point it out. That is part of the adrenaline rush of debate. The other question is "Are we willing to acknowledge it when it does happen?" Because regardless of one's political stripes it is always inevitable that somewhere down the line the party in power will drop the ball big time.

Prime Minister Harper

But I must admit it is quite the challenge when one is about to embark on a mission of exposing a hypocritical position taken by the one they support. Such is today's entry on my Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. I voted for this man thru my local representative and for the most part I have been proud to call him my leader. He is consistent, he has kept just about every promise he has made (the only struggle being he is dealing with a minority parliament which can make it a lot tougher) and unlike a liberal, he does not pay attention to the latest polls. He is quite capable of making a decision. I have more respect for someone who is willing to make decision (even if it turns out to be the wrong one) then one who is afraid to make one at all. (See previous Prime Minister, Paul Martin)

Duhhhhhh!

However that being said, recently there has been a huge kerfluffle when Prime Minister Harper reneged on a campaign promise to not tax income trusts. I am actually providing the smoking gun evidence to you right here:



Yes that is my Prime Minister sticking both feet in his mouth. One thing that can be very frustrating for any of us is when we place a government in power only to have them blatantly disregard a political campaign promise. Here is the thing though. I actually agree that he and his Finance Minister, Joe Flaherty, came to a very responsible and tough decision. It just irks me to no end that they said they would not do this. Why could they not have said during the election "It is not our intent..." because at the time it most likely was not. Instead they place themselves in the position of being portrayed as blatant liars because they made it a promise as opposed to an area they would try to avoid taxing.

The decision itself was a good one. Considering a conservative government is often accused of getting into bed with corporate America the opposite has taken place in this instance. Income Trusts were beginning to get out of hand with big money corporations such as Telus & BCE investing big money without paying any taxes on it due to tax loopholes on investments. If it is one thing the Harper government cannot be accused of it is "sucking up to the corporate world". In fact the Prime Minister is quoted as saying :

"Everyone in this country knows that in the last few months, what we have seen is the beginning of the conversion of major corporations to income trusts, which would have resulted in them paying no taxes whatsoever,"

"It would have shifted the tax burden to ordinary Canadians,"

"That is not fair, that is not what the government promised. This government is determined to have a fair system of taxation. . . "

The other thing to keep in mind here is that Finance Minister Joe Flaherty did not try and go around the campaign promise and put political spin on it. He simply acknowledged that they did indeed say they were not going to tax the Income Trusts but when he discovered what the Prime Minister acknowledged his response was:

"But this was ... necessary, regrettably necessary, but necessary for fairness and for the sake of the Canadian economy."

I agree with the decision. I just do not agree with the way it all went down. Unfortunately they make themselves out to be liars even though they have the best interests of Canadians in mind.


On a side note, here are some of my favourite poitical photo's for my fellow "lefty" pundits.

For Lucy,

Stephen and Blair

And for KA, Karen, Nog, and Dr. Marco,

George and Stephen

Nothing like a Canadian Conservative shaking hands with your boss! (LOL)

Until next time...

Monday, November 06, 2006

Reflections (A year in review)

helmet reflections

Although this is a little overdue, back in September was my one year anniversary as a blogger. So to begin off my "New" year into bloggerdom I have changed the banner but kept the template. I did not want to go to drastic. The banner change was not only a reflection of something fresh and new but I felt the background was rather symbolic of the nature of the topics and the discussions that go on here. Rather stormy at times :)

My goal from the outset was to stir the proverbial pot. Discussing the things that fly in the face of an all too politically correct society that is afraid to say the simple words..."I Disagree".

Regarding my views on such racy topics such as abortion, gay marriage, homosexuality, Canadian politics, terrorism, evolution, war in Iraq/Afghanistan, our soldiers, religion, and so on I would say that I have remained true to my moniker. Not because I actually am intolerant of people with opposing views but my experiences in a mostly dominated liberal society have branded me as such.

As I like to say, "If you ever want to be branded as INTOLERANT, then win an argument with a Liberal!" I make no bones about my views. In a true and free society I should be entitled to them with a degree of respectful disagreement not verbal diarrhea and rageful tongue lashings from those who profess to belong to the "Tolerant elite".

For the most part I can say I have been pleasantly surprised by a number of you from the "Left" side of the spectrum. Although I never expected to have so many of you come to a site that disagrees with your own personal views, values, and ideologies I am glad to welcome you. I value and appreciate your input and respect your right to disagree with me.

I may not have met the bulk of you in person but I consider many of you my friends. From the "Left" I think of Lucy, Karen, KA, Mandora, The Queen of light and Joy, and Dr. Marco. From the "Right" or more to the right I think of Bewoulf (Pro theism), Jeff (African Perspective), Nog , and new friend Courtney. I also remember "Q" whose input I miss. I hope he is reading this and stops in to say hello. If I missed others please accept my apologies.

I am proud to say I have only ever deleted one comment from this site in it's entire existence. It came on what I felt was definitely the most heated discussion of the past year. That was June 4/06 entry "The sick mind of the Progressive left". The comment did not address the topic and was just slinging mud in quite a vulgar manner. It was a touchy subject as it challenged certain ideologies of the extreme far left.

Yet some dumbass remarks I will allow to stand. For example, October 7/06 entry "AIDS: A gay mans disease" warranted a comment from "anonymous" referring to me as a disgrace to Christian bikers. I was not sure what being a Christian or a biker had to do with writing a piece about what a gay and lesbian organization was promoting but I allowed it to stand because I do support freedom of expression (within reason). And really, considering my personal past, I have heard a lot worse.

As I embark on a new year on blogger I hope many of you will continue to come by and submit your input. I value you as people, even IF some of you have views that are warped (LOL)

I leave you with this as I would not be the The Intolerant One if I did not.

Evolution is dumb
Abortion is mean
Gay marriage is wrong
Euthanasia is twisted
Safe sex=False sense of security
Atheism is sad
Liberal=indecisive (better take a poll!)
Religion sucks
Relationship with Christ is salvation and TRUTH!

Now show me the love.

Until next time...