My run in with liberal idealogues that aren't very tolerant

if you have a face book account, you can check out aavaz and their campaign to oust Harper
I was the unwelcome pro Harper voice on the site and naturally ruffled some feathers, one guy in particular got really arrogant and figured I was just a dumb scmuck

-lots of anti Harper posts, then

I wrote
at 9:00am on September 29th, 2008
Wow, Randy Kamp made your list! He must be doing something right. He'll get my vote :)
Btw, did anyone else read the British press article about how Harper has been doing a great job, the only real leader amongst the G8 countries and very much underappreciated in Canada. Glowing praise! How he's made good decisions for Canada, is smart and thoughtful. Someone Canadians can be proud of!
The UN is full of......

other posts.....

I wrote
at 9:34am on September 30th, 2008
I like Harper! He's a great leader.
This is what the British press wrote about him after the G8 meeting:

Of all the leaders, only Stephen Harper - the talented but curiously neglected Canadian prime minister - is able to point to a popular and successful record in office.

Some will regard it as alarming that, in current times, world leadership should rest with Canada. But the Canadian Tories are a model of how to behave during a downturn.

They have kept spending in check and reduced taxes. They are playing their full role in world affairs, notably in Afghanistan.

Rather than canting about saving the world (Mr Harper, in his quiet and courteous way, is a Kyoto-sceptic) they have addressed themselves to curing remediable ills and, above all, to putting their own affairs in order.

If the rest of the world had comported itself with similar modesty and prudence, we might not be in this mess.

So, give him some credit!
Climate change is cyclical. We've had an 'mini' ice age in the middle ages and there has been an age with warmer temperatures than now.
It's nature! Glaciers grow and shrink. It's a cycle.
I'm more worried about polluting our water supply, the ground and the air and each person has to take responsibility for what they do.


Phat H Tran (Waterloo) wrote
at 8:33pm on October 1st, 2008
Monika, I was a Tory voter all my life up until Harper became leader and the Conversatives were no longer Progressive, in name or spirit.

Harper is the most cynical, repressive, and regressive leader we've had in a long time. He muzzles his cabinet, requiring that every statement go through his office. He pre-screens reporters' questions on Parliament Hill to avoid the tough ones. He fires safety regulators who make his cabinet look incompetent. He refuses to intervene for Canadians on death row in foreign countries. He refuses to intervene for Canadian minors unconstitutionally detained and tortured in foreign countries. He cuts consumption taxes and reverses the Liberals' income tax cuts even though all modern economists recommend cutting income taxes and raising consumption taxes. He cynically placates the electorate with a "get tough on crime" platform even though crime is at historical lows. He introduces do-nothing environmental legislation on natural parks and smog hoping the public doesn't notice that he wants CO2 emissions to increase (otherwise his home province's oil boom would come to an end). He cuts arts funding and makes what's left contingent on his idea of "merit" in order to further his own conservative values. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Harper is a good leader only in that he's a master tactician. He plays the gullibility and ignorance of the Canadian public like a fine instrument.


I wrote
at 11:36am on October 2nd, 2008
Hi Phat, I agree, Harper is smart and yes he keeps tabs on his cabinet, mainly, I would think, because when he took over the leadership of the party, some of the members where extreme and said things that made the whole party look like a bunch of radical nuts. To be taken serious as politicians, the brain should be engaged before opening ones mouth. Some are pretty new in Ottawa and need a little help. I agree with a lot of the funding cuts and his values are in line with mine.
Are you telling me Mulroney didn't turn you off the party? He ruined the old party. I voted liberal after him.
I agree with his foreign policy. He stood up to Bush about the Arctic. He stands for Canada and Canadians.
He's giving parents a choice, either to both work and choose daycare or for one them to stay home and care for their own kids/
As a mother, I can tell you that many mothers would love to stay home with their children.
He is for an environment plan that is viable and actually will do something!
He's not a warm and fuzzy guy, nor a smooth charmer, he's a strong, smart and practical leader.

other posts...

I wrote
at 11:36am on October 2nd, 2008
There's one 'minor' that I'm aware of, who's own parents sent him to fight with the Taliban against western soldiers; Omar Khadr. Lay the blame at his parents' feet for where he's now.
Detained and tortured? He should be so lucky to be a prisoner in the US! His father died in battle, many children have as well, sacrificed by their parents. He's alive and well fed and not in an Islamic country's jail; now there you can speak of torture, if you even get out alive. I seem to remember an exchange between Israel and ... was it Hamas, PLO or Hezbollah,?, Israel released many 'Palestinian' prisoners to get the two bodies of their kidnapped soldiers back. BODIES. And I would bet they didn't die pleasantly.
I feel sorry for Omar and his situation, but I'm sure there's a lot more to it then we know.
If any Canadian is falsely accused, you can bet that our government will do their utmost to secure their safety and release.
You break the law in a country outside of Canada, you will face their justice system. I believe this is one ( 1 ) person, one Canadian, not, Canadians and not minors, who is no longer a minor, by the way. The use of plurals is a tad misleading, wouldn't you say?
You don't happen to be a politician yourself, would you ? :)
Sometimes I feel that some of our criminals deserve the death penalty. Clifford Olsen and Paul Bernardo would be prime candidates. I'm torn about capital punishment, but I don't fault our Prime Minister for letting someone face the consequences of their actions!
Our governments had become weak, bleeding hearted and so sickeningly politically correct that Harper is a breath of fresh air!
He makes me proud to be Canadian! I also like the tax breaks he's given us and that he's paying down the national debt.


Kate Fulton (University of Guelph) wrote
at 10:01am on October 5th, 2008
If you're interested in "anything but Conservative", check out the co-operative initiatives for election day, like
- vote swapping (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=25808609138&ref=share) or
- checking which party will beat the Conservatives in your riding by entering your postal code: http://www.avaaz.ca/ca/stop_harper_pledge/?cl=133436336&v=2245
- - listen to the song compiled by political Canadian musicians while you're there!


I wrote
at 12:54pm on October 5th, 2008
That almost sounds like voter conspiracy fraud!


Kate Fulton (University of Guelph) wrote
at 1:05pm on October 5th, 2008
if you check it out, it's very legal and very democratic. And a good response to the fact that the system was not changed and that it's impossible to vote for a leader in our country when representative democracy forces us to vote for a local MP only. It's frustrating for those of us who live in areas where our party of choice will never, ever win.


Divided Majority wrote
at 4:24pm on October 5th, 2008
http://www.strategicvoting.ca

The smartest move Mr. Harper made this election was the Psychological Operation (PsyOp) he ran by saying "I think the Canadian public has become more conservative". This I think caused the progressive majority to surrender this election and turn to the American presidential election hoping for better news. Complete note here http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=007825


Katherine O'Neile (China) wrote
at 7:51am on October 6th, 2008
I love these creative ways of voting, especially if you are fed up with the system and simply want to see Harper out so that he will stop ruining our international reputation.

The fact is, with the state of the environment and the economy, our priority should be WORLD CO-OPERATION, something the Conservatives have failed time and time again.


I wrote
at 9:31am on October 6th, 2008
Actually, here's an excerpt from the British press, after the G8 meeting:
(repeat from above...)
That seems to me like Harper has a pretty good international reputation! Is it only Canadians that can't see the good qualities he has? We're lucky to have such a good leader!


Matt Tremblay wrote
at 9:45am on October 6th, 2008
Well, anyone can quote from a conservative newspaper abroad, of course.

You should try traveling and actually asking foreign citizens what their impressions of recent Canadian politics are.

Besides, I have to disagree that what the world needs now is "modesty and prudence". How about a little change and progress?


Danny Shannon wrote
at 3:53pm on October 6th, 2008
There is a website that can help Canadians better monitor who to vote for in thier ridings to defeat Harper. Perhaps you've seen it. If not, please check it out. It seems to agree with Avaaz predictions as well. Click on "check out our interactive voting map" to visit your riding. Here is the link:

http://www.voteforenvironment.ca/


I wrote
at 11:51am on October 7th, 2008
Actually, I do travel, all of my extended family live in Europe and I'm in touch with them, was there twice this year. I guess it depends who you talk to. I'm a dual citizen, so maybe I have a bit more of a global perspective.
Harper wants to care for the environment in a tangible way, not by giving money to underdeveloped nations and buying permission to keep on polluting, not by going for a target in greenhouse gas reduction that is unattainable, besides, nature also creates 'greenhouse gases'.
I worry much more about water, soil and air pollution together. No water, no food, no life.
Global warming is disputed. Over the earths existence, we've had temperature changes, so why should this be so scary? It's nature's cycle.


Vanessa Cowley wrote
at 8:21pm on October 8th, 2008
GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT DISPUTED!! The dispute was settled about four or five years ago. It has been confirmed by the world's scientists, and accepted by most progressive leaders. US and Canada are about the only dinosaurs left. And it's pretty damn scary for the majority of the worlds shoreline population centres (like Venice, that famous European city) that are at risk of flooding. Your naivete is shocking. I'm not going to do your research for you. Just suggest you don't bother starting a family.


I wrote
at 7:06am on October 9th, 2008
Dear Vanessa, the causes of global warming are disputed, if it's mother nature, that is doing most of it or if humans are mainly the cause.
You see, in the past, loooooong ago, there were balmier temperatures on earth than we've ever experienced and in the middle ages, there was a 'mini' ice age. Experts disagree, so should I listen to you? You can think what you like, I happen to believe the scientists that disagree with Al Gore and his ilk, actually, what credentials does he have??
Lol, it's a bit too late for that last little piece of pleasant advice you gave me, I'm more than likely older than you; but may I encourage you to take your own advise, by all means. Wouldn't want to pass on those nasty genes.


I wrote
at 7:11am on October 9th, 2008
Before I forget, Harper is trying to save Canada from economic ruin, which would happen if he implemented the Kyoto restrictions.
Canada's contribution to the earth's atmosphere is a drop in the bucket compared to the US, China, India and other overpopulated industrialized nations. We are underpopulated for the size of our country and can't possibly compete with countries that have a much larger tax base ( working people )


Vanessa Cowley wrote
at 3:50pm on October 9th, 2008
Monica - I'm an evolutionary biologist, I have reasonably good understanding of geological history.


Vanessa Cowley wrote
at 4:02pm on October 9th, 2008
Check out what Mr. Harper's constituants are saying:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/riding/248/ridingtalk.html


Danny Shannon wrote
at 4:22pm on October 9th, 2008
Monika. It's frustating to see you and some others being a victim of the PR campaign surrounding climate change. I would go out on a limb and say you are from Calgary where Harper is from and the lovely PR-mascarading as science-group called the Friends of Science. You might remember the term "global warming". That is what we are now supposed to call "climate change". The latter term really means nothing because, as you put it, the climate is always changing. What is being left out from the "education" that you are getting on climate change is that the real problem is the relatively fast warming in correlation with greenhouse gas emissions. The natural variability you refer does not challenge the adaptability of the biospahere. That occurs over thousand of years, not a few decades. Clearly we have been able to adapt with the natural cycle (seeing how we lived through an ice age and we are now 6billion strong). I understand most people do not have much of a science background. The propagandist know that too. They only have to say some obvious things, out of context, and with many omissions, to put the doubt in your head. I'd be pissed at them if I were you. But instead you're here spreading their propaganda. Don't be had by them.


I wrote
at 9:46am on October 10th, 2008
Ok, if any of you have an open mind, how about reading " The Greenhouse Delusion " by Vincent Gray.
But I guess I might have just as much luck asking someone to change their religion.
If an evolutionary biologist tells me something, it must be true, she's edumacated after all.
Danny, I'm sorry, that limb is gonna break. I"m not from Calgary, actually, I'm from Vancouver and before that, western Europe. I've never heard of the 'Friends of Science' group, 'till now and it really depends what you read and in the end, what you want to believe.
We (my spouse & I ) supported Avaaz on other issues, where they spoke out and fought for people that are suppressed, brutalized by dictatorial regimes and in real need of global support, but Canada is doing just fine, thank you. I don't think you can compare Harper with the likes of Mugabe by the wildest stretch of the imagination.
Let's agree to disagree and put our 'x' on the ballot this coming Tuesday. May democracy win the day.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW I THOUGHT THAT WAS DECENT ENOUGH. AGREE TO DISAGREE. BUT NO! This guy felt I needed his help, to know who to vote for, him being so smart and and me not being 'edumacated' and all. This from a guy who made more spelling mistakes than me and I never had any formal education in English.
I also follow politics more than the average citizen, because I'm interested and like to know what's going on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Danny Shannon wrote
at 10:35am on October 10th, 2008
Monika. I'm sorry to tell you but when it comes to science its not about what you want to believe. It is unreasonable to do so. I WANT to believe what you believe because that is indeed alot less scary. But being educated in environmental sciences and working in the field I am able to separate the science from the b.s. It is unreasonable for me to follow the political debate when the science debate has long since ended. I tried to tell you that if you are putting your "x" on a ballot then it is with the wrong information. Perhaps you don't mind being mislead as long as it meets with your partisan stance. But if you actually care about this world and this country, you may want to make an educated vote. I'm just trying to help you do that.


I wrote
at 7:49am on October 13th, 2008
Danny, I'm sorry to tell you, being educated in environmental sciences, that some things in science are, what is called, THEORY. Some things have not been proven and are 'educated' guesses and any scientist that's honest, will admit that!
I have never felt the need to vote along any party line, but choose on merit.



Danny Shannon wrote
at 7:52am on October 14th, 2008
Again, my point about the scientifically illiterate is demonstrated. You do not even understand what a "theory" is in science. You are describing a "hypothesis". Most generally accepted facts in science are "theories". For example western medicine is applied scientific theory. Would you treat your own life threatening diseases or would you see a doctor? Do you trust your computer is operating in binary code? Would you choose not to travel by air since flight is based on theory? There are only a few scientific laws, the rest is theory and includes things you already accept as fact. So yes, climate change science is a theory. That is why it is serious. Don't you think somebody out there may be just trying to take advantage of your limited knowledge of scientific principles? Why do you think they would try to do that? I think you should look into those questions.


I wrote
at 10:12pm on October 14th, 2008
Since I'm so limited in my knowledge, I've asked someone who's had more education to respond to your insult to me.

"Dear Danny,

Your dedication to and belief in Al Gore's view of climate change is quite akin to a Fundamentalist Christian or Muslim's view of God. In some ways it's admirable to have such a deep belief in something but unfortunately it also places blinders on toward differing views.

For every reference you can provide me that supports your & Al's viewpoint, I can provide you two. For starters, here are some:
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/08/22/p28023
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
All of these people believe you're wrong. Are they right and you're wrong or are you right and they're wrong? Who knows, but anyone who doesn't accept that there are widely dissenting views on this topic is either arrogant or naive.

Robert W."

I guess you're arrogant enough to think that all the Canadians that have reelected the Conservatives, despite all the smears and lies, are all limited in their education and gullible.
I'm grateful for democracy that prevents the vocal minority from becoming a ruling tyranny!
The people have spoken.



Danny Shannon wrote
at 3:56am yesterday
Well, I guess I touched a soft spot didn't I Monica. So much that you had to tell somebody else. I was going to tell my mommy or daddy but then I remembered that I'm actually an adult. I don't think you are being honest with me though by suggesting that Robert W has more education than you. There is no sign of it in his reponse. He thinks that Al Gore is a scientist involved in studying the problem. Al Gore is actually a former politician that happened to do an awareness film. I didn't get any of my education from him. Robert is also comparing me to a fundamentalist Christian as if a belief in something with no evidence to support it (such as all the gods) is comparable to a belief in something that is backed by evidence (global warming). I'd ask Robert to look into the so called "widely dissenting views on this topic". There are none. It is just spin and he is clearly another victim. This suggests he is not educated in the field. Finally, on your point, "all of the Canadians that have reelected the Conservatives" make up one third of the voters. If you consider that voter turn out was 58% that is not a whole lot of Canadians that voted conserative. In FACT most people voted for the left of centre parties. So I won't call "all the Canadians that have reelected the Conservatives" gullible or uneducated. But I will suggest they were not informed about what they were voting for OR they were mislead on the issues in the first place. Perhaps you and Robert voted Conservative.



I wrote
at 4:58am yesterday
! OK, this really shows how dumb you are, where exactly does Robert say anything about Al Gore being a scientist and where do I claim that 'all' Canadians have "spoken"?
If I'd wanted to be dishonest, I could have just printed Robert's reply as my own, probably should have, seeing that you're not mature enough to respond like an adult but have to resort to insults, put downs and trying to belittle someone that doesn't agree with you.
I read a lot and know for myself that there are plenty of scientist that do not agree on the causes of global warming.
I voted Conservative, gee, that wasn't too hard to guess, was it. What Robert voted, I don't know, nor do I care.
If all the people that voted other than Conservative, had voted together, then the Conservatives would have lost, but if there was no BQ, who's to say, how many would vote Conservative, how many Liberal.....even those that voted Liberal or Green might not like the radical left NDP. How do you explain the total bombing of your 'strategic voting' campaign? Yes, many people do vote uninformed, often on name recognition rather than issues.
Ms. May said, after losing ( again ), that 'if 8 year olds could have voted, she'd have won in a landslide.'
Talk about uniformed and naive voters.
If you actually took the time, there's plenty of information on the web about global warming. You can find the names of scientists who disagree on various items from causes to temperatures etc., etc.
Being educated doesn't mean you're actually smart.

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

Then I posted all kinds of names from the web, of scientists that have differing views on global warming, it's causes, consequences ...... it's all on Google if people care to read up on it. I won't post it here, the list is much too long!

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


Danny Shannon wrote
at 11:51am yesterday
There is a difference between being insulted and feeling insulted. I threw no insults. I simply put you in a category with MOST people that are scientifically illiterate. I pointed that out again when you indicated that you don't even grasp the difference between a "hypothesis" and a "theory". That was to help you see that you are being taken advantage of. You are accusing me of being insulting when I was trying to help you open your eyes for the sake of all of us. It's really not helping you to say in one reply that you never even heard of the Friends of Science, and quote them at length in several other replies. Tim Ball is one of the most notorious deniars. Read what I said before you put up this misnformation and you'll know what I think of it. I have seen it all before, so don't waste your time. You really need to look into this further then you'll realize that you are a victim of PR campaign and the reason is because you are most people. Unable to know who or what is real in the science world. You are being had, but that is not surprising. What is surprising is that you seem happy to be so unaware of that fact. Go ahead and post more here, I won't respond. I'll take the hook that your "friend" used re. fundamentalist christians. Being an atheist, I have argued with theists and I learned that it goes nowhere because evidence and faith are two completely different things. I like evidence, you like ideology, so this conversation is going nowhere. Just try not to lead with your pride on this and learn more facts so you can help yourself and those you care about.
Global warming is not a partisan issue. Inaction will kill liberals and conservatives alike.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think he's a pompous ass, frankly.
What do you think?