"Islam Won In Canada"

[shadower]

...of such Islamist rhetoric from a Liberal who could easily become a Canadian parliamentarian. Mr. Fouad assumed that Paul Martin would likewise disapprove of such incitement by a Liberal candidate, and so wrote to the Prime Minister detailing what...

Go to original story

http://conservativeposts.us/v-web/b2/index.php?p=1140&c=1

[ArmedPacifist]

This claim was later disproved upon reviewing the actual recording of the speech.

I spoke to him personally about this and he was very hurt over the lies and deception that did occur.

http://myblahg.com/?p=481

http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/12822.shtml


There is no question but that CCD attributed words to Omar Alghabra for which there was no consistent evidence of his having said them. That was an error and for that error a correction and apology were immediately issued, as well as a mass mailing to everyone (and then some) who recieved the first release and the posting of the correction on every blog and website that picked up the original release. The correction and apology are also part of the orignal release in CCD's media index, so that no one reading the original release will not know that there has been a correction issued. So that has been done, as you say.


"I was on stage with Omar and he never uttered a word about (religion)," said Hazineh. "Omar is a secular man who doesn't mix politics and religion."

[Natemo]

How could you make that mistake...?
oh he ment somthing elts... "rolls eyes/"

[sp2c]

I love how the article manages to get the 'gay marriages are bad' agenda in there too :D

narrowminded ...

[Resevoir Hogs]

I love how the article manages to get the 'gay marriages are bad' agenda in there too :D

narrowminded ...

And what if some people disagree with changing the deffinition of marriage? What is narrowminded is people who assume that those who disagree with them are less intelligent.

I would remind this MP that there IS a seperation of religion from state in this country. The only reason he got elected is he ran as a liberal in Missisauga which is liberal stronghold.

[sp2c]

And what if some people disagree with changing the deffinition of marriage? What is narrowminded is people who assume that those who disagree with them are less intelligent.


who said anything about anybody being less intelligent except you???

I think it's stupid that people would be against gay marriages yes but that's their right ... it get's narrowminded when you use it as the root cause for everything that's wrong in the world.

this topic has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriages yet the original article still manages to take a stab at them, that kind of says it all imo

[Resevoir Hogs]

who said anything about anybody being less intelligent except you???

I think it's stupid that people would be against gay marriages yes but that's their right ... it get's narrowminded when you use it as the root cause for everything that's wrong in the world.

this topic has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriages yet the original article still manages to take a stab at them, that kind of says it all imo

I'm aware that the article is not saying anything about it. But you did make the claim that people who oppose the changing of the deffinition of marriage are "narrowminded" to which I took issue.

In this country, people who oppose gay "marriage" are not necessarily against gay rights or against gay couples having all the legal rights of married couples. Since under civil unions all the rights of being a couple are afforded to gay people. This has been the case here for many decades.

The issue is whether we want to change the legal deffinition of marriage to say a union between two people instead of it saying traditionally what it has always said which is a union between a man and a woman.

Now I'm all for gays doing what they want and having legal rights to do it. But I personally as well as many others believe the deffinition of marriage should be left the way it is. Simply because it does not infringe on any real rights except a gay person's right to be universally accepted by society. But that is not a right anyone has. Universal acceptance is nice but it isn't a right.

[sp2c]

sure enough but the writer of the article should not have dragged gay marriages into this topic, that is narrow minded imo (maybe my english screwed up in the translation ... tunnel vission perhaps?)

[Resevoir Hogs]

sure enough but the writer of the article should not have dragged gay marriages into this topic, that is narrow minded imo (maybe my english screwed up in the translation ... tunnel vission perhaps?)

Meh I don't usually care if a writter says what he wants in his own writings. I just don't like people saying the the gay marriage debate in Canada has to do with gay rights, because it really doesn't in the least.

[sp2c]

nobody did except you :P

[Resevoir Hogs]

nobody did except you :P

No but I knew you were thinking it.

[sp2c]

I don't remember what I was thinking but there's a 90% time that it involved alcohol ;)

[Resevoir Hogs]

I don't remember what I was thinking but there's a 90% time that it involved alcohol ;)

Alcohol leads to bum *** and bum *** to gay rights. ITs the natural progression of things.

[sp2c]

that just made me laugh :D

[Natemo]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48009

[ArmedPacifist]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48009



I take it you didn't read my post on this article?


The quotes attributed to him are SPURIOUS.

[Resevoir Hogs]

I take it you didn't read my post on this article?


The quotes attributed to him are SPURIOUS.

So he didn't say "This is a victory for Islam! Islam won! Islam won! ... Islamic power is extending into Canadian politics," at all?

[ArmedPacifist]

No


123456

[Resevoir Hogs]

Meh I don't really care too much, at least they didn't get into office this time around.

[ArmedPacifist]

He did.


12345

[Resevoir Hogs]

He did.


12345

I mean at least the Liberals didn't get into office this time around. I know full well he got elected, its Missisauga for christ sake.

[ArmedPacifist]

Yeah I met him, he's cool, only weird thing is that he is 34 and he's not married.

I suspect he is either gay or dating a white girl.

[Resevoir Hogs]

Yeah I met him, he's cool, only weird thing is that he is 34 and he's not married.

I suspect he is either gay or dating a white girl.

Meh my MP could kick his ass.

[ArmedPacifist]

No seriously he's a good guy, but yeah he totally had a flat handshake so yeah.

[goldman]

Meh my MP could kick his ass.

You lie! We all know I have the coolest MP in Canada!

[Holmer]

I'm aware that the article is not saying anything about it. But you did make the claim that people who oppose the changing of the deffinition of marriage are "narrowminded" to which I took issue.

In this country, people who oppose gay "marriage" are not necessarily against gay rights or against gay couples having all the legal rights of married couples. Since under civil unions all the rights of being a couple are afforded to gay people. This has been the case here for many decades.

The issue is whether we want to change the legal deffinition of marriage to say a union between two people instead of it saying traditionally what it has always said which is a union between a man and a woman.

Now I'm all for gays doing what they want and having legal rights to do it. But I personally as well as many others believe the deffinition of marriage should be left the way it is. Simply because it does not infringe on any real rights except a gay person's right to be universally accepted by society. But that is not a right anyone has. Universal acceptance is nice but it isn't a right.

Dude you just spoke my mind. I have been saying the exact same thing ever sense the issue was raised in parliament. Kudos!

[Zlatko]

What the hell is the original poster talking about?

I voted for the guy...