Is Rona Ambrose about to de-Stalinize the CPC?

55 posts / 0 new
Last post
bagkitty bagkitty's picture
Is Rona Ambrose about to de-Stalinize the CPC?

*wait for it*

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Exactly one month shy of the 60th anniversary of Krushchev's Secret Speech to the Twentieth Party Congress (February 25/26 1956), Comrade Ambrose comes out in support of removing the anti-equal marraige plank from the CPC's* official platform. Apparently no response from Harper yet.

____
*btw: I love the CPC acronym, even without the (ML) suffix. It always makes me giggle.

monty1

For Canada, it's late in coming even for Conservatives. For the US Conservatives, it's totally disgusting that they continue to cling to the gay bashing and hate.

But for countries that still accept Christian indoctrination and are still trying to escape from it, it's understandable that it's going to take thm a lot longer. Some still execute gays! People who want to talk about the issue should be able to understand it too. 

But then, saying what I did about the US, maybe that's understandable too, considering that they are still deeply corrupted with Christianity. There's an invitation bagkitty, if you're looking for one to get this thread rolling.

6079_Smith_W

Considering that of the two ordained ministers I count as friends, one is openly gay, and hitched (at least as hitched as one legally can be in the UK)  I wouldn't say the two issues are direclty related.

As for the CPC, of course they are all on about how different they are; they just got their asses hwipped. But anyone who thinks a slathering of lipstick on that pig is going last past the next election is kind of naive. 

monty1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Considering that of the two ordained ministers I count as friends, one is openly gay, and hitched (at least as hitched as one legally can be in the UK)  I wouldn't say the two issues are direclty related.

As for the CPC, of course they are all on about how different they are; they just got their asses hwipped. But anyone who thinks a slathering of lipstick on that pig is going last past the next election is kind of naive. 

Is the one who is openly gay a catholic? Many of them are. And many are of course pedophiles. And I'm sorry to say that the ones who are neither are doing the ladies who are conveniently amongst them. Human nature ya know. 

Christianity has everything to do with the non-acceptance of gays. Were you trying to suggest otherwise?

6079_Smith_W

I just said so. Yes.

That is to say, if you want to use this as a foil, feel free. But let's not pretend there isn't a strong lobby within churches (and not just reform churches) that also favours marriage equality.

 

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 

As for the CPC, of course they are all on about how different they are; they just got their asses hwipped. But anyone who thinks a slathering of lipstick on that pig is going last past the next election is kind of naive. 

Amen to that,brother.

quizzical

monty1 wrote:
6079_Smith_W wrote:
Considering that of the two ordained ministers I count as friends, one is openly gay, and hitched (at least as hitched as one legally can be in the UK)  I wouldn't say the two issues are direclty related.

As for the CPC, of course they are all on about how different they are; they just got their asses hwipped. But anyone who thinks a slathering of lipstick on that pig is going last past the next election is kind of naive. 

Is the one who is openly gay a catholic? Many of them are. And many are of course pedophiles. And I'm sorry to say that the ones who are neither are doing the ladies who are conveniently amongst them. Human nature ya know. 

Christianity has everything to do with the non-acceptance of gays. Were you trying to suggest otherwise?

kropotkin1951

monty1 wrote:

Is the one who is openly gay a catholic? Many of them are. And many are of course pedophiles. And I'm sorry to say that the ones who are neither are doing the ladies who are conveniently amongst them. Human nature ya know. 

Christianity has everything to do with the non-acceptance of gays. Were you trying to suggest otherwise?

WTF is this garbage. What has pedophilia have to do with being gay or belonging to any religion. 

There are many Xians and churches who do not share the bigotry of the fundamentalist Evangelical's. The Rev. Brian Burke from the United Church married me and my wife because he was a close friend since he is Bill Siksay's life partner. Bill now works as Administrative Assistant to the Anglican Bishop of New Westminster and he will also serves as Administrative Assistant to the Executive Archdeacon. Those are two mainstream Xian churches that support diversity.

 

kropotkin1951

alan smithee wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 

As for the CPC, of course they are all on about how different they are; they just got their asses hwipped. But anyone who thinks a slathering of lipstick on that pig is going last past the next election is kind of naive. 

Amen to that,brother.

Unfortunately that is exactly how Trudeau got elected.

monty1

kropotkin1951 wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Is the one who is openly gay a catholic? Many of them are. And many are of course pedophiles. And I'm sorry to say that the ones who are neither are doing the ladies who are conveniently amongst them. Human nature ya know. 

Christianity has everything to do with the non-acceptance of gays. Were you trying to suggest otherwise?

WTF is this garbage. What has pedophilia have to do with being gay or belonging to any religion. 

There are many Xians and churches who do not share the bigotry of the fundamentalist Evangelical's. The Rev. Brian Burke from the United Church married me and my wife because he was a close friend since he is Bill Siksay's life partner. Bill now works as Administrative Assistant to the Anglican Bishop of New Westminster and he will also serves as Administrative Assistant to the Executive Archdeacon. Those are two mainstream Xian churches that support diversity.

You should have paid more attention to my comments. Is started with referring to the US and how it's the Christians (evangelicals in that case) that are the most opposed to gay rights. And really, the right is most representative of sky fairy beliefs than the left ever was. 

I grant you, some Christians are coming on board but it's not been an easy fight and they've come along kicking and screaming. 

 

monty1

monty1 wrote:

One of the big problems with this thread is that the premise is that communists are the gay haters. When in fact it's neither the hard left or the hard right around the world that stand accused. It's people who are primitive in their beliefs and have not been able to bring themselves up to 21st. century thinking.

There's no way we can blame Africans or Russians or US neo-Nazism for that. We can blame Christianity in most cases though. Religions just will not allow the flock to move on. Ask the fu--ing Pope. While he covertly supports his pedophiles, he continues to covertly condemn a gay lifestyle. He should know that in many cases the gays are the pedophiles in his church community. We don't hear a lot about the priests diddling littel girls do we?

monty1

deleted

kropotkin1951

Monty the T wrote:

Is the one who is openly gay a catholic? Many of them are. And many are of course pedophiles.

To reiterate, what has pedophilia got to do with being gay or belonging to any religion.

 

monty1

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Monty the T wrote:

Is the one who is openly gay a catholic? Many of them are. And many are of course pedophiles.

To reiterate, what has pedophilia got to do with being gay or belonging to any religion.

And I repeat, we hear lots about catholic pedophiles diddling littel boys but nothing about them diddling little boys. You deal with it, it's your cross to bear by the sounds of it. As for pedophilia having something to do with religion? Well kropotkin, ducks swim, and priests, uh you know, .............

What's the monty the T? Is that going to start now? If so then I'm pretty good at it too. I would prefer not though.

kropotkin1951

You didn't answer the question? You seemed to be conflating gays and pedophiles and since you have not responded to it I presume you meant it that way. Like many trolls (not that you fit the moderators definition for this board) you like to fight strawmen and not discuss what is actually posted.

What exactly do you think my cross to bear is? Do you think I don't know anything about pedophila in the Catholic Church?

 

wage zombie

monty1 wrote:

He should know that in many cases the gays are the pedophiles in his church community. We don't hear a lot about the priests diddling littel girls do we?

Seriously?  Linking homosexuality with pedophilia.  Ban this loser already.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

monty1: you might want to spend a wee bit of time exploring other people's posting history (and information they may have chosen to divulge about themselves) before you start spreading stuff on thick with your brush. Also, in reference to tone, I loves me a good roasting of Christians over their role in debates of matters of concern to the LGBT communities... (and it doesn't matter if they are Catholics, born-agains or NALTs) - but it should take place in context. Like many, I think the problem is manifest in all the theisms (poly and mono) and just because I use most of my powder firing at the locally dominant theism doesn't blind me to what is going on in non-local areas. But the OP is making reference to a political party, not a church.

In any case, welcome to the board, nice to see someone jumping in with both feet - just be careful with what splashes up... it helps to know how deep the water is before you jump in.

kropotkin1951

Its okay I think his hot air will keep him afloat.

monty1

bagkitty wrote:

monty1: you might want to spend a wee bit of time exploring other people's posting history (and information they may have chosen to divulge about themselves) before you start spreading stuff on thick with your brush. Also, in reference to tone, I loves me a good roasting of Christians over their role in debates of matters of concern to the LGBT communities... (and it doesn't matter if they are Catholics, born-agains or NALTs) - but it should take place in context. Like many, I think the problem is manifest in all the theisms (poly and mono) and just because I use most of my powder firing at the locally dominant theism doesn't blind me to what is going on in non-local areas. But the OP is making reference to a political party, not a church.

In any case, welcome to the board, nice to see someone jumping in with both feet - just be careful with what splashes up... it helps to know how deep the water is before you jump in.

Thank you bagkitty, and I would just like to suggest to you that the title of the thread is a misnomer. The CPC are the antithesis of communism and they hate communists. I would suggest changing the title to:  Rona Ambrose about to de-Nazify the CPC?

That would make it more politically correct. Just a suggestion though. 

swallow swallow's picture

monty1 wrote:

Ask the fu--ing Pope. While he covertly supports his pedophiles, he continues to covertly condemn a gay lifestyle. He should know that in many cases the gays are the pedophiles in his church community. We don't hear a lot about the priests diddling littel girls do we? 

Flagged as contary to bable policy. Would be great if you could hkeep the homophobic remarks out of the LGBT forum, Monty. There's no link between being gay and sexually abusing children. 

MegB

monty1 wrote:

 

Is the one who is openly gay a catholic? Many of them are. And many are of course pedophiles. And I'm sorry to say that the ones who are neither are doing the ladies who are conveniently amongst them. Human nature ya know. 

Christianity has everything to do with the non-acceptance of gays. Were you trying to suggest otherwise?

Charaacterizing "many" gays as pedophiles is homophobic and factually incorrect. I suggest you educate yourself further on what it means to be LGBTQ before commenting again on the subject.

monty1

swallow wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Ask the fu--ing Pope. While he covertly supports his pedophiles, he continues to covertly condemn a gay lifestyle. He should know that in many cases the gays are the pedophiles in his church community. We don't hear a lot about the priests diddling littel girls do we? 

Flagged as contary to bable policy. Would be great if you could hkeep the homophobic remarks out of the LGBT forum, Monty. There's no link between being gay and sexually abusing children. 

I disagree but will respect your wishes and I won't argue the point here. Thanks for you participation.

swallow swallow's picture

It's not my wishes Monty, it's the terms that you agreed to when you signed up for babble. No homophobic remarks permitted, and certainly not in the LGBT forum. If you disagree, there's plenty of online spaces where you can be as homophobia as you like. Most of the internet, actually. 

monty1

swallow wrote:

It's not my wishes Monty, it's the terms that you agreed to when you signed up for babble. No homophobic remarks permitted, and certainly not in the LGBT forum. If you disagree, there's plenty of online spaces where you can be as homophobia as you like. Most of the internet, actually. 

I hear you and have nothing more to say in public. Thanks for your attention to the issue. I'll p.m. you with my further reply.

voice of the damned

monty1 wrote:

bagkitty wrote:

monty1: you might want to spend a wee bit of time exploring other people's posting history (and information they may have chosen to divulge about themselves) before you start spreading stuff on thick with your brush. Also, in reference to tone, I loves me a good roasting of Christians over their role in debates of matters of concern to the LGBT communities... (and it doesn't matter if they are Catholics, born-agains or NALTs) - but it should take place in context. Like many, I think the problem is manifest in all the theisms (poly and mono) and just because I use most of my powder firing at the locally dominant theism doesn't blind me to what is going on in non-local areas. But the OP is making reference to a political party, not a church.

In any case, welcome to the board, nice to see someone jumping in with both feet - just be careful with what splashes up... it helps to know how deep the water is before you jump in.

Thank you bagkitty, and I would just like to suggest to you that the title of the thread is a misnomer. The CPC are the antithesis of communism and they hate communists. I would suggest changing the title to:  Rona Ambrose about to de-Nazify the CPC?

Well, actually, Stalin outlawed homosexuality and abortion(reversing the liberal policies of the early Bolsheviks). So, on sex and gender-related issues anyway, our current Canadian SoCons actually have quite a bit in common with him.

Granted, if "de-Stalinization" is a reference to the Khruschev Thaw, it might not be that applicable to gay rights, since Kruschev didn't reverse Stalin on that issue. I'm guessing he sent fewer gays to the camps, though.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

monty1 wrote:

bagkitty wrote:

monty1: you might want to spend a wee bit of time exploring other people's posting history (and information they may have chosen to divulge about themselves) before you start spreading stuff on thick with your brush. Also, in reference to tone, I loves me a good roasting of Christians over their role in debates of matters of concern to the LGBT communities... (and it doesn't matter if they are Catholics, born-agains or NALTs) - but it should take place in context. Like many, I think the problem is manifest in all the theisms (poly and mono) and just because I use most of my powder firing at the locally dominant theism doesn't blind me to what is going on in non-local areas. But the OP is making reference to a political party, not a church.

In any case, welcome to the board, nice to see someone jumping in with both feet - just be careful with what splashes up... it helps to know how deep the water is before you jump in.

Thank you bagkitty, and I would just like to suggest to you that the title of the thread is a misnomer. The CPC are the antithesis of communism and they hate communists. I would suggest changing the title to:  Rona Ambrose about to de-Nazify the CPC?

That would make it more politically correct. Just a suggestion though. 

[In my Old Man cardigan holding a cat]

The Nazi comparison would have been trite. There is no equivalent of the XXth party congress in the NSDAP history (de-nazification being something imposed by the victors, not arising from within the party itself), so the title you are suggesting would have lacked the mordant quality of the original. I will go out on a limb here and assert that I probably have (if for no other reason than my age) more experience as a gay male dealing with Stalinist parties (and their offshoots) and their handling of "the gay issue" and consequently will claim that my authority in this matter is not completely erroneous -- the original title is clever with just a faint dusting of schadenfreude, the alternative you are suggesting... not so much. Of course if you want an even more authoritative take on this, you can always contact Gilles Duceppe to see if he has kept back issues of The Forge/La Forge and you can follow the twists and turns yourself.

[/In my Old Man cardigan holding a cat]

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

swallow wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Ask the fu--ing Pope. While he covertly supports his pedophiles, he continues to covertly condemn a gay lifestyle. He should know that in many cases the gays are the pedophiles in his church community. We don't hear a lot about the priests diddling littel girls do we? 

 

Wow. And to think I was reprimanded not too long ago for calling Don Cherry a 'douchebag'

I guess it's open season at babble these days.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

Well, actually, Stalin outlawed homosexuality and abortion(reversing the liberal policies of the early Bolsheviks). So, on sex and gender-related issues anyway, our current Canadian SoCons actually have quite a bit in common with him.

 

Granted, if "de-Stalinization" is a reference to the Khruschev Thaw, it might not be that applicable to gay rights, since Kruschev didn't reverse Stalin on that issue. I'm guessing he sent fewer gays to the camps, though.

@Voice of the damned: thanks for jumping in. You were posting at the same time I was composing the comment that appears immediately below yours. I was actually referencing the implosion of Worker's Communist Party (WCP) here in Canada... while not a member myself (although they did try to recruit me... the "gay" thing being the stumbling block) I had really good seats watching the unfolding drama of "scientific socialism" running headlong into the emergent reality of the gay rights movement (outdated terminology to be sure, but those were the labels we were using at the time).

I guess I may have been indulging myself a little by making the analogy I did when sharing the linked story... but I couldn't resist, it was just too damn funny.

voice of the damned

^^

And if you don't have Duceppe on speed dial, you may or may not find some relevant copies of The Forge here...

http://tinyurl.com/zx4vbwl

monty1

Homosexuality was condemned by virtually everybody until about the last 40 or 50 years. And it's not a political thing as much as it's an uneducated view that condemns gays. Unfortuanately, in the US deep south  it runs rampant and so one can look at what those people have in common with homophobia. 

Christianity or Conservatism or something else. 

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

40 or 50 years ago? I remember a violent raid of a gay bar in Montréal in 1990. To be openly gay 40 or 50 years ago was seriously dangerous not to mention potentially unlawful.

quizzical

bagkitty wrote:

oh a train riding kitty........

Pondering

Rona Ambrose has also softened on marijuana legalization. Looks like she is dumping the social conservatives in favor of libertarians.

Now she has thrown down the gauntlet.

monty1

voice of the damned wrote:
monty1 wrote:

bagkitty wrote:

monty1: you might want to spend a wee bit of time exploring other people's posting history (and information they may have chosen to divulge about themselves) before you start spreading stuff on thick with your brush. Also, in reference to tone, I loves me a good roasting of Christians over their role in debates of matters of concern to the LGBT communities... (and it doesn't matter if they are Catholics, born-agains or NALTs) - but it should take place in context. Like many, I think the problem is manifest in all the theisms (poly and mono) and just because I use most of my powder firing at the locally dominant theism doesn't blind me to what is going on in non-local areas. But the OP is making reference to a political party, not a church.

In any case, welcome to the board, nice to see someone jumping in with both feet - just be careful with what splashes up... it helps to know how deep the water is before you jump in.

Thank you bagkitty, and I would just like to suggest to you that the title of the thread is a misnomer. The CPC are the antithesis of communism and they hate communists. I would suggest changing the title to:  Rona Ambrose about to de-Nazify the CPC?

 

Well, actually, Stalin outlawed homosexuality and abortion(reversing the liberal policies of the early Bolsheviks). So, on sex and gender-related issues anyway, our current Canadian SoCons actually have quite a bit in common with him.

 

Granted, if "de-Stalinization" is a reference to the Khruschev Thaw, it might not be that applicable to gay rights, since Kruschev didn't reverse Stalin on that issue. I'm guessing he sent fewer gays to the camps, though.

As you referred to my comment to make yours, I'll respond. What the hell has gay rights have to do with the Conservative party being on the right and that being directly associated with Nazism and neo-Nazism. You're not one of those who would try to say the Nazis were leftist or socialist are you?

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Hammer as hard as you like Monty, not everything is going to fit into such a narrow conceptual framework. Take baby steps (helps to bring a caliper and measure the distance between paired points).

 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
As you referred to my comment to make yours, I'll respond. What the hell has gay rights have to do with the Conservative party being on the right and that being directly associated with Nazism and neo-Nazism.

Well, VoD lives in some crazy other time zone and might be asleep right now, so let me wonder what Stalin or Kruschev have to do with Conservatives?  Shouldn't Stalin or Kruschev have said "in opposition to these Conservatives who we oppose, we embrace and welcome our gay comrades"??  If they didn't, what's the need to prove Godwin's Law?

ed'd to add:  also, it's 2016 now.  Is there something standing in the way of Russia saying "who the fuck cares if a man loves another man; we have bigger fish to fry"?

monty1

bagkitty wrote:

Hammer as hard as you like Monty, not everything is going to fit into such a narrow conceptual framework. Take baby steps (helps to bring a caliper and measure the distance between paired points).

 

Your cute picture is insulting and so is your idea that I need to take 'baby steps'. I didn't do the questionaire in your link beccause I've done a half dozen just like it in the past. So now it's time for you to graduate, although perhaps only to the junior high school level with this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoz2IKyl3bc

If you can prove that you can watch and learn from that then we should talk somemore. Or at least 'you' should talk somemore and I may pay attention if your demeaning attitude has improved.

Fair enough?

(in actuality, I'm happy to tell it like it is with somebody who knows how to hand it out as well as take it) (I'm sick and tired of the cry babies running to daddy) (how about you?)(ready for the big leagues?)

mark_alfred

It's interesting that this is coming out now.  I believe that when the ban on same sex marriage was first lifted was in Ontario from a decision at the Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario's highest court), and Mike Harris' Progressive Conservative Party was in government at the time, and they did not challenge the decision to the Supreme Court.  I think too that a similar thing happened in BC when the right-leaning Liberals of Gordon Campbell declined to challenge such a decision from their high court (so, ironically, both of these right-leaning provinces were the first jurisdictions in Canada to allow same sex marriage).  Also, the Harper Conservatives did not revisit the issue when they had a majority.  So, in practise, Conservatives have were pretty accepting of same sex marriage (or at least not stridently opposed to the notion of it) during the times I just described.  Anyway, it's good to see Ambrose is trying to officially put any notion of banning same sex marriage to rest for the Cons.

voice of the damned

mark_alfred wrote:

It's interesting that this is coming out now.  I believe that when the ban on same sex marriage was first lifted was in Ontario from a decision at the Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario's highest court), and Mike Harris' Progressive Conservative Party was in government at the time, and they did not challenge the decision to the Supreme Court.  I think too that a similar thing happened in BC when the right-leaning Liberals of Gordon Campbell declined to challenge such a decision from their high court (so, ironically, both of these right-leaning provinces were the first jurisdictions in Canada to allow same sex marriage).  Also, the Harper Conservatives did not revisit the issue when they had a majority.  So, in practise, Conservatives have were pretty accepting of same sex marriage (or at least not stridently opposed to the notion of it) during the times I just described.  Anyway, it's good to see Ambrose is trying to officially put any notion of banning same sex marriage to rest for the Cons.

And actually, when foreign SSM couples who had been married in Canada were unable to get divocred because of a loophole that the Liberals had left open, the Conservatives closed the loophole, thus securing one more right for those couples.

I think they might have kept their opposition to it formally on the books, just to keep their SoCon bases covered(eg. allow candidates to say that the party opposes SSM, even if nothing ever gets done about it), or they thought that reviving the topic at the party level would be too much of a knife-fight.

kropotkin1951

monty1 wrote:

bagkitty wrote:

Hammer as hard as you like Monty, not everything is going to fit into such a narrow conceptual framework. Take baby steps (helps to bring a caliper and measure the distance between paired points).

 

Your cute picture is insulting and so is your idea that I need to take 'baby steps'. I didn't do the questionaire in your link beccause I've done a half dozen just like it in the past. So now it's time for you to graduate, although perhaps only to the junior high school level with this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoz2IKyl3bc

If you can prove that you can watch and learn from that then we should talk somemore. Or at least 'you' should talk somemore and I may pay attention if your demeaning attitude has improved.

Fair enough?

(in actuality, I'm happy to tell it like it is with somebody who knows how to hand it out as well as take it) (I'm sick and tired of the cry babies running to daddy) (how about you?)(ready for the big leagues?)

You sir are a pretentious, arrogant poster. Attacking Bagkitty in the LGBTQ forum just shows you have no fucking idea what our online community stands for. After reading a multitude of your trite and facile posts I have concluded you are not an authority on anything but you think you are an authority on everything.

monty1

Kropotkin, From my link you will find the essence of my argument. maintaining that the thread should have more properly been  Rona Ambrose about to de-Nazify the CPC?

Although I have no problem saying that it's over the top for etiquette as seems to be defined by some of your cohorts on this forum. When my comments on Mulcair and the NDP's behaviour in parliament raised such a stir here, this in comparison should blow the roof off for Conservatives. 

However, I would be the last to make a big noise and start crying about it. In fact, it's more to my nature to just correct the title to what in my opinion would be more correct. 

mark_alfred

monty1 wrote:

Kropotkin, From my link you will find the essence of my argument. maintaining that the thread should have more properly been  Rona Ambrose about to de-Nazify the CPC?

That's just silly.  Did you even read the opening post?  It was a play on the acronym of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) which is an identical acronym to the Communist Party of Canada (also CPC).  It was not a serious statement.  Stalin IMO in no way was an actual communist.  Rather, he was a dictator.  So, the light parallel of Stalin's dictatorial rule being overturned by the less dictatorial Krushchev was being employed (IE, Harper's heavy handed rule being overturned by the lighter approach of Ambrose).  Anyway, it was just a play on this, and not meant to be a branding of the Conservative Party. 

monty1

mark_alfred wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Kropotkin, From my link you will find the essence of my argument. maintaining that the thread should have more properly been  Rona Ambrose about to de-Nazify the CPC?

That's just silly.  Did you even read the opening post?  It was a play on the acronym of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) which is an identical acronym to the Communist Party of Canada (also CPC).  It was not a serious statement.  Stalin IMO in no way was an actual communist.  Rather, he was a dictator.  So, the light parallel of Stalin's dictatorial rule being overturned by the less dictatorial Krushchev was being employed (IE, Harper's heavy handed rule being overturned by the lighter approach of Ambrose).  Anyway, it was just a play on this, and not meant to be a branding of the Conservative Party. 

Well I certainly can respect your opinion when it's voiced in that more appropriate way. I think it's more nuanced than I want to entertain though and I'll leave the issue of the thread as it is for now. In my opinion the whole thing is sort of 'frills' anyway. Nothing to get too animated over. Rona is a ditz who is probably the best they have at the moment without playing their entire hand. They have to decide what kind of reincarnation they will come back as to capture the imaginations of the Canadian people. It'll be either a Jekyl or Hyde scenario, you can be sure. Extremist is their brand.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

monty1 wrote:

Your cute picture is insulting and so is your idea that I need to take 'baby steps' [...]

Very good, I am pleased to discover that you are not entirely tone deaf.

monty1 wrote:

I didn't do the questionaire in your link beccause I've done a half dozen just like it in the past. So now it's time for you to graduate, although perhaps only to the junior high school level with this video: [...]

Please... a powerpoint demonstration? I was able to survive eight months spending three hours per week in seminar with Charles Taylor on the subject and you want me to sit through a powerpoint demonstration? The mind fairly boggles it does, didn't I suffer enough?

monty1 wrote:

(in actuality, I'm happy to tell it like it is with somebody who knows how to hand it out as well as take it) (I'm sick and tired of the cry babies running to daddy) (how about you?)(ready for the big leagues?)

Time to be serious now. I think you need to to step back and look at what you wrote in your parenthetical comments. You need to realize that they are simply a paraphrase of the expression "[you can give it out and take it]... like a man". Having been on the receiving end of the expression more than a few times in the past, I understand that it is intended (for the most part) to be laudatory, even if only grudgingly. However, in the context of the forum in which you are posting them they display an appalling ignorance. It is offensive, in the extreme, to come into a LGBT forum and use such a heterosexist trope. While I understand it is usually intended to be laudatory, I try to respond to it by pointing out that I have higher ambitions than seeking to be included in the fraternity of macho males. I actually aspire to be included in the ranks of adults - not some "straight male acting" subset of them.

Although I know the risks involved in assuming things about another poster based simply on what they have posted (age, gender, level of education, etc.) I am going to accept that risk and work under the assumption that you are a certain variety of straight male significantly younger than myself. Working with that assumption I am going to suggest that it might be in your best interest to "move along little boy, you are not ready to participate in threads in the LGBT forum as an adult".

monty1

bagkitty wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Your cute picture is insulting and so is your idea that I need to take 'baby steps' [...]

Very good, I am pleased to discover that you are not entirely tone deaf.

monty1 wrote:

I didn't do the questionaire in your link beccause I've done a half dozen just like it in the past. So now it's time for you to graduate, although perhaps only to the junior high school level with this video: [...]

Please... a powerpoint demonstration? I was able to survive eight months spending three hours per week in seminar with Charles Taylor on the subject and you want me to sit through a powerpoint demonstration? The mind fairly boggles it does, didn't I suffer enough?

monty1 wrote:

(in actuality, I'm happy to tell it like it is with somebody who knows how to hand it out as well as take it) (I'm sick and tired of the cry babies running to daddy) (how about you?)(ready for the big leagues?)

Time to be serious now. I think you need to to step back and look at what you wrote in your parenthetical comments. You need to realize that they are simply a paraphrase of the expression "[you can give it out and take it]... like a man". Having been on the receiving end of the expression more than a few times in the past, I understand that it is intended (for the most part) to be laudatory, even if only grudgingly. However, in the context of the forum in which you are posting them they display an appalling ignorance. It is offensive, in the extreme, to come into a LGBT forum and use such a heterosexist trope. While I understand it is usually intended to be laudatory, I try to respond to it by pointing out that I have higher ambitions than seeking to be included in the fraternity of macho males. I actually aspire to be included in the ranks of adults - not some "straight male acting" subset of them.

Although I know the risks involved in assuming things about another poster based simply on what they have posted (age, gender, level of education, etc.) I am going to accept that risk and work under the assumption that you are a certain variety of straight male significantly younger than myself. Working with that assumption I am going to suggest that it might be in your best interest to "move along little boy, you are not ready to participate in threads in the LGBT forum as an adult".

I'm not a little boy and I could very well be older than you. But why would you mention age anyway. If anything, you could challenge me on my I.Q level which would be a little closer to being relevant. Would you like to go first or shall I?

In any case, neither is all that relevant to the disagreement that has developed here on this thread. It's just too bad that I have been forbidden to talk about it. Or on the other hand, maybe it's just as well because it would require me getting personal in some respects that wouldn't be amenable to this section of the forum.

However, I have made an offer to the moderator in question and if you would like to go to her and ask here what I've said to her then I'll give her my permission to break the confidence I've asked her to keep. 

If you're a gay person, and I'm assuming you are, then it would be a chance to hear something that you may have never heard the likes of before. But unfortunately, it may not please you. So what's your pleasure? Sir? Madam? Not asked in a condescending way because I honestly don't know, even though that may be my fault for not payiing attention?

 

fwiw, you personal attacks against me don't speak badly for me.

6079_Smith_W

Oh my.

And here I was dumping the popcorn into the compost and trying to get back to work  after catchfire responded to the request in the other thread for moderator response  by shutting down the fun.

Since you seem to be making a name for yourself  I am curious. Is this the Field Marshall? Burns? That John Prine tune? The car rally? Python?

(sorry for the drift, bagkitty. I know this actually is a serious issue, but I am kind of following your lead here)

 

monty1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Oh my.

And here I was dumping the popcorn into the compost and trying to get back to work  after catchfire responded to the request in the other thread for moderator response  by shutting down the fun.

Since you seem to be making a name for yourself  I am curious. Is this the Field Marshall? Burns? That John Prine tune? The car rally? Python?

(sorry for the drift, bagkitty. I know this actually is a serious issue, but I am kind of following your lead here)

 

You're never going to find out what it is because I have been forbidden to talk about it. 

Petty insults noted but that's all. No report to the moderators as our late and great shine was wont to do because it's just petty.

6079_Smith_W

Well clearly it's not "the full" then.

 

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Oh my.

And here I was dumping the popcorn into the compost and trying to get back to work  after catchfire responded to the request in the other thread for moderator response  by shutting down the fun.

Since you seem to be making a name for yourself  I am curious. Is this the Field Marshall? Burns? That John Prine tune? The car rally? Python?

(sorry for the drift, bagkitty. I know this actually is a serious issue, but I am kind of following your lead here)

 

No problem Smith, thanks for noticing that I do tend to scold people for excessive drift in here... means at least someone is paying attention to some of what I post *insert big grin*

Some of the drift has been enjoyable though, I really appreciated mark_alfred's bang on breakdown of the OP, although jokes always lose something when subjected to too much analysis. I think in this instance the thread was motivated by not much more than an attempt to share a tidbit of information - more of a random factoid I wanted to share - although it might be of some relevance if the SoCons and the FiscCons fission over this, might have some influence on the debate over proportional representation.

Pages