View Full Version : The Canadian Election
I'm voting Conservative, I can't support the Liars errr I mean Liberals.
http://myspace-257.vo.llnwd.net/00330/75/26/330606257_l.jpg
http://www.conservative.ca
January 23rd... who will you support?
Here is some stuff to chew on...
Harper has gone through a BIG image makeover physically. I don't think this was coincidence either. I'm starting to believe that he purposely lost 2004 because he knew a Conservative minority wouldn't work. This would mean that, yes, we will see an attempt for a CPC majority (although a hush-hush one). Don't be surprised if Harper pulls off 160+ seats on election night. Some factors to consider:
1) The GTA - You'd think that we'd be bitter about Toronto after all it has done to keep the Liberals in power over the last 50 years. Yet this is the perfect time for the Conservatives to smash through hog town. How? Two words: gun crimes. The Liberals always lose points to us on this issue and if it is the issue that we fight in the GTA on, we will win St. Pauls, Thornhill, Mississauga-Everything and Brampton-Everything. Change may be scary, but a dead kid one day is even scarier!
2) The U.S. - They are like political plutonium up here when a party can use it. Some things have changed here in Harper's favour ->
a) No one expect Canada to do anything in Iraq, and we won't. The U.S. is almost done after all!
b) Liberal candidate for Etobicoke - Lakeshore (read: Toronto Proper) Mike Ignatieff is on record as being very friendly to the US. He lived their for 20 years. He has friends there. He doesn't think they are all devils. Translation: our racist country would turn on him in a second if these facts are hammered out!
3) The Money - The CPC has twice the budget that the Liberals do. They were foolish enough to announce their strategy too: hold off everything till Janurary! Warren Kinsella, Chretien's campaign manager had three rules; Rule 1: Define yourself before your opponents do!
4) Social Issues - Oh, what will we do with those sticky social issues? Well, sadly abortion is off the table this time. Like private health care though, it will be back when we realize that the status quo isn't sustainable. As for marriage, we had the announcement today. It's out of the way. Moving right along...(this worked for Chretien all through his time as PM)
5) Health Care - Or more like the lack of... I mean, when was the last election not about health care. And yet, what did you hear about on the news today? Corruption, honestly, federalism, tax breaks... Health care will make an appearance, but this time it won't be the defining issue. The Quebec Superior Court's decision to allow private care on Martin's watch assured that!
6) Immigrants - This is the silent killer of all non-Liberals. Ever wonder why only the Liberals win in Toronto (as opposed to the Conservatives and NDP)? Here is why: ethnic communities know where their bread is buttered. If they vote against the Liberals, there is a fear mechanism here that states that they will be punised for it. Just ask Cambridge's Portuguese community what happened to their hospital when they sent CPC MP Gary Goodyear to Ottawa last year! However, we have a diverse group of candidates. That, plus marriage, plus sponsorship, plus the job losses, plus crime will mean enough votes for Tories to get their people elected in the major urban centres.
7) Fiscal Issues - The Liberals have burned the barn on this one. It is obvious that they are not sound fiscal managers. Retired folk now resent them for Goodale's market screw up in September that cost them millions. Gas prices are too high (and heat will follow as the days get shorter!). That and the rumoured CPC reduction in the GST to 5% from 7% should help us clean the floor with the Liberals.
I'm voting Conservative, I can't support the Liars errr I mean Liberals.
I can't support bigoted, homophobic, holier-than-thou rednecks who try to come off as being moralistic (even though they most assuredly are not - I *do* remember Brian Mulroney's government) and would not only kiss the ass of big business at the expense of consumers and their rights but would devalue our privacy and turn us into the 51st State of the United States.
My entire family (including the 18-year old) are voting Liberal, not because we're so attached to them but because the alternative is far worse and nothing a thinking individual could condone. There is no way that I could turn the government of one of the most enlightened countries on earth over to these narrow-minded neo-moralistic closet Alliance mongers. My prediction is that yet another Liberal government will rule this country in January - I'll be terribly surprized if we elect a Canadian version of the Bushies. Of course, Albertans will vote solid blue but they just don't know any better - I mean, they keep electing Klein. They'd elect Charles Manson if he wore Tory Blue. Hopefully, those of us east of Manitoba have more sense than that.
idefiXX
11-30-2005, 09:56 PM
i am not canadian and i know they don't have any chance to get into the house of commons, but i don't like strategical voting (like : "uh, i don't like the liberals, but i really really don't like the conservatives, so lets vote for the liberals)
the better choice...
http://www.greenparty.ca/
the german greens got 8.1 % last elections, of which i am very proud of :cool:
rorythedog
11-30-2005, 10:13 PM
I also will be voting Liberal. Funny, my vote counts for more in Canada than it does in Scotland. Go figure. :puzzled:
Having said that, I'm registered in Toronto. We only have to get up in the morning and we're Liberal by tea-time.
i am not canadian and i know they don't have any chance to get into the house of commons, but i don't like strategical voting (like : "uh, i don't like the liberals, but i really really don't like the conservatives, so lets vote for the liberals)
the better choice...
http://www.greenparty.ca/
the german greens got 8.1 % last elections, of which i am very proud of :cool:
I could vote green if they had a bigger presence. As to the Liberals, I'm more on-side with their ideology by far than the Conservatives. It's their corruption I don't like but I'll take that over bigotry and so-called holier-than-thou "moral" BS any day.
So,... your family supports criminal activity and liars? :ponder:
What is wrong with morals? oh yeah.... I forget criminals have none!!!
Homophobic? I think not, just because the party does not stand for sin, does not make them homophobic, get your head out of the sand! The Liberals have disgraced this country, I want a Conservative gov't whom I can be proud of and that does not steal my money and disgrace our nation!!!
Ontario is stupid, how can somone lie to you year after year and you tolerate it and vote for them? Please explain this to me.... do you think the Liberals are perfect? Hasn't anything they've done disturbed you? Or does your family just vote blindly Liberal because of pressure based on the "my dad was a liberal, so I have to be" method. Don't any of them think for themselves?
The Liberal party may have been good at one point in History but they are mother fuckers now, and I will never vote for them until that changes if it ever does. Comparing the Conserv's to "Republicans" in U.S. is so wrong. Cough Cough... "turn us into the 51st State of the United States" LOLOLOLOLOL
The alternative is worse? ...cause it would make us a serious country again not a joke like we've been for the last 7+ years. Please enlighten me as to how a CP gov't would be worse?
So,... your family supports criminal activity and liars? :ponder:
Don't go all holier than thou on me. The Conservatives have been guilty of all that and more. Mulroney's mess is legendary. The bigorty and homophobia is harper's camp, including Harper himelf is well known. I take it you support that?
What is wrong with morals?
They mean nothing. Why? Because they're NEOGTIABLE from generation to generation. Less than a hundred years ago, marrying your sister-in-law was considered INCEST. No genetic relationship there, but MORALS dictated that it was incest. The Crusades were MORAL. The Spanish Inquisition was MORAL. Vlad the Impaler was MORAL. Need I go on?
oh yeah.... I forget criminals have none!!!
Neither, it would appear, do priests, Popes, Cardinals or lawmakers.
If you get near a point, make it.
Homophobic? I think not, just because the party does not stand for sin, does not make them homophobic, get your head out of the sand!
Sin? And who are you to judge? See abo e on what was considered incest.
I'm a realist - I set little store in fairy tales.
The Liberals have disgraced this country, I want a Conservative gov't whom I can be proud of and that does not steal my money and disgrace our nation!!!
ROFLMFAO!!!
When the Mulroney government was in power, the Conservatives stole your money and his WIFE stole your money. Where were you then? Where was your pride? Were you even out of diapers?
Ontario is stupid, how can somone lie to you year after year and you tolerate it and vote for them? Please explain this to me....
Be happy to.
Let's have a quick look at the gestation of the Conservative party of today. A loser of a party that Canada repeatedly rejected (with good reason, I might add - it was terminally disorganized and had no platform) got into bed with the Alliance party whose ideals could most charitably be descrinbed as redneck politics. The Alliance party knew full well that they had zero credibility in Canada and on the world stage (their comments had EMBARASSED Canada on more than one occasion) because of those ideals so they turfed the leader that built the party and chose another to represent them. That simpleton was consixderably more inept than the leader they had turfed (according to him, dinosaurs and humans occupied the same time period) so they tossed him too. They grabbed the current pretty boy to represent them. In the process, one of their elite, a woman who was rumoured to be a strong candidate for their next leader got a clue and bailed on them. Quite a scandal. Getting back to the bedroom olympics, the Conservative party did not necessarily agree with the Alliance ideals but in desperation did what any good whore does: it put a face on it and did twhat it had to do. The result was the New Conservative Party - you know, the one you're so proud of. The historical facts are all there to see, assuming you actually want to get past the rhetoric and look at them.
The Liberal party has corruption issues - no question. However, it's the lesser of two evils and is an evil that is known. I'll gamble on a known evil a lot sooner that I will on the other alternative iterated above, especially where the national interest is concerned.
do you think the Liberals are perfect?
See above.
Do you think the Conservative party is? If you do, you're one poor fool.
Hasn't anything they've done disturbed you?
Definitely. However, statements of bigotry and homophobia and the spectre of the Religious Right from a party that wants to rule the country in the 21st century disturbs me a HELL of a lot more.
Or does your family just vote blindly Liberal because of pressure based on the "my dad was a liberal, so I have to be" method.
Hell no. When the election was called, the first thing Harper said was that he was dismantling the gay marriage legislation. I was unaware of this. My daughter came home from University, iterated his comments and said "Harper's gone too far - again. There's no way I'm voting for that idiot". That was that.
Are you voting Conservative because mummy and daddy indoctrinated you?
Don't any of them think for themselves?
She sure does. The key word there is THINK. That's why neither my wife nor my daughter is voting Conservative. They can see where it will lead. All they had to do is look South.
How much of YOUR viewpoint came form mummy and daddy? Can you see beyond your nose and the corruption you perceive? Doi you have any idea what A Conservative government would mean for Canada? For immigrants? for consumer rights? For the Privacy Act? Why do I think you can't answer ONE of those questions?
The Liberal party may have been good at one point in History but they are ****** ******* now, and I will never vote for them until that changes if it ever does.
One word: language.
The Conservatives were good for this country too once and I voted for them more than once. they've gone to seed and have become whores. Worse yet, they hold to an idea of government that holds minimal relevancy today. they may reinvent themselves again.
But not today.
Comparing the Conservatives to "Republicans" in U.S. is so wrong.
Not really - the Allaince is originally form the self-proclaimed Republic of Alberta, the most wannbe Republican state, er, province we have.
Cough Cough... "turn us into the 51st State of the United States" LOLOLOLOLOL
See above. I lived in Calgary for 15 years. My folks still live there. I've been there twice this year. That "Republic of Alberta" comment was heard on radio as recently on RADIO as August (the last time I was there).
The alternative is worse? ...cause it would make us a serious country again not a joke like we've been for the last 7+ years. Please enlighten me as to how a CP gov't would be worse?
Why have we been a joke? Because we haven't followed blindly where the US led? Because we had the good sense to not support a foreign policy that was invasive and would have painted a bull's eye on our backs? The last "present" the Conservatives gave us (apart form the whole airbus debacle) was Free Trade. That has been a retroactive abortion that is STILL raping Canadians financially. This is good fiscal governance?
Oh please. I favored the Conservatives once - then I grew up.
Don't go all holier than thou on me. The Conservatives have been guilty of all that and more. Mulroney's mess is legendary. The bigorty and homophobia is harper's camp, including Harper himelf is well known. I take it you support that?
They mean nothing. Why? Because they're NEOGTIABLE from generation to generation. Less than a hundred years ago, marrying your sister-in-law was considered INCEST. No genetic relationship there, but MORALS dictated that it was incest. The Crusades were MORAL. The Spanish Inquisition was MORAL. Vlad the Impaler was MORAL. Need I go on?
Neither, it would appear, do priests, Popes, Cardinals or lawmakers.
If you get near a point, make it.
I'm a realist - I set little store in fairy tales.
...no you don't need to go on because your examples of what was considered "moral" are ridiculous!!
Use Christ as your standard for what moral perfection is - not another soul on the planet ever can demonstrate what "purity" is. This is not one group of peoples moral assessments vs another - it is God's vs Man's. But if you don't believe in God... well then...!
Jesus died for you and your ignorance as well, you are living the fairy tale bud, one with a trajic conclusion. good luck to ya! :disappoin
Gotta love that socialist liberal movement, disguied as personal freedoms.
It's really moral decay.
**irrelevant religious dogma not germane to this discussion deleted**
Whatever.
Just remember that you can thank the Canadian brand of socialism for your health care system and social awareness programs that enrich the quality of life and improve the standard of living of all Canadians. If you would prefer an alternative and are not too hypocritical to stay and enjoy those priveleges produced by a social system you so easily denigrate, you're more than welcome to leave Canada.
We'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
rorythedog
12-01-2005, 07:59 AM
What about the sizeable non-Christian population in Canada? Are they all "immoral" too? Canada will be doomed if it goes down your road.
What about the sizeable non-Christian population in Canada? Are they all "immoral" too? Canada will be doomed if it goes down your road.
Quit talkin' good sense, rory mon - that'll just scare people. :) :) ;)
rorythedog
12-01-2005, 05:24 PM
Seriously though, Canadians do have a problem here. As do a great many people in the "West". I've listened to a bit of what both parties in Canada have to say and they're aren't that many differences. The emphasis changes but the core policies remain the same. The UK has the same problem. Hardly any difference between the two main parties, Tories and Labour. I'd hate to be English. I'd probably vote Liberal given the choice.
As far as I can tell the same situation has just arisen in Germany and they've opted for some kind of power sharing deal. Which will be a disaster, given that they've put Angela Merkel in charge. I suspect she'll do the same to Germany as thatcher did to the UK. And it ain't good guys.
Religion doesn't play a big part in elections here. Ethnicity does though. Maybe it amounts to the same thing, I don't know. The UK parliament is debating pensions at the mo and it's looking like people are going to have to work until they're 69 to get a state pension. 69! I thought the whole point of lifes endeavour was to make things easier, not harder. What's never been mentioned in this debate is what kind of jobs these will be. I'm gonna be selling burgers in my '60's. And that's bollocks.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth"? More like "Asia shall inherit the Earth". It seems unavoidable, doesn't it? Unless of course, the Christians come to the rescue. They might fabricate reasons to have controling interests in their respective countries for instance. i.e. "filthy asian terrorists blowing us up and stealing our jobs". "Let's give them some back". "We can say it's for democracy". "The proletariat will believe anything we say anyway. We keep them way too busy for them to ever have the time or inclination to think in any depth about such matters. All THEY need is someone to blame".
And we all know who's getting blamed, don't we? Meanwhile the UK spends £18 billion per year to keep a nuclear deterrent that doesn't work, and frankly, CAN'T work. Not against the "enemy" we now face. This in a country with possibly the worst teeth in the modern world and nowhere near enough dentists to deal with it. And all these governments are watching each other too, believe it. The Right "Honourable" Tony Blair takes his holidays at the Berlusconi Ranch! Seriously! And of course, there's no impropriety in that, is there?
Vote very carefully. It could have far reaching consequences.
As an aside, isn't it a pity that the morons who bombed London chose to do so on 7/07/? I mean, there's 353 days they could've picked and they chose that day. Almost everyone in the UK refers to the events in New York on 11/09 as 9/11. Which of course is wrong. It's wrong in English terms and it's wrong on logical terms. It would have been interesting to hear what term would be used in the media. Nevermind.
Sorry for the rant guys. Maybe not the right place for it. I can move it if it seems wrong. Or I could delete it.
Ha! Ha! Not a chance!
One more thing. It occurred to me whilst lying in the bath that while I might have to work until I'm 69, the majority of the population of this planet won't live to half that age. Perspective. Damn.
We are all immoral. That is not the point. This is not a "holier than thou" discussion. This is matter of man before God and God shows no partiality "for all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God". It is not 'us vs them', it is the revelation of God for all. God is not some high and mighty judge that condemns us for being ignorant. He sent His Son as an object lesson in life. Watch Mel Gibson's "The Passion" - it will help you understand.
Read the Bible afresh, don't just assume it is all dogmatic rhetoric. If people can grasp the idea of the grace of God and not focus narrowly on the condemnation of sin they would begin to see the Light. The Bible has far more to say about grace and love than it deos about sin and condemnation but they go hand in hand and it is this balance that we call "Truth".
**more irrelevant religious dogma deleted**
The last time I checked, this was a political discussion.
Religion has NO mplace in politics - PERIOD.
Every time it has had the poor sense to ride in the same cart as government, the results have been catastrophic, to say the least.
Point blank:
Leave It Out Of The Discussion.
PLEASE read the Constitution from the U.S. and Canada (from UK)!!! It is all about inaliable rights given to us by the Creator! That is why we persue "justice". It is pointless for me to try further, you're not spiritually minded and so do you not understand spiritual things. Plain and simple. The Bible is quite clear on that fact and people like yourself.
I agree that many atrocities carried out by governments in the name of religion are terrible and very real, but look at the atrocities carried out by the athiestic world view... hitler... stalin... moa. These are the more recent ones, this is the course we are on. Those who carried out the atrocities in the "name of God" - will be held accountable by God - don't worry about that... probably more accountable but that is no argument for keeping matters of "religion" out of politics.
A Christian backed nation are the only countries that allow for freedom of religion!!! other state sanction religious countries outlaw the practice of other religions. Chritianity is not afraid to let the people decide. The Bible challenges us to test/study and seek out the truth, not blindly believe. In a muslim nation that is not the case same as the hindus and in china it is illegal to even have a Bible for the most part it threatens their governments CONTROL. Chritianity is about freedom and truth and it is not afriad to be challenged.
Open mindedness and fairness are all that is required. Thankfully, those traits are in no way shape or form limited to those espousing a particular religious or cultural belief.
That's why religion can and should ALWAYS be removed from the political equation.
Your statement on Christian backed nations is also incorrect.
Hint:
The people who originally invented and embraced democracy weren't Christian. Neither, as another example, were the people who came up with the Hippocratic Oath or the judicial code known as the Code Of Hammurabi (the first written code of laws in human history).
So for the last time:
Leave It Out.
rorythedog
12-01-2005, 07:19 PM
PLEASE read the Constitution from the U.S. and Canada (from UK)!!! It is all about inaliable rights given to us by the Creator! That is why we persue "justice". It is pointless for me to try further, you're not spiritually minded and so do you not understand spiritual things. Plain and simple. The Bible is quite clear on that fact and people like yourself.
I agree that many atrocities carried out by governments in the name of religion are terrible and very real, but look at the atrocities carried out by the athiestic world view... hitler... stalin... moa. These are the more recent ones, this is the course we are on. Those who carried out the atrocities in the "name of God" - will be held accountable by God - don't worry about that... probably more accountable but that is no argument for keeping matters of "religion" out of politics.
A Christian backed nation are the only countries that allow for freedom of religion!!! other state sanction religious countries outlaw the practice of other religions. Chritianity is not afraid to let the people decide. The Bible challenges us to test/study and seek out the truth, not blindly believe. In a muslim nation that is not the case same as the hindus and in china it is illegal to even have a Bible for the most part it threatens their governments CONTROL. Chritianity is about freedom and truth and it is not afriad to be challenged.
The UK has NO constitution. It's people are SUBJECTS, not Citizens. There's a difference. Subjects of an illegitimate unelected wifey of German descent. And the Royals aren't allowed to marry a catholic. What's that all about?
Roj you are completely wrong and ignorant in this area.
I will no longer waste my breath or type rather.
Just know that you are wrong and need enlightenment. I'll pray for that. :)
We'll agree to disagree. Here's a HUG. lol
---
Rory, they have the Charter of Rights!
acushla
12-01-2005, 11:49 PM
I'm voting Conservative, I can't support the Liars errr I mean Liberals.
I can't support bigoted, homophobic, holier-than-thou rednecks who try to come off as being moralistic (even though they most assuredly are not - I *do* remember Brian Mulroney's government) and would not only kiss the ass of big business at the expense of consumers and their rights but would devalue our privacy and turn us into the 51st State of the United States.
My entire family (including the 18-year old) are voting Liberal, not because we're so attached to them but because the alternative is far worse and nothing a thinking individual could condone. There is no way that I could turn the government of one of the most enlightened countries on earth over to these narrow-minded neo-moralistic closet Alliance mongers. My prediction is that yet another Liberal government will rule this country in January - I'll be terribly surprized if we elect a Canadian version of the Bushies. Of course, Albertans will vote solid blue but they just don't know any better - I mean, they keep electing Klein. They'd elect Charles Manson if he wore Tory Blue. Hopefully, those of us east of Manitoba have more sense than that.
Time to get into the present, Roj...you seem to be about a decade or so behind.
Even the flimisist of research would have you reaching for more.
acushla
12-02-2005, 12:01 AM
The Liberal party has corruption issues - no question. However, it's the lesser of two evils and is an evil that is known. I'll gamble on a known evil a lot sooner that I will on the other alternative iterated above, especially where the national interest is concerned.
As long as there are Canadians who prefer to proudly display this type of trite on their chests rather than do the homework to discover for themselves how any particular party has evolved to it's present platform, how it stands on any given issue TODAY...then we will always be doomed to the self-serving bastards who currently rule the ignorant and blind.
A vote should be cast based on knowledge and understanding...NOT on 'fear'.
I will no longer waste my breath or type rather.
Thank God.
'nuff said.
We'll agree to disagree. Here's a HUG. lol
Accepted and reciprocated. :) :) ;)
acushla
12-02-2005, 12:09 AM
Whatever.
Just remember that you can thank the Canadian brand of socialism for your health care system and social awareness programs that enrich the quality of life and improve the standard of living of all Canadians. .
This is a joke...right?
Been to a Hospital lately?
Time to get into the present, Roj...you seem to be about a decade or so behind.
Even the flimisist of research would have you reaching for more.
You listened to these people lately? Try actually doing it sometime instead of sucking it down what they say like so much pap.
This is a joke...right?
Been to a Hospital lately?
Yeah - with my son a week ago. Emergency. They got the job done - I didn't pay a cent.
acushla
12-02-2005, 12:14 AM
"The meek shall inherit the Earth"? More like "Asia shall inherit the Earth". It seems unavoidable, doesn't it? Unless of course, the Christians come to the rescue..
A
Given the fact that 'Bird Flu' is right around the corner...NONE of this is going to matter.
As long as there are Canadians who prefer to proudly display this type of trite on their chests rather than do the homework to discover for themselves how any particular party has evolved to it's present platform, how it stands on any given issue TODAY...then we will always be doomed to the self-serving bastards who currently rule the ignorant and blind.
Until we have the intelligence to see through the flowery promises, remember the history of what got us to this point and notice that the emperor really ISN'T wearing new clothes, we're doomed to be duped like country bumpkin rubes who just fell off a turnip truck.
Belinda saw through the BS and had the good sense to bail. What's your escuse?
acushla
12-02-2005, 12:17 AM
Yeah - with my son a week ago. Emergency. They got the job done - I didn't pay a cent.
Oh, that's right...you live in Ottawa...the Capital. Of course the Hospitals are good there...I mean after all...you never know when a Liberal might need to go to one.
Oh, that's right...you live in Ottawa...the Capital. Of course the Hospitals are good there...I mean after all...you never know when a Liberal might need to go to one.
Oh right, you live in T.O. - that bastion of "much ado about nothing" and "let's hurry up and do it flamboyantly and BIG - but inevitably ill-conceived, mismanaged and over budget". I'm surprised that *anything* works there.
Don't whine to me about your self-inflicted problems. :)
rorythedog
12-02-2005, 12:33 AM
I got bitten by a moose in Toronto and was fixed up in under 30 minutes.
Free of charge.
BTW. My dog's stopped running. Anyone know what's up with that?
acushla
12-02-2005, 12:39 AM
Until we have the intelligence to see through the flowery promises, remember the history of what got us to this point and notice that the emperor really ISN'T wearing new clothes, we're doomed to be duped like country bumpkin rubes who just fell off a turnip truck.
Belinda saw through the BS and bailed. What's your excuse?
Belinda Stronach was instrumental in the movement to unite the Reform and the Progressive Conservative parties - and in 2004 she ran for the party's leadership.
Given some of your earlier statements about Partie's adherring to their original platforms and not evolving...this should really frighten you.
A woman who was the former president and CEO of Magna International Inc., one of the largest auto parts suppliers in the world. She guided the company to record sales and profits in her two years on the job.
Stronach is also a member of the dean's council at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University and the dean's advisory council at the Joseph L. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.In short, a highly motivated individual who is not used to not getting her own way.
Having come in second in the leadership race, and with no 'principal dancer' role awaiting her...she didn't think twice about abandoning the ideals of the people who put her in the House. She didn't even have the decency to go before her riding and have a open discussion about it. The Liberals offered her the promise of being rewarded as a Cabinet Minister...and just like the pack of self-serving rats she was joining...she jumped and thus proved that she was one of them.. Of course 'bastard' would not apply...but 'BITCH' would. There is a C word I wanted to use, but out of respect choose not to.
...she makes a perfect Liberal.
How sad for us all that Prime Minister Paul Martin has put her in charge of democratic renewal and given her the responsibility for implementing recommendations to come from the Gomery Inquiry. Well, I suppose he feels he should get value from the 'maid' he has bought and paid for, and having bought her knows full well her moral compass.
Having her defeated in her riding of Newmarket-Aurora this time around will bring greater satisfaction to me than seeing Harper elected as PM.
At least with Belinda my chances of having a big grin on my face before I go to bed on January 23rd are excellent.
I got bitten by a moose in Toronto and was fixed up in under 30 minutes.
Now THERE'S something you don't see every day (with my best Bill-Murray-quizzical-look). Not the "fixed up in 30 minutes" part - the "bitten by a moose" part.
rorythedog
12-02-2005, 12:43 AM
Now THERE'S something you don't see every day (with my best Bill-Murray-quizzical-look). Not the "fixed up in 30 minutes" part - the "bitten by a moose" part.
A "moose" is a completely different rodent round these pairts. :rolleyes:
I'd say she was damned smart.
She abandoned a sinking ship before it went under and took her with it.
Most normal people call that intelligent.
Conservatives naturally call that treason.
But that's life, eh - no surprizes there.
A "moose" is a completely different rodent round these pairts. :rolleyes:
In Newfoundland it's a beer. :)
acushla
12-02-2005, 12:47 AM
I got bitten by a moose in Toronto and was fixed up in under 30 minutes.
Free of charge.
BTW. My dog's stopped running. Anyone know what's up with that?
You are soooo funny.
I bet it was that Moose that hangs around Yonge and Bloor.
You are soooo funny.
I bet it was that Moose that hangs around Yonge and Bloor.
Stephen Harper has been sighted at the corner of Yonge and Bloor?
Was she wearing six inch pumps and a wedding dress?
But I grow weary of the banter, as amusing as it is. It's been a VERY long day and I'm tired. I need my double hot chocolate dressed with Havana Club (that's the only thing I use Havana Clkub for - civilized people drink either 12 year Brugal or Appleton Estate, doncha know).
Taketh care. :) :) ;)
acushla
12-02-2005, 12:56 AM
I'd say she was damned smart.
She abandoned a sinking ship before it went under and took her with it.
Most normal people call that intelligent.
Conservatives naturally call that treason.
No surprise there.
It was not her choice to make. She had a responsibility to the people who put her there.
Sinking or not does not enter into the equation. She is representing a group of people who have expressed their support for the ship. If she was committed to her constituency and her supposed values, she would have stayed and formulated ideas and methods to turn the thing around. She showed she had no such loyalty to the Party or to her constituency. I would suggest that the reason she didn't bother to bring it before her Riding is that there was a good possibility that they would have rejected such a move. Something, of course, which did not fit into her own plans. I cannot over emphasize this...she is ONLY concerned with her own personal ambition and will step over dead bodies to get there. You say that's 'smart'. I say it is reprehensible.
Like a true Liberal she placed her personal ambition ahead of the wishes of those who gave her the privilege of representing them. Like a true Liberal she exhibited the 'finger' to the people she should have cared for the most, while at the same time wearing a big grin. We'll see if she is still smiling on January 24th.
It would be a sad world indeed if everybody at the prospect of not being on the winning band wagon...abandoned not the boat...but the principals and values that they stand for.
Obviously Stronach has no such values...only a self serving greed that puts spotlight in front of convictions.
acushla
12-02-2005, 01:01 AM
civilized people drink either 12 year Brugal or Appleton Estate, doncha know.
He was wearing the 10" High Heel Red Leather boots which I lent him. I just hope he gives them back...I need them Saturday night.
I have to tell you...NO MORE mentioning of 12 year Brugal or Appleton Estate (which I visited). It brings back a flood of memories and makes me very THIRSTY.
Thirsty for this is NOT a good idea for me.:dead: :)
It was not her choice to make.
Sure it was. Who are you to presume her self-determination?
She had a responsibility to the people who put her there.
Really> Didn't they have a responsibility to be intelligent and actually HAVE a party?
Sinking or not does not enter into the picture for someone who is representing a group of people who have expressed their support for the ship,sinking or not.
Sure it does - it's called self-preservation. "The captain goes down eith his ship" is pure and utter nonsense.
Like a true Liberal she placed her personal ambition ahead of the wishes of those who gave her the privilage of representing them.
Privelage?
WHERE??
It would be a sad world indeed if everybody at the prospect of not being on the winning band wagon...abandoned not the boat...but the principals and values that they stand for.
Oh do grow up acushla - this is politics. There Are No Principals. There's only Greed, Gain and Power.
Obviously Stronach has no such values...
...and neither does any other politician. If you get near a point, make it.
only a self serving greed that puts spotlight in front of convictions.
And this is different from whioch politician? Which corporate mogul? Which special interest lobbyist? Which...
Do accept the world in which you live for what it is. The emperor is NOT wearing new clothes. You're not surprized when the Americans don't play fair in the world of trade yet you expect politicina to do so? Um, there's no polite way to say this: Grow Up.
acushla
12-02-2005, 01:22 AM
It was not her choice to make.
Sure it was. Who are you to presume her self-determination?
She had a responsibility to the people who put her there.
Really> Didn't they have a responsibility to be intelligent and actually HAVE a party?
Sinking or not does not enter into the picture for someone who is representing a group of people who have expressed their support for the ship,sinking or not.
Sure it does - it's called self-preservation. "The captain goes down eith his ship" is pure and utter nonsense.
Like a true Liberal she placed her personal ambition ahead of the wishes of those who gave her the privilage of representing them.
Privelage?
WHERE??
It would be a sad world indeed if everybody at the prospect of not being on the winning band wagon...abandoned not the boat...but the principals and values that they stand for.
Oh do grow up acushla - this is politics. There Are No Principals. There's only Greed, Gain and Power.
Obviously Stronach has no such values...
...and neither does any other politician. If you get near a point, make it.
only a self serving greed that puts spotlight in front of convictions.
And this is different from whioch politician? Which corporate mogul? Which special interest lobbyist? Which...
Do accept the world in which you live for what it is. The emperor is NOT wearing new clothes. You're not surprized when the Americans don't play fair in the world of trade yet you expect politicina to do so? Um, there's no polite way to say this: Grow Up.
Spoken like a TRUE Liberal.
How sad that we all expect and accept that in Politics there are no Principals.
As long as we accept it then I suppose it will never change.
Spoken like a TRUE Liberal.
More like a TRUE realist.
I don't believe in fairy tales either.
How sad that we all expect and accept that in Politics there are no Principals.
And when last did YOU see any in politics? You're ten years older than me - you have a better chance of actually sighting them.
As long as we accept it then I suppose it will never change.
"Oh Lord, grant me the strength to change the things I can, the fortitude to accept the things I can't and the wisdom to know the difference."
THERE'S a prayer worth saying. It's been bigger than us ever since corporations got involved - you've said that yourself. Don't go all hypocritical on me now.
He was wearing the 10" High Heel Red Leather boots which I lent him. I just hope he gives them back...I need them Saturday night.
Those num-nums cost $400CDN!!! You're one generous girl.
You never lend ME anything.
Bee-otch!
I have to tell you...NO MORE mentioning of 12 year Brugal or Appleton Estate (which I visited). It brings back a flood of memories and makes me very THIRSTY.
(eyes his THREE unopened bottles of 12 year Brugal and two thirds full bottle of Estate Special Amber given to him by his good friend for his birthday last year lovingly)
Thirsty for this is NOT a good idea for me.:dead: :)
In that case I shall respect your sensibilities.
But enough of all this. I have broken two long-standing rules of mine today:
1) Never talk politics
2) Never talk religion
I broke BOTH in the same thread.
That's it - no more for me on those topics.
acushla
12-02-2005, 02:08 AM
And when last did YOU see any in politics? You're ten years older than me - you have a better chance of actually sighting them.
Lester Pearson, John Diefenbaker and Sir John A. Macdonald.
Kennedy immediately comes to mind...as does Roosevelt. Carter too.
Can't forget Gandhi. (Sure...go ahead...argue THAT choice!:knocked-o )
I'm not suggesting that any Politician is 'perfect' but I do say that there are many who are guided by principals and to whom we are able to respect for their integrity.
Stonach will never be admitted to that circle.
As long as we accept it then I suppose it will never change.
"Oh Lord, grant me the strength to change the things I can, the fortitude to accept the things I can't and the wisdom to know the difference."
This 'prayer' has saved my life...however I have come to realize that 'the fortitude to accept the things I can't (change)...' does not forgo having an opinion.
I think you will concede that in the final analysis there are Politicians we respect and admire and then there are the Despots.
I for one do not respect or admire Belinda Stronach.
I don't believe in fairy tales either.
What exactly is the fairy tale? Are you calling God and his Son Jesus a fairy tale? Do you have any proof this is a "fairy tale"? I am always in shock how people like yourself can come to this conclusion without doing any research.
When you wake up each morning and look around you don't you ever ask yourself why am I here and how is it possible I can do what I do day in and day out? Do you dismiss it as a total fluke, can you not wrap your mind around God and the fact that you are a child of God, or don't you want to accept this Truth as you don't want to be held accountable for your actions!
When you had your children didn't anything ever click, didn't you have any ambition to seek out Truth and have a relationship with your Father (God)? Your kids are a gift from God. I'm very curious, it disturbs me how people can live through life in such a way that dismisses the idea that we have a Father not of this world.
Do you celebrate Christmas? You better not go Christmas shopping cause what you are doing is symbolic of the gifts that were brought from the wisemen for Jesus on his Birth. How can you live a lie?
Also, you said "Thank God" in your reply to me saying I would save my breath/type. It was sarcasm I assume, but no matter how much you deny it you will always have a Father/Creator who loves you. :)
acushla
12-02-2005, 02:17 AM
Thirsity for me is NOT a good idea...
In that case I shall respect your sensibilities.
No need...just messing with you.
Actually it was cover for my being able to tell you that I have been to the Appleton Estates. (lol)
But enough of all this. I have broken two long-standing rules of mine today:
1) Never talk politics
2) Never talk religion
I broke BOTH in the same thread.
That's it - no more for me on those topics.
If you don't enjoy talking about these subjects with other people who welcome your input and want to show you where you are wrong...then by all means...do not venture into the waters. Wouldn't want you to drown.
On the other hand, if you, like many of us, find it a useful exercise to gain insight into how we really feel about things and appreciate input in the form of different ideas or reinforcement of positions we hold which results in a deepening of one's knowledge and understanding...then the only thing I can say is: WELCOME.
Hope you stick around.:) :) :)
I think you will concede that in the final analysis there are Politicians we respect and admire
Abraham Lincoln
Ronald Reagan
Maggie Thatcher
Pierre Trudeau (love / hate relationship, that one)
Peter Lougheed (King Peter of Alberta)
Joe Clark (you may laugh but his integrity and honesty is what made him the laughing stock of politics in Canada)
Preston Manning (I wouldn't have wanted him to run the country but dammit he kept the government honest!)
Notice something? The vast majority are Conservatives.
I for one do not respect or admire Belinda Stronach.
I don't care either way.
The ones I don't respect?
George W. Bush
Stephen Harper
Jacques Parizeau (now THERE'S bigotry)
Brian Mulroney (there's the biggest crook in recent Canadian history)
Mike Harris
Ever notice that lawyers are the most likely to become politicians? That alone should tell you something.
Actually it was cover for my being able to tell you that I have been to the Appleton Estates. (lol)
Aahhhhhhhhhhhhhh...
Blissssssssss....
If you don't enjoy talking about these subjects with other people who welcome your input and want to show you where you are wrong...then by all means...do not venture into the waters. Wouldn't want you to drown.
I never drown.
I simply don't like provoking strife where none is required and those two topics invariably lead to that. My grandmother taught me that many years ago.
On the other hand, if you, like many of us, find it a useful exercise to gain insight into how we really feel about things and appreciate input in the form of different ideas or reinforcement of positions we hold which results in a deepening of one's knowledge and understanding...then the only thing I can say is: WELCOME.
I do that with tech, current events, music and many other topics. But religion and politics cause wars. Seriously. Look at history.
Hope you stick around.:) :) :)
In the immortal words of Kosh:
"I have always been here."
acushla
12-02-2005, 02:40 AM
I think you will concede that in the final analysis there are Politicians we respect and admire
Maggie Thatcher
This will be Rorythedog's cue to jump in.
What exactly is the fairy tale?
We could start with Genesis but that's a whole other discussion that doesn't belong in this thread. Neither do the answers to the rest of your RELIGIOUS questions, so they will be roundly ignored as will all other religious commentary in this thread.
Take a hint - this is a Moderator warning you now.
You want to start another thread on religion? Feel free and welcome to those who want to participate in it. We've actually had a couple of those in the not too distant past and if you want to see how I tick on that topic, go look it up. However, do note that this thread isn't about that subject.
acushla
12-02-2005, 02:42 AM
In the immortal words of Kosh:
"I have always been here."
I have all his albums...even the early ones before he went solo.
This will be Rorythedog's cue to jump in.
Hey, i'm not saying that everything these people did was right.
Oh and I will dispute Ghandi.
He wasn't a politician.
acushla
12-02-2005, 02:45 AM
In the immortal words of Kosh:
"I have always been here."
I have all his albums...even the early ones before he went solo.
Current events are Politics and Religion.
I have all his albums...even the early ones before he went solo.
QUE???
You've missed the boat on that one. Kosh was a character in B5 - a Vorlon.
Current events are Politics and Religion.
Not necessarily. There are hurricanes, the RIAA, Sony, tsunamis, the alien invasion of the human race, sunspots, Paris Hilton's sex life...
I personally will happily discuss any one of those.
Hell, I'll even discuss YOUR sex life. Those thigh-highs DO sound intrigueing...
acushla
12-02-2005, 03:01 AM
Hey, i'm not saying that everything these people did was right.
Oh and I will dispute Gandhi.
He wasn't a politician.
I suppose this would depend on how you defined Politician.
One thing he was and that's a lawyer...so according to your reasoning he has a good foundation. (lol)
...where he had decided to pursue a degree in law. He was called to the bar in 1891, and even enrolled in the High Court of London;
... when he when thrown out of a first-class railway compartment car, though he held a first-class ticket, at Pietermaritzburg. From this political awakening Gandhi was to emerge as the leader of the Indian community, and it is in South Africa that he first coined the term satyagraha to signify his theory and practice of non-violent resistance.
Over the next few years, he was to become involved in numerous local struggles, such as at Champaran in Bihar, where workers on indigo plantations complained of oppressive working conditions, and at Ahmedabad, where a dispute had broken out between management and workers at textile mills. His interventions earned Gandhi a considerable reputation, and his rapid ascendancy to the helm of nationalist politics is signified by his leadership of the opposition to repressive legislation (known as the "Rowlatt Acts") in 1919
There's more of course, including stories of how elected governments could not and did not survive without the endorsement of the legions who followed Gandhi...and treaty's and documents presented to the British outlining the desire of India to rule itself.
For me, this all adds up to a Politician...but that's why we have these discussions.
Now you know.:ponder: :)
Now you know.:ponder: :)
To me, he was a man of peace who brought about a revolution by peaceful means. He was a savior of his people, an inspiration and above all a benevolent leader of men.
I see very few of his qualities in any of today's politicians.
That should tell you how I define "politician".
acushla
12-02-2005, 03:11 AM
The fact there are no Gandhi's in the world today is our loss.
True That. Big Time.
Speaking of Gandhi...I think I will go and eat.
As will I.
"G'nite Bob"
"G'nite Ralph."
*punches clock*
The fact there are no Gandhi's in the world today is our loss.
True That. Big Time.
Speaking of Gandhi...I think I will go and eat.
As will I.
"G'nite Bob"
"G'nite Ralph."
*punches clock*
Dammit!!!
See what happens when I'm hungry and tired?
RATZ!
acushla
12-02-2005, 03:35 AM
The fact there are no Gandhi's in the world today is our loss.
True That. Big Time.
Speaking of Gandhi...I think I will go and eat.
As will I.
"G'nite Bob"
"G'nite Ralph."
*punches clock*
Dammit!!!
See what happens when I'm hungry and tired?
RATZ!
I see you like to 'show and tell'.
Whatever.:cool:
Take a hint - this is a Moderator warning you now.
Are you gonna have me banned? hehee... dude I been around QCD since the days when you were still making love to the Llama. lol Anywho, I mean no harm but don't threaten me with that "moderation" junk just because you are offended by God. I am a moderator elsewhere and I know the score. Jesus loves you anyway. :biggrin:
Here, have another HUG... and relax. :beer:
dude I been around QCD since the days when you were still making love to the Llama.
Given that I haven't used Winamps for at least five years, that's quite a claim you're making. And rest assured that longevity has zero bearing in this situation.
Anywho, I mean no harm but don't threaten me with that "moderation" junk just because you are offended by God.
Let's get a few things straight:
I'm making a statement that you are indulging in repeated pesonal attacks, are disrupting the friendly nature of this board and in general are being a bit of an ass. That has nothing to do with God. In fact, your conduct hasn't exactly been Christian.
My personal feelings on God, whatever they may be, have no bearing on YOUR attitude and actions.
I am a moderator elsewhere and I know the score.
Great. I can therefore expect that you'll have no problem acceding to my request. This is the third board I've moderated, so I'm no pilgrim either. Also, I've never had to ban anyone - although I'd certainly have no problem if the need arose, I prefer to resolve issues long before they reach that state..
Jesus loves you anyway. :biggrin:
I'm very sure he does.
Here, have another HUG... and relax. :beer:
Got a rum to go with that?
Gotta tell you man that the more I look at all of these bozos, the more I think I'm going to simply decline my vote. That means I will vote but will use it as a platform to express my extreme disgust at the options I have been presented with.
Vote Green, that's what my fiancee always votes for!! :laugh:
acushla
12-02-2005, 05:53 AM
Vote Green, that's what my fiancee always votes for!! :laugh:
I'll confide that Green would be my first choice on so many levels...truly a Party of Vision.
The problem is we live here and now and no matter how you slice it, a vote for Green is a vote thrown away.
The day the Earth completely vanishes under the Ocean is the day that the Green Party will win a Federal election.
Meaning it could happen...but don't hold your breath.
Vote Green, that's what my fiancee always votes for!! :laugh:
Seriously thought about it. Need to know more about them - haven't visited their concepts in quite some time.
I was watching the various party commercials this evening before catching E.R. and I found myself becoming more and more disgusted. Then my wife came in from her Christmas party and essentially told me the same thing. We had to laugh. Then the 18-year old came in from her friend's house where they'd been working on a paper and said "you know, I think I may decline my vote". At that point we roared.
This kind of synergy is not unusual in this house.
Heading to bed. 5:30 comes real fast.
G'nite y'all...
I see you like to 'show and tell'.
Whatever.:cool:
Show and tell? Didn't you ever watch the loony tunes with the coyote and the sheepdog as a kid?
rorythedog
12-02-2005, 08:16 AM
This will be Rorythedog's cue to jump in.
thatcher is a bitch from hell. I will make no apologies for my language. She raped my Country. She once famously said "...there is no such thing as society". She was wrong then, she's right now. A self-fulfilling prophecy. There are also around 800 Argentinian families who would agree. Remember "The Belgrano".
For the record, I also want the preaching to stop. Anyone who quotes a 2000 year old "fantasy" as absolute fact has no place in a rational discussion.
Anyone who quotes a 2000 year old "fantasy" as absolute fact has no place in a rational discussion.
Easy there, big fella. A person's religious beliefs are to be respected and no one will ever be barred from a discussion here because of their choice. The issue here was (and I say "was" because it is resolved) method of expression - not belief structure.
rorythedog
12-02-2005, 04:37 PM
You have your opinion Roj, I have mine. Mine is correct. :evil:
You have your opinion Roj, I have mine. Mine is correct. :evil:
That may be - but mine is law. :evil: :evil: :evil:
Just joshin' ya... (hint: whenever you see three icons in a row... )
WHAT?
12-02-2005, 10:04 PM
:evil: :cheeky: Let's get back to the fighting!
I for one like Canadian healthcare!
I, being from one of those lower 51 states;) ... love seeing all the money come rolling-in to our healthcare faci;ities everyday.
acushla
12-03-2005, 04:38 AM
You have your opinion Roj, I have mine. Mine is correct. :evil:
I love you man:) ...but this time it is Roj who is correct. Tolerance and open mindedness about ideas and beliefs held by others which are different from our own is the mark of a enlightened awareness of the diversity of the human landscape.
Not to be confrontational...but would you feel as strongly about anybody preaching the existence of flying saucers?:cheeky:
Willow of Oz
12-03-2005, 05:02 AM
Gee, the interesting conversations you miss when they get misfiled under Canadian elections...I had 4 pages to catch up on!!
acushla
12-03-2005, 05:05 AM
Gee, the interesting conversations you miss when they get misfiled under Canadian elections...I had 4 pages to catch up on!!
Better that you found them interesting than some of the alternative words you might have used.:)
acushla
12-03-2005, 06:02 AM
:evil: :cheeky: Let's get back to the fighting!
I for one like Canadian health-care!
I, being from one of those lower 51 states;) ... love seeing all the money come rolling-in to our health-care face;ities everyday.
Truth be told, with an Uncle in California constantly beckoning me to move...Health Care in Canada is the number one reason why I stay.
The truth about the condition of Health Care in Canada today is that it has been deteriorating, an opinion supported by 4 Doctors I have seen in the past year, all of which places the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the Liberals. (You want names Roj? I'll give you names.)
We have a PM who boasts that Canada has the best Health Care in the world...meanwhile he himself uses private clinic's. (By the say...for those who may not know...PM Martin prior to being PM was the owner of the largest shipping fleet in Canada. While Finance Minister of Canada, a position that among other responsibilities, oversees the collection of taxes, he was busy registering all of his ships in foreign countries that offered the lowest taxes available. Roj will argue this as being smart...and it is smart. Yet for a Finance Minister I see something very hypocritical in such an approach. You're asking your citizens to do something that you yourself are not doing. The rich and powerful definitely have different rules to guide them).
Supporters of Private Clinics point out they are necessary as the waiting time in the Government funded Health care facilities are ofter longer than what is safe.
Harper (leader of the Conservatives) acknowledges that Private Clinic's play an important role in providing Health Services and promises that, instead of shutting them down, he will integrate them into the fabricate of Canadian Health Care.
It is only 5 days into the campaign...but it is shaping up to be a very interesting one. Thus far it would seem that the Conservatives are setting the agenda...and the other parties are reacting to those initiatives. There is a danger here, like a sports team who begin the season with a series of wins but who in the end lose to the team who took longer to evolve into a coherent force.
rorythedog
12-03-2005, 08:53 AM
I love you man:) ...but this time it is Roj who is correct. Tolerance and open mindedness about ideas and beliefs held by others which are different from our own is the mark of a enlightened awareness of the diversity of the human landscape.
Not to be confrontational...but would you feel as strongly about anybody preaching the existence of flying saucers?:cheeky:
I'll tell you this. I wish flying saucers did exist. Maybe then we'd all realise just how much we have in common and start pulling together for a change. I am all for freedom of choice, but when that choice, directly or indirectly, gets people killed...
The idea that any of my family could be killed by a "terrorist" just because we live in the UK and are therefore assumed to be a christian "fundamentalist" terrifies me. Then I think I have a right to tell these christians to shut the hell up. If there was an Islamic fundamentalist on here spouting bile I'd suggest that he shuts up too. What's the problem with that?
Interesting Fact No.242 - Of the nearly 1200 "insurgent" bodies found in Fallujah after the US "security measures", of those identified, only 3% were found to have come from outwith Iraq.
WHAT?
12-03-2005, 04:17 PM
Interesting that Atheist don't like for the religious to speak out but they sure love to use Gods name, or reference to and afterlife in every sentence that is important to them.
Like to hell with them!, and Jesus Christ! God Damn it! [insert sarc icon here]
Interesting that Atheist don't like for the religious to speak out but they sure love to use Gods name, or reference to and afterlife in every sentence that is important to them.
Out of curiosity, where do you see atheists in this thread? I'm not saying that there are (or aren't) atheisits in the thread - I'm just curious to see if you interpret any particular behavior in the thread as being indicative of demonstrating atheistic beliefs.
I'm even more curious as to the purely logical reasoning as to why requesting that religion be left out of a rational discussion on POLITICS would be considered repressive to the religious.
WHAT?
12-03-2005, 06:02 PM
atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.
deny
RORY said:.... "For the record, I also want the preaching to stop. Anyone who quotes a 2000 year old "fantasy" as absolute fact has no place in a rational discussion".
END:
.... I assume this meant Jesus’ time, up to present time. (= Christian Religion ). Rory also mentioned Europe being assumed to be all Christian in the eyes of the Middle Eastern people, and doesn't like being a target of Islamic fundamentalist( who does! ), and mentioned that he would tell them to shut the hell up too if and when preaching, etc.! (he would bitch equally to all religious preachers I guess is what was meant - whatever).
What would one take from that if not being Atheist? Maybe he nor you are "quote Atheist", and even if you are who cares?
Either way, I don't care about it one way or another. My comment was just interesting of the use of certain language from Atheist is funny to me, that's all.
This all brings to mind what the Atheist want for America. Not that I totally believe in "religion in politics". Unless you are some fundamentalist freak, what is the harm in some city displaying "thy shalt not kill, or steal"? If it's the law anyway!!!
I would think Atheists would like to have most other citizens around them to be kept in line by their given religion! Less people for them to compete with. No?
Anyway the language is what I'm referring to! ( you know... shut the HELL up!, Go to HELL!, Jesus Christ this, Jesus Christ that!) Not that anyone in this post said "Jesus Christ". You still know what I mean.
My motto too : "Oh Lord, grant me the strength to change the things I can, the fortitude to accept the things I can't and the wisdom to know the difference."
jawpr
12-03-2005, 06:19 PM
Interesting that Atheist don't like for the religious to speak out but they sure love to use Gods name, or reference to and afterlife in every sentence that is important to them.
Out of curiosity, where do you see atheists in this thread? I'm not saying that there are (or aren't) atheisits in the thread - I'm just curious to see if you interpret any particular behavior in the thread as being indicative of demonstrating atheistic beliefs.
I'm even more curious as to the purely logical reasoning as to why requesting that religion be left out of a rational discussion on POLITICS would be considered repressive to the religious.
Because YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE that enters a "rational discussion" in this Forum expresses their own brand of religion without being deleted or requested to be left out. One's religion is one's own personal beliefs regardless of what those beliefs are. You have yours just like everyone else and express them FREELY in this forum, weird as they are. What one believes is going to be expressed in how he lives, where he goes, his actions, the way he talks, the way he thinks, etc. In other words, it's what makes him who he is. It is impossible to discuss anything without your personal beliefs entering that discussion. Any and all of those personal beliefs can be entered into any discussion in this forum with the exception of ONE and only one. Your beliefs are just as offensive to me as mine are to you, probably more so. You could try just closing them out when their beliefs differ from yours. That works for me.:grin:
atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.
deny
RORY said:.... "For the record, I also want the preaching to stop. Anyone who quotes a 2000 year old "fantasy" as absolute fact has no place in a rational discussion".
END:
Not to put too fine a point on it but that in no way shape or form denies the existance of a god. That just discounts an historical account.
Nowhere does that sentence say "there is no god".
And if he had and chose to grandstand on that issue, I'd have taken him to task in the same way. That STILL has no place in a POLITICAL discussion.
So, in that context, I was remiss by not taking him to task on the "fairy tale" comment. Fair is fair and ALL must have respect.
Mea culpa and my apologies for that omission.
Because YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE that enters a "rational discussion" in this Forum expresses their own brand of religion without being deleted or requested to be left out.
In their proper place, yes. This thread ain't it.
Not too difficult to grasp, I hsould think.
One's religion is one's own personal beliefs regardless of what those beliefs are.
Agreed and I've never said otherwise. In fact if you look slosely, you'll see that I've agreed on that point on at least one occasion.
You have yours just like everyone else and express them FREELY in this forum, weird as they are.
Absolutely - in their properly place. If I choose to believe in polka dotted wumfuzzles, I'll dscuss them in the appropriate thread.
What one believes is going to be expressed in how he lives, where he goes, his actions, the way he talks, the way he thinks, etc. In other words, it's what makes him who he is.
Funny, I don't go everywhere brining polka dotted wumfuzzles into every conversation or conetext I partake in. Given that statement, you'll pardom me if I fail to see why anyone wuld brings theirs into a similar situation.
It is impossible to discuss anything without your personal beliefs entering that discussion.
Agreed. however I would say it was VERY possible to discuss a given topic without ascending a pulpit. Few people in my experience like to be preached at.
Any and all of those personal beliefs can be entered into any discussion in this forum with the exception of ONE and only one. Your beliefs are just as offensive to me as mine are to you, probably more so.
I can't speak for you but I don't find anyone's beliefs particularly offensive (unless their practice requires causing someone physical harm - then the law takes over). What I find VERY offensive is being preached at. I don't cvare if it's religion, a politician or a candy salesman. Does anyone ram polka dotted wumfuzzles down your throat at every second opportunity? Thought not. So why do so many religions feel honor bound to do so? I don't go door to door selling my religion like Amway. I don't thrust pamphlets into people's hands unbidden as if gathering votes. I don't see Pagans, Muslims, Judaists or Busshists doing so either and many of those religions I just named are FAR older. They practice their religion for the most part with a sense of decorum (there are always exceptions - in any religion), not impinging on anyone else's sensibilities and certainly not preaching at them.
You could try just closing them out when their beliefs differ from yours. That works for me.:grin:
I do. the last one that came to my door got me out of the shower.
I dropped the towel.
They left.
However, that doesn't work in a public forum. You end up with heated (I use the term loosely) discussion and the ambience of friendliness gets strained. So I ask ALL to exercise DECORUM. I didn't see any polka dotted wumfuzzles come up in this thread. I didn't see any claims that there was no god. Anyone can read that in black and white. But somehow certain demographics took it upon themselves to see those things.
I wonder why that is?
Quite frankly, I don't care.
I DO care about THIS and I'm issueing it to all and sundry:
Excercise decorum.
Don't preach in this thread or any other unless it's a specific topic on religion and do feel free to have those. At that point, those who want to participate in them can do so and those who don't (myself included) won't.
End of line.
jawpr
12-03-2005, 09:09 PM
I DO care about THIS and I'm issueing it to all and sundry:
Excercise decorum.
Don't preach in this thread or any other unless it's a specific topic on religion and do feel free to have those. At that point, those who want to participate in them can do so and those who don't (myself included) won't.
End of line.[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't it have been better to have ended your post with the following:
'Any and all of those personal beliefs can be entered into any discussion in this forum with the exception of ONE and only one'.
End of line.
After all, that is the only one that causes any problems here.:disappoin
rorythedog
12-03-2005, 09:24 PM
For the record, I said I am not religious. I did not say I am without faith. As someone famous once said, "I wouldn't want to join any club that would have me as a member". lol
I apologise to anyone offended by my remarks. I think it was the implication that because we weren't card carrying members of "the church" we were somehow to be pitied. That's not on.
As for the fact that it only seems to be Christians who get shut down? Well, that's the only religious view we ever hear around this forum. A fact which I find interesting in itself. Also, no-one from the latin countries of Europe either. Hmmm.:ponder:
After all, that is the only one that causes any problems here.:disappoin
No.
ALL must abide by the rules or it's pointless.
And I've already apologized for my own failings in that regard further up this thread.
I'm Christian and Proud of It!!! How can anyone with half a brain deny the existance of God? No God... ha ha yeah that's a good one! Like trying to tell me Richard Simmons is straight!! :confused:
I'm Christian and Proud of It!!! How can anyone with half a brain deny the existance of God? No God... ha ha yeah that's a good one! Like trying to tell me Richard Simmons is straight!! :confused:
Neo:
One.
There is no Two.
We''ve had the conversation and I don't want this stirred up again.
One more off-topic comment along this vein and thread gets locked.
Or maybe I should just let it go to hell and gone and **** it. Moderate your own asses with this thread. Go ahead and take responsibility for creating or destroying the ambience of the board.
You know something?
Go for it.
I can't be bothered - I have a life and it doesn't include BS like this.
idefiXX
12-03-2005, 11:28 PM
Neo - You will have to accept that there are human beings in this world that don't believe in god (with god i mean the christian one ;) )
Roj - Why is this a problem for you ?? Some thoughts :
A)This is forum open to everyone
B) Everyone has the right to express her/his meanings, her/his religious beliefs
(so you did and neo did)
don't take it too serious... how about a poll around to the topic ??
oh, and for me (and many others) : i am one of those guys that don't believe in god the christian way, but think that there must be something out there...
And now we will all together vote G R E E N
Amen. :beer: :beer: :beer:
Roj - Why is this a problem for you ??
It never has been. Unnecessary disruption brought about by hysterically vehement comments (that's what you get from "!!!" at the end of each sentence) not germane to a giiven thread because they have no bearing on the topic (as opposed to off-topic stuff that ISN'T fraught with exclamation marks at the end of every sentence) IS a problem for me though. So does repeatedly ignoring requests to stay on topic and not further fuel that side of the discussion and jeering derision. My 13 year old son behaves better. Come to think of it, he behaved better when he was 9. There's more, but why bother.
So as I said:
I'm out of this one.
Y'all have yourselves a good time - I'm gone to (you guessed it) a Christmas party where there will be an abundance of food, drink and good cheer.
Have a good night, peeps - I sure will be.
rorythedog
12-04-2005, 12:03 AM
"...I'm gone to (you guessed it) a Christmas party where there will be an abundance of food, drink and good cheer".
I hate you.
"...I'm gone to (you guessed it) a Christmas party where there will be an abundance of food, drink and good cheer".
I hate you.
I'll hoist one for you - and clean out your mailbox. :) :) ;)
Willow of Oz
12-04-2005, 02:13 AM
One more off-topic comment along this vein and thread gets locked.
You could always just snip, move and point people at it. That shouldn't require much deliberation and I couldn't see any valid complaints.
:carrot:
I wasn't the one that went off topic, maybe I am reading wrong but the topic has continued down the same road. Someone mentioned 2000 year old fairy tale, and "WHAT?" also went down the same road... so why am I the one getting burnt for replying? So what if I used "!!!" at the end of each sentence... big whoop!!!!!!! :cool:
I hardly think we're destroying the ambiance of the board!!!!! It looks fine to me, I'm not calling anyone names or threatening them. It's amazing the power God and Jesus Christ have over the non believer. What are you afraid of???? Why can't I say I'm proud to be Christian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please remember who STARTED this thread. I should be able to take this thread in any direction I want, no? I respect where you're coming from but this thread has not hurt anyone, well maybe it has if you're that threatened by Jesus Christ/God.
acushla
12-04-2005, 05:10 AM
For $1000, who said: "I wouldn't want to join any club that would have me as a member".
Who is Woody Allen...
acushla
12-04-2005, 05:28 AM
Like trying to tell me Richard Simmons is straight!! :confused:
Richard Simmons gay?:cry:
Oh...my world has suddendly gone dark...oh damn you, Neo...damn you. Why,oh why, did you have to expose me to this truth? I don't know if I will ever be able to do my morning exercises using my colletion of Simmon's tapes again.:mad:
Why, oh why...do you choose to torment me so?:silly: ;)
acushla
12-04-2005, 05:31 AM
FOR SALE
One set of 'Exercise Tapes; by Richard Simmons.
Hardly used.
Cash only.
Todd The Kiwi
12-04-2005, 09:17 AM
so, little roj is even more scary than not little roj ha ha ha ha aaaaarrggghh! http://www.quinnware.com/forum/images/emots/sleeping.gif
give me the strength to change the things I can
the fortitude to accept the things I can't
and the wisdom to know the difference amen brotherman.
WHAT?
12-04-2005, 11:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rorythedog
For $1000, who said: "I wouldn't want to join any club that would have me as a member".
Who is Woody Allen...
hehehe
BTW not just to change subjects again but when is the icons smilies etc, getting fixed? Or am I the only one? :hurt!!!! :handicapped!!! :Wink - Wink
Well, off now to finish my Christmas CD burning! Seems kinda sac religious :pir8ing!
Doh!
acushla
12-04-2005, 11:42 PM
BTW not just to change subjects again but when is the icons smilies etc, getting fixed? Or am I the only one? :hurt!!!! :handicapped!!! :Wink - Wink!
Hmmm...like I asked Todd...you're not using FireFox, are you? Seems he is having the same problem.
Those of us using OPERA, on the other hand, are doing just fine. www.opera.com:bulb: :) ;)
I am also doing fine with IE. :cheeky:
hedge
12-05-2005, 03:03 AM
I am also doing fine with IE. :cheeky:
Jeez guess who's also doing fine with firefox... :cross-eye
acushla
12-05-2005, 05:04 AM
Jeez guess who's also doing fine with firefox... :cross-eye
Perhaps whatever it is just hasn't hit Australia...yet.:)
acushla
12-05-2005, 10:12 AM
One concise editorial on Stephen Harpers promise to lower the GST when (gotta think positive!) he becomes Prime Minister:
Dec. 2.
The GST is a highly regressive tax — if you make less, it takes a greater percentage of your income, and vice versa. Lowering it then would be extremely beneficial to lower-income Canadians. The Liberal income tax cuts won't give a penny to those most in need: those whose income doesn't exceed the basic personal exemption.
Bravo to Stephen Harper and his Conservatives for proposing a tax cut to help the poorest amongst us. It's about time that somebody in Ottawa started looking out for everybody.
Dan Tweyman, Toronto
WHAT?
12-05-2005, 02:14 PM
Hmmm...like I asked Todd...you're not using FireFox, are you? Seems he is having the same problem.
Those of us using OPERA, on the other hand, are doing just fine. www.opera.com:bulb: :) ;)
Yes I am, and IE at work, however if you may recall I'm having crash issues on my work PC. I have XP re-installed now. New HD, and MB. But I haven't really gotten on from there yet.
So what's FF's problem? (boy I just left myself open to Roj, didn't I?) :HALF RETORICAL: Maybe you could reply over on the HELP! PC ISSUES post.
WHAT?
12-05-2005, 02:30 PM
Yes I am, and IE at work, however if you may recall I'm having crash issues on my work PC. I have XP re-installed now. New HD, and MB. But I haven't really gotten on from there yet.
So what's FF's problem? (boy I just left myself open to Roj, didn't I?) :HALF RETORICAL: Maybe you could reply over on the HELP! PC ISSUES post.
OK just logged back in with IE at home. :ditsy: Guess it works better!
sorry I'll take it over to the other thead.:cross-eye
P.S. I always liked M. Thatcher. Who said she wasn't good for the Brits?
But hey, when it comes to politcs I'm a little GREEN! Speaking of color - I don't have THAT option either - just found that out now (and using IE).
O, OK The Go Advance allows me my color !
acushla
12-05-2005, 03:09 PM
Yes I am, and IE at work, however if you may recall I'm having crash issues on my work PC. I have XP re-installed now. New HD, and MB. But I haven't really gotten on from there yet.
So what's FF's problem? (boy I just left myself open to Roj, didn't I?) :HALF RETORICAL: Maybe you could reply over on the HELP! PC ISSUES post.
Nothing 'wrong' with Firefox...if that's the level of Internet experience you're willing to settle for...nothing wrong with it at all. One day you may get tired and decide to move up to OPERA...I don't know...it's all dependent on what you want I guess.
One important thing to know in all of this...I'm just messing with you...and having a good time making you laugh.
One concise editorial on Stephen Harpers promise to lower the GST when (gotta think positive!) he becomes Prime Minister:
Considering that the GST was a mess his party INFLICTED it upon us, it's only fitting that THEY do something to fix the grief it has caused.
Wonder if he'll have the balls to yank us out of so-called "Free Trade" (again, another mess his party got us into) if he becomes Prime Minister? Then maybe I'll be a good little True Believer, just like you. :) :) ;)
Paul Martin Wants Your Money!!! :grin: (it may be a spoof, but it rings True)
http://efrank.ca/tv.html?id=92
... give'em hell Duffy!!! :evil:
http://www.conservativelife.com/videos/duffy.wmv
One more reason the Liberals are scum.
I hate them even more than I did previous to seeing this Miky Duffy clip. :evil:
Oh... and about the GST there was never anything wrong with the GST. The GST when used normally and in a non-corrupt fashion is a GOOD thing, thank the Liberals for freakin' abusing it!! Conservatives always have the good ideas, it's the Liberals who screw them up!!!
Paul Martin Wants Your Money!!! :grin: (it may be a spoof, but it rings True)
http://efrank.ca/tv.html?id=92
... give'em hell Duffy!!! :evil:
http://www.conservativelife.com/videos/duffy.wmv
One more reason the Liberals are scum.
"The Conservative party is not corrupt":
http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/news.cfm?story=42049
Uh HUH. That's why he's still being allowed to run and at best will get an 'administrative wrist slap". No record, eh? Gee, I wonder how THAT happened...
Talk about the sanctimonious pot calling the kettle black. All this basically means is that despite their self-righteous breast beating, the Conservatives are no damned better - which of course shouldn't surprise anyone with more than two brain vells to rub together. They're just more smug, holier-than-thou and sanctimonious which makes them that less credible when little things like a Mercedes full of alchohol come up. "Let he who is without sin" and all that drivel. Those are the ones you have to watch out for the most - they're whitewashed and have closets just BURSTING with skeletons. They'll fill you full of nice talk and when you least expect it, take your virginity.
This has got to be the most juvenile campaign I've ever seen in this country - on all sides. At the end of the day, NONE of the candidates are worth voting for. The best thing for Canada would be a European-style coalition where no one party had enough support to rule alone and needed the backing of the other two in equal measure to make it work. As it is, we're going to see a minority govrnment of some stripe - which may keep both sides honest for a change (even the closet crooks). :) :) ;)
But of course the "True Believers" will choke and splutter on that concept because in their simplistic "black and white" world, it's not about what's best for Canada but rather the imagined (and it is only imagined) One True Path To The Shining Light.
"Oh... and about the GST there was never anything wrong with the GST."
Only someone utterly bereft of a clue and lacking the aforementioned two braincells to rub together could see something good about an additional tax that takes money out of people's pockets, regardless of the reason. But then again, when you're a True Believer... What makes your statement even more ludicrous (and thus even more amusing) is that The Conservatives Don't Agree With You because they've promised to Reduce said tax (a tax THEY created as you're no doubt well aware - or are you? you never know if True Believers will actually acknowledge Reality, even if it reaches up and whomps them across the face with a 2x4) if elected. Obviously, it's dawned on them that the blatant cash grab that the tax actually is grates on Canadians. That being said, I rather doubt that the GST will be reduced if the new regime gets into power. They'll take one look at the money it produces and the waffling will begin.
But that's just talking common sense, not parroting mindless rhetoric.
I see the Conservatives making a LOT of promises, all of which require money and I have to wonder:
If they're reducing taxes, where is this magic pot of gold going to come from? The simplistic "black and white" answer will of course be "well, they'll just manage the existing revenues better". Right. Let's not indulge in fairy tales and get back to a little thing called Reality. I mean these ARE politicans, after all.
SO...
Where is this magic pot of gold going to come from?
No one has asked that question and gotten a concrete, realistic and quantifiable answer.
Big surprise...
But those promises sure do sound good. Kind of like:
"The checque is in the mail"
"I'll respect you in the morning"
...and my favorite...
"I promise not to... "
acushla
01-14-2006, 11:00 PM
A few facts:
Hapless PM can't trip up Harper
Jan. 13, 2006. 05:38 AM
CHANTAL HÉBERT
What's wrong with this picture? On Wednesday night in Scarborough, Liberal leader Paul Martin launched his fiercest attack of the campaign on Stephen Harper, describing his Conservative opponent as a huge threat to minority rights.
Martin's strong words were delivered against the backdrop of a lineup of staunch social conservatives, all of whom are proudly running for his party in this election.
For the past two years, some of the incumbents standing behind Martin at the rally have been the single biggest impediment to the recognition by Parliament of the rights of gay couples.
They voted against same-sex marriage at every step of the legislative way, turning a deaf ear to their leader's pleas to line up the definition of marriage with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Indeed, if the Bloc Québécois and the New Democrat Party had not supported same-sex marriage, Martin's social conservative Liberals would have tipped the balance in Parliament against it.
Many of the Liberal MPs who fought same-sex marriage tooth and nail have an unbroken track record of opposing gay rights, including the notion of protecting homosexuals from hate crimes. Some of them also came into politics on an anti-abortion ticket.
Under two consecutive Liberal leaders, they were allowed to vote as they saw fit on matters of minority rights.
Martin would not tolerate MPs who did not support the concept of gender or racial equality.
But when it comes to the equality of gay Canadians, he, like Jean Chrétien before him, has been content to leave the matter to the individual conscience of his members.
Now, in the dying days of an election campaign, he is going a step further by basically asking voters to re-elect his social conservative MPs to protect some of the very minorities whose rights they have systematically opposed for the better part of a decade.
If the absurdity of the proposition did not stop Martin in his tracks this week, it is because the Liberal campaign has now crossed the line between fighting back and fighting low.
Liberal strategists insist that Martin's crusade to prevent future Parliaments from using the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to override the courts on Charter issues is grounded in conviction.
If it is, it has taken a long time to surface.
And Martin's contention that his new sense of urgency is based on the strongly held suspicion that Harper plans to roll back the clock on abortion rights is based on a shakily constructed fabrication.
When it comes to holding the line on abortion rights, Harper happens to have more of a track record than Martin.
When he campaigned for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance, he warned his party that, if selected, he would not be taking the abortion battle to Parliament.
And at the founding convention of the Conservative party last spring, Tory delegates endorsed the notion of a woman's right to choose to interrupt a pregnancy by a comfortable margin.
In his attempts to scare voters into supporting his party on Jan. 23, Martin is well on the way to become more frightening than the opponent he is so desperately trying to catch up to.
If the Prime Minister is willing to sacrifice intellectual honesty to his partisan interest in the heat of a losing election campaign, if he is willing to turn his campaign into a full-fledged witch hunt, how far would he be willing to go if the fate of the country was hanging in the balance in a referendum?
Chances are that will remain a theoretical question.
One major reason Liberals will (thankfully) no longer be in power:
AdSlam
That the Liberals would hit the smear button hard, even with Paul Martin demanding intelligent campaign discourse, was no surprise with his government so seriously threatened. But to suggest armed Canadian soldiers would invade cities under Stephen Harper's command if there was a Conservative victory went way too far. Result: All 12 of the ads have been tainted and the last flicker of Liberal hope to demonize Harper has flamed out.
This is the week when columnists have to decide where they want to be on election night to be on hand for the post-victory news conference of the winner. Until further notice, I am headed for Calgary
acushla
01-14-2006, 11:33 PM
d, January 11, 2006
Martin shocks drafter of Charter of Rights
By LICIA CORBELLA
Not much surprises Peter Lougheed. But on Monday night the former Alberta premier and one of the drafters of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms says he was "astounded" by Liberal Leader Paul Martin's vow to alter the Charter he claims to defend by tearing out the notwithstanding clause. The ironies are many and immense.
In an act that smacked of desperation -- and one that has since been called "crazy" by a constitutional expert -- Martin said: "The first act of a new Liberal government is going to be to strengthen the Charter and we're going to do that by removing by constitutional means the possibility for the federal government to use the notwithstanding clause."
Martin then tried to get the other federal leaders to follow his lead and vow to destroy the "notwithstanding clause" or Section 33 of the Charter.
But Harper wouldn't bite.
"I think our Constitution strikes a balance between the British system, where there's just parliamentary supremacy and politicians can always get their will, and on the other hand the American system, where the courts are always supreme," Harper said. "I think our Charter provides a balance, and that's why I support the present construction of the Charter."
And that is precisely why Lougheed along with Allan Blakeney (a former Saskatchewan premier) and former Manitoba premier Sterling Lyon lobbied so hard for the "notwithstanding clause" rather than using a constitutional amending formula that required referendums.
"We made it an essential part of the package of Constitutional change during the negotiations in 1981," said Lougheed, who was reached at his Calgary law office yesterday.
"There wouldn't be a Charter of Rights if there wasn't a notwithstanding clause," Lougheed added. "The reason we took that decision is we believed that when it comes down to it, there must be supremacy of the elected people over the supremacy of nine appointed judges."
Other Constitutional experts were less diplomatic in their criticism of Martin's desperate election ploy.
Constitutional law expert Peter H. Russell, a professor emeritus at the University of Toronto, told The Canadian Press the notwithstanding clause is "a brilliant part of our constitutional law"... and "it would be foolish to throw it out."
Russell said Martin's plan might not even be legal and throwing a hastily conceived policy platform into the debate on an issue so fundamental to Canadians is "a strong argument for saying Paul Martin is not really equipped to govern," said Russell. "And I'm not a Conservative."
Many Liberal MPs themselves are shocked by Martin's "out of left field" plan. Some of Martin's policy advisers say the Charter could be changed as it pertains to federal jurisdiction without requiring seven provinces and 50% of the popular vote to do so. Rather, on his unilateral whim, the PM would simply seek a majority vote in the House of Commons to alter this document he claims to defend and love.
Lougheed, however, doubts that. "I don't think he can go that route," added Lougheed.
As for the ironies in Martin's plan, here are just a few: In his attempt to paint himself as the guardian of the Charter of Rights, Martin wants to destroy the very clause that made its existence possible.
What's more, Martin, who increasingly tries to portray Harper as dangerously pro- American, wants to Americanize our Charter by giving supremacy to the courts rather than finding a balance between parliamentary and judicial supremacy.
And the final irony, of course, is Martin is the only federal leader who has ever vowed to use the notwithstanding clause.
Last January, Martin promised he would use the notwithstanding clause should the Supreme Court decide churches, synagogues and mosques must marry same-sex couples.
Harper, on the other hand, has vowed never to use the notwithstanding clause with regard to same-sex marriage.
Notwithstanding Martin's desperation, using our Charter as a cheesy political tool to boost his sagging popularity is a new low for even this corrupt government. Now that's surprising
...and to think that within the hour following this pronouncement he sunk even lower into the fear mongling pathic representation of everything to despise in a politician...well...that really was a surprise.
Fool Canadians once...well shame on you...fool us twice, we watch FOX.
Roj, Your ramble was more amusing than the fact you think I don't know they're cutting the GST down. I stand by what I said when used by a non-corrupt gov't the GST serves a GOOD purpose! It was not meant to line Chretien and Martin's pockets. :silly:
One question, you obviously believe the CP is so bad, what kind of soul/conscience do you have that could allow yourself to vote for a Liberal (knowing what we all know about them)? What good can come out of a Liberal gov't? Hasn't the past 10+ years been any kind of reason to not vote Liberal? ...or are you voting NDP? :evolved:
acushla
01-15-2006, 12:48 AM
Uh HUH. That's why he's still being allowed to run and at best will get an 'administrative wrist slap". No record, eh? Gee, I wonder how THAT happened.
There is just an overwhelming amount of misinformation and faulty reasoning to address in your lengthly posts...I simply do not have a school semester to address it all.
Some of the core faults can be illustrated by using this one event.
Derek Zeisman is still being 'allowed' to run because Elections Canada's rules state that at this point in the process even if a candidate DIES his name cannot be removed from the ballet. The fact that Harper publicly stated that even if Zeisman won he would not sit as a Conservative should be enough to make you understand that this man is banished from the Conservative Party FOREVER. One positive outcome of all the Liberal corruption is that Canadians now (and the leaders) will demand much greater accountability of Government.
Zeisman has no 'record' of this crime because he has not gone to trial yet. End of story. As for a slap on the wrist...I assure you, should the Conservatives actually win this election ( and there is not one true Conservative who is going to believe that until it is actually announced on January 24th) it will be a lot more than a slap on the wrist.
One thing I will give you...you were way ahead of me in predicting a Conservative victory. Truth be told, I am still not convinced.
I learnt that votes count in two ways...one for the candidate you vote for and one for the party that person represents. Apparently funds are made available to parties based on the overall number of votes they receive...win or lose. If you truly don't want to vote I would like to suggest that you vote Green...and help strengthen a Party that I believe should have a voice in the direction this country takes.
Just a thought.:) :) :)
They're both swapping spitballs - it's pretty juvenile. Like I said, it's the most childish campaign I've ever seen in this country. And it's not going to sway voters either way.
There is just an overwhelming amount of misinformation and faulty reasoning to address in your lengthly posts...I simply do not have a school semester to address it all.
That's because you can't. Anything you could say in defense would immediately and correctly be discounted as the product of the Rose Colored Glasses of a True Believer. As such, it's better that you don't waste your time (and that of intelligent readers) with apologist rhetoric.
"I didn't know" is going to go down in history as the lamest excuse a politician ever gave after being caught.
I'm thinking the Canadian electorate will be fed up and this election is going to be so close that the result will be counted almost as tightly as the last two American electoral shams - except that ours will actually be REAL and not just a complete and painfully obvious fabrication.
What's interesting... we're like the only civilized nation that still votes with a pen/pencil on paper. What's up with that?? I often think the elections were corrupt to the past few years, and with that gov't no doubt they were. :bandit:
I often think the elections were corrupt to the past few years, and with that gov't no doubt they were. :bandit:
In the US? Assuredly.
As to the elections up here being corrupt, despite your myopic view that the Liberals are the antichrist (assuming that one could even exist int he first place), Elections Canada has done a good job, by and large. After all, we don't have dead people voting here - well, at least no one other than ex-Allaince MPs, all of whom are demonstrably dead from the neck up... :) :) ;)
I love the latest commercials on both sides. On the one hand, you have one bunch saying that their opponents would sell out to the US (unlikely, since even though they would dearly love to, that course of action would guarantee their minority government an immediate non-confidence vote and exile to Baffin Island) and on the other hand you have the other guys taking the ludicrous position that just because a man tries to avoid taxes by register his fleet outside his country (a *very* common practice in ALL nations), he's somehow "un-Canadian". Hell, anyone who claims that he or she wouldn't use a loophole to avoid payuing taxes is a bold-faced hypocritical liar - no exemptions - and THAT would render them patently unfit to govern the country.
Oh Dear - I Guess That Rules Out All The Candidates...
Like I said before, pure BS on both sides that does nothing for either cause except to provoke laughter at the silliness.
rorythedog
01-15-2006, 11:58 PM
What's interesting... we're like the only civilized nation that still votes with a pen/pencil on paper. What's up with that?? I often think the elections were corrupt to the past few years, and with that gov't no doubt they were. :bandit:
We do it the same way here, pen and pencil. Long may it stay that way too if the US elections are anything to go by. The elections in this country are corrupt by default as hardly anyone votes these days. So the "winner" can only hope to actually represent a very small proportion of the population. While the rest of us, let's call us the "majority", are left with practically no say in how things go over the next few years.
Inevitably then, all prospective winners only really target a very small (but very vocal) group and power is guaranteed.
Sorry. Depressing, isn't it?
Of course I could be wrong. I think I'm right in saying voting is compulsory in Australia, and maybe New Zealand too. I wonder how that works.
hedge
01-16-2006, 01:57 AM
Of course I could be wrong. I think I'm right in saying voting is compulsory in Australia, and maybe New Zealand too. I wonder how that works.
Don't know bout kiwi land, but in Aus Federal elections are compulsory yes. You actually risk jail time if you actively refuse to vote, or if you fail to add your name to the voting roster. Course people that have just turned 18 are often not on the roster, and its up to the individual to add themselves (there are repeated letters sent tho).
So yeah elections as a whole seem pretty fair over here, of course mixed with much of the rubbish ya get from politicians at times... :S
Willow of Oz
01-16-2006, 07:00 AM
Don't know bout kiwi land, but in Aus Federal elections are compulsory yes. You actually risk jail time if you actively refuse to vote, or if you fail to add your name to the voting roster.
Just federal elections?
I know a guy who knows a guy who, come local elections, realised at about 6:30pm that he was supposed to have voted that day. Now every day he stops to smell the roses on the way to work and refuses to open the front door on weekends...
acushla
01-16-2006, 07:33 AM
I love the latest commercials on both sides.that just because a man tries to avoid taxes by register his fleet outside his country (a *very* common practice in ALL nations), he's somehow "un-Canadian".
Like I said before, pure BS on both sides that does nothing for either cause except to provoke laughter at the silliness.
It is not so much that as a businessman he registers his ships under foreign flags which is the problem. It is that we hold to a higher standard the man who is responsible for the finances of the country.
Trust me, there is NOTHING funny about the latest 12 ads, in particular the ad that suggests Harper will fill Canadian Streets with soldiers. For those in the forum living outside of Canada but reading this thread I offer this: With their campaign spiraling into desperation, the Liberals released a series of negative American-style attack ads, including one that outrageously suggests that Canadian soldiers are a menace.
To the tune of ominous military drums, the offensive Liberal TV ad says, “Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities. Canadian cities. Soldiers with guns. In our cities. In Canada. We did not make this up. Choose your Canada.'
This bizarre Liberal ad implies that the thousands of proud men and women who protect Canada, support democracy, and help with natural disasters are somehow a threat to Canadian cities. (This weeks TIME examines this story in depth.)
Nobody in the Liberal Party are laughing.You need look no further than within the Liberal caucus itself...beginning with the Deputy Prime Minister, Anne McClellan. Liberal Junior Defence Minister publicly lambasted those responsible for the ads. Veteran Affairs Minister John McCallum (who was previously Defense Minister)referred to it as a 'bad choice' and came closer to conceding a Conservative victory than any other MP. But the most telling reaction was Liberal candidate Judy Stewart. "I'm not wearing red," she told an audience earlier this week, while campaigning at a school. "I'm not wearing my colours this one day of the campaign because I'm ashamed of these negative attack ads."
She is not the only one who is ashamed.
acushla
01-16-2006, 07:44 AM
Don't know bout kiwi land, but in Aus Federal elections are compulsory yes. You actually risk jail time if you actively refuse to vote, or if you fail to add your name to the voting roster.
I personally support this idea...life has certain responsibilities and this should be one of them.
If the people doing the voting were aware (and I recognize being compelled to vote and being aware are separate ...but the idea would be that since you have to vote more people would take the time to learn about the candidates and what they stand for.) of the issues, then perhaps we would get a government we could respect.
OK OK...maybe not jail time if you 'disobey'...how about a fine and compulsory attendance at 'Voting and your Country, 101'? I can see Roj sitting in the back row now.:cheeky: :)
Inthewoods
01-16-2006, 10:25 PM
I think compulsary voting is a joke. In any country lucky enough to have elections, one choice should certainly should be not to vote if one disapproves of all candidates. I don't think any government should force someone to cast a ballot for one idiot over another.
Furthermore, If I vote voluntarily and for a candidate I really approve of, I don't want my government to force people who just don't give a damn to enter a voting booth and skew the results all over hell and back by standing there flipping a coin because they were told they have to vote.
Just my opinion.
rorythedog
01-16-2006, 10:29 PM
Wouldn't have expected you to say anything else. Why change a system that already works in your favour?
What about compulsory voting with a "none of the above" option?
Just an idea.
What about compulsory voting with a "none of the above" option?
Just an idea.
Would it really make a difference?
rorythedog
01-16-2006, 10:53 PM
Would it really make a difference?
No idea. Wouldn't hurt though.
BALTY
01-16-2006, 11:14 PM
I think compulsary voting is a joke. In any country lucky enough to have elections, one choice should certainly should be not to vote if one disapproves of all candidates. I don't think any government should force someone to cast a ballot for one idiot over another.
Furthermore, If I vote voluntarily and for a candidate I really approve of, I don't want my government to force people who just don't give a damn to enter a voting booth and skew the results all over hell and back byt standing there flipping a coin because they were told they have to vote.
Just my opinion.
Hear here!!
I hate it when these clowns go door to door, school to school, nursing home to nursing home, scaring, or tactfully insulting these people to just vote!! Be a patriot they say!! And they have no Idea!!
RORY SAID:
What about compulsory voting with a "none of the above" option?
They don't want to hear anything negetive - are you kiddinig me!:confused: :laugh:
rorythedog
01-16-2006, 11:34 PM
Forget it. You're both completely correct. What do I know?
Willow of Oz
01-16-2006, 11:44 PM
I think compulsary voting is a joke. In any country lucky enough to have elections, one choice should certainly should be not to vote if one disapproves of all candidates. I don't think any government should force someone to cast a ballot for one idiot over another.
1. Due to Australia's history (entrepreneurs who bent the rules a bit too far back in the old country and were deported) and vast spaces, voting was made compulsory in order to get any turnout whatsoever.
2. You are required to attend and have your name signed off and little more. Ie you can mark all the boxes, none, write a witty message or whatever - your actual vote is anonymous so it doesn't matter. *however* I believe whilst its perfectly legal to throw your vote, it might actually be illegal to inform people of this and how to go about it.
3. In general, I think merely not attending a vote-thingy is a fine offence. In general, the Australian police don't lock people up for forgetfulness.
acushla
01-17-2006, 01:42 AM
Would it really make a difference?
I actually believe that, in the long run, it would make a tremendous difference.
Perhaps not for our generation as we are already arrogant enough to think that we can be above the process and 'nobodies going to tell me I have to vote' mentality. However, in the schools, where 'Understanding the Politics of __fill in country's name here_ ' would begin along with math classes, English classes ect....I suspect that by the time that generation is ready to vote you will have a much more knowledgeable group who are casting their vote with enthusiasm.
We could take this one step further by having a 'Voters License' exam...you fail you have to return to Politics 101 until you pass.
Sort of like making couples pass an exam to allow them to have children. Only on that one there is no second chance...fail and snip snip.:cool:
Come to think of it..following that logic...in about a hundred years we will have a highly educated populace both running for office and voting.:silly:
Line starts to the right.
Todd The Kiwi
01-17-2006, 07:49 AM
it's all about choice...
moreso freedom of choice.
tick the "what can one person do?" box
in a world where people die starving of malnutrition and disease
we are wondering what box to tick...
rorythedog
01-17-2006, 08:19 AM
it's all about choice...
moreso freedom of choice.
tick the "what can one person do?" box
in a world where people die starving of malnutrition and disease
we are wondering what box to tick...
You think maybe the two could be connected?
Forget it. You're both completely correct. What do I know?
No no no, don't take that stand. I just fail to see the benefits of compulsory voting.
As for the 'none of the above' option, it could exist even when voting is voluntery. But what would be done in case that options wins?
Acushla: We actually already have that kind of class in Finland.
rorythedog
01-17-2006, 05:48 PM
Sorry, I guess it's shear bloody frustration. I've voted in every single election I've ever been eligible for and I've never won. It gets to you.
Having to listen to the pathetic argument that "...it works for me. Let's leave it!" drives me up the wall. It's so lacking in any kind of vision it's frightening. I'm finding that a lot these days. I used to think things were getting better but I actually feel they're getting worse.
Any kind of political debate which involves the possibility of change is always stifled by these...nutters. For want of a better word.
It's bloody depressing.
For instance, elsewhere I posted a link to a video about current events which, if true, really is frightening. Any comments? Any discussions? Not a chance!
acushla
01-17-2006, 07:52 PM
N
Acushla: We actually already have that kind of class in Finland.
Voting...or Parenting?
acushla
01-17-2006, 08:30 PM
Sorry, I guess it's shear bloody frustration. I've voted in every single election I've ever been eligible for and I've never won. It gets to you.
Having to listen to the pathetic argument that "...it works for me. Let's leave it!" drives me up the wall. It's so lacking in any kind of vision it's frightening. I'm finding that a lot these days. I used to think things were getting better but I actually feel they're getting worse.
Any kind of political debate which involves the possibility of change is always stifled by these...nutters. For want of a better word.
It's bloody depressing.
For instance, elsewhere I posted a link to a video about current events which, if true, really is frightening. Any comments? Any discussions? Not a chance!
Which just might be the opportunity to bring up Iran.
Today, Canada's National Magazine has a photograph of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the front cover with the caption 'The Most Dangerous Man In The World'.
Today the usually reserved chief international nuclear inspector, Dr ElBaradei, has given Iran an ultimatum to come clean about its nuclear program or face political isolation, sanctions and ultimately military force.
"Diplomacy has to be backed by pressure and, in extreme cases, by force. We have rules. We have to do everything possible to uphold the rules through conviction. If not, then you impose them. Of course, this has to be the last resort, but sometimes you have to do it."
Sen. John McCain: "There's Only One Thing Worse than the United States Exercising the Military Option, that is, a Nuclear-Armed Iran"
McCain, one of the most influential members of the US Senate and a leading contender to run for the White House in 2008, said that Washington also should try to counter Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by shoring up opposition democratic movements in Iran.
Asked it Iran posed a greater threat to US security than Iraq, McCain said: "I think at this time clearly it does."
"Now, the difference between Iraq and Iran is that Saddam Hussein had us all fooled, including his own generals, about having weapons of mass destruction. I think it's pretty clear in the mind of any expert that Iranians are about to acquire them," he said.
After weeks of speculation today both Russia and China have agreed to back the US in whatever course of action they choose.
"This is the most grave situation that we have faced since the end of the Cold War, absent the whole war on terror," the Republican lawmaker told CBS television's "Face the Nation" program.
At the heart of all this are the comments made before the world in October when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."
Acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said 'the Jewish state cannot allow Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons under any circumstances.'
If you feel that this would be an interesting topic to pursue then perhaps someone could set up a poll asking if we think that military force will be used against Iran and if so will it come from Israel or the US? (I know, I know...some of us don't really make a distinction between the two...Israel, the 51st. state).
I feel compelled to inform those who may not know...but I am squarely on the side of the Jewish State when it comes to discussing the Middle East.
Voting...or Parenting?
Understanding the politics.
acushla
01-17-2006, 09:45 PM
[QUOTE=rorythedog]
For instance, elsewhere I posted a link to a video about current events which, if true, really is frightening. Any comments? Any discussions? Not a chance![/QUOTE...perhaps if you hadn't added the fact it was 45 minutes...:bulb: :ermm: )
rorythedog
01-17-2006, 09:48 PM
"If you feel that this would be an interesting topic to pursue then perhaps someone could set up a poll asking if we think that military force will be used against Iran and if so will it come from Israel or the US? (I know, I know...some of us don't really make a distinction between the two...Israel, the 51st. state)"
Nah, Don't bother for my sake. A pointless exercise it would prove to be. This forum is clearly not the place for political discussion. I can feel the condescension dripping from your post as it is, without listening to any more of it.
Just one thing - did you watch the video?
acushla
01-17-2006, 09:56 PM
I can feel the condescension dripping from your post as it is, without listening to any more of it.
Just one thing - did you watch the video?
Assuming we define 'condescension' the same (and there is nothing to suggest we do) then I have to think that giving up cigarettes has affected your hearing.
You don't say that because I state a position...do you?:)
No...I didn't have 45 minutes when I first saw it.
Obviously you feel it is worth watching...so...since there is no more '24' until next week...perhaps I will watch it later.
rorythedog
01-17-2006, 10:14 PM
If I was Iranian I'd want nuclear power too. There is a stage in the development of a nuclear industry when things go off at a tangent and the only possible use for following that path is to make weapons. Iran are nowhere near that stage yet.
Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons to pose a threat, they're a threat to the US already. That'll be sorted with a few years of punitive sanctions, softening them up for the inevitable invasion to steal their oil too.
Is there anything in the last 5 years that has given you confidence in either the US or the UN? Why cite their opinions?
Think of Iran's near neighbours - Iraq is a staging post for the nuclear US, ditto Afghanistan. Israel has nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons. So why not Iran? Nuclear proliferation cuts both ways.
And why SHOULD there be a "Jewish State"? No other religion has it's own state. Why shouldn't Jews go out into the world and mix in with everyone else? And if, for some bizarre reason, they do deserve a seperate state, it almost certainly shouldn't be where it is right now.
Before anyone says it's a bit late to change Israel, I agree. But it's not too late to address the reasons all her neighbours feel intimidated by her existence.
As for the Iranian leader, I agree about him too. Clearly a madman. I suspect his people also think this and will deal with him in good time.
In the Autumn Iran will start selling it's oil in Euros. If that's allowed, Saudi Arabia will follow. USA - Game Over.
acushla
01-18-2006, 12:20 AM
In the Autumn Iran will start selling it's oil in Euros. If that's allowed, Saudi Arabia will follow. USA - Game Over.
I'm going to take the unusual position of addressing your post backwards.
No need to restate my Pro-Amerika Pro-Israel position.
In the Autumn Iran will start selling it's oil in Euros. If that's allowed, Saudi Arabia will follow. USA - Game Over
You're dreaming if you believe that as long as there is an Amerika that they would settle to exist with the label 'Game Over'. Will never happen. This can be regarded as a rock solid foundation of my subsequent thinking.....
Do not delude yourself...you do not want to see a 'game over' for Amerika.
As for the Iranian leader, I agree about him too. Clearly a madman. I suspect his people also think this and will deal with him in good time.
Clearly a madman...however, with respect sir, for you to 'suspect his people also think this and will deal with him in good time' is to reveal a profound lack of understanding as to the psyche makeup of fundamentalist Moslem States. It is a grave error to attribute western concepts of 'Governments' and a people who have been raised to 'think for themselves'. (There's another discussion.) Simply stated, in Iran, the Government is nothing...the Koran is everything...and within the core teachings of the Koran is you do not question the Koran. This was revealed to Mohamed from God and as God's word you obey without question. It is not the words of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad we hear...it is the words of Iran's supreme spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who upon the victory of Ahmadinejad (in what independent observers discribed as 'election fraud') banned both political camps from celebrating victory and urged people to keep off the streets.
He said the election result was a "profound humiliation" for the US. Agendas anybody?
Before anyone says it's a bit late to change Israel, I agree. But it's not too late to address the reasons all her neighbors feel intimidated by her existence.
The problem here is that there IS somebody who is saying that it is NOT too late to change Israel. If you know anything at all about Iran's progress in the past two years in developing missiles (remember, a nuclear head needs something that carries it to it's target...) all final field tests have been launched from planes. Prior to taking off, the crew take canned spray paint and write all sorts of 'slogans' that anywhere else in the world would be considered a 'hate crime' and punishable by jail.. One thing about Iran..they are open about what they are going to do if they get there hands on a nuclear bomb...which, of course, they won't. I don't care what anybody in the Western world makes of all this...whether you know it or not...you do not want Iran to have nuclear power because you do not want to deal with the consequences of a Israel that has been wiped off the map.
And why SHOULD there be a "Jewish State"? No other religion has it's own state. Why shouldn't Jews go out into the world and mix in with everyone else? And if, for some bizarre reason, they do deserve a separate state, it almost certainly shouldn't be where it is right now.
This is where I would suggest we get together at the local espresso coffee house. Not enough time here...and this is the type of statement/question that does not have only one answer. I subscribe to the line of thought that a Jewish person is a member of a 'race' and occupy a unique position in the history of mankind in as much as the religion is an integral part of the race. In the Jewish Orthodox religion one cannot 'convert' to Judaism...anymore than I can convert to Chinese. Following on that logic...all races have their 'homeland'. Apart from all of that...Israel is where Jews find themselves...it was not chosen by them...it was given. One of the biggest mistakes in the history of the modern world..unless you happen to be an arms manufacturer...in which case it was a stroke of genius, for as long as Iran and the like do not achieve possession of a 'Nbomb' you have a guarrented a family business until the world ceases to be. I have experienced, I have seen for myself, the depth of venom and pure evil HATE that Jews and Arabs have for each other. It is frightning..and I believe that it is NOT learnt...red ants black ants. If anybody thinks for a moment that this situation can somehow be corrected and a new era ushered in with a few signatures on a piece of paper...then you have never been around Jews and Arabs. So...what's the answer? For myself...if it comes down to kill or be killed...well...it's not even a decision. Just like it won't be a decision for either Israel or Amerika. The funny thing that I think you fail to understand is.that it is good for you. Think about it. It might be the choice between receiving one with a girth of 3" and one with a girth of 5"..but given that choice I know which one you're choosing. (Unless I've used the wrong analogy!)
Think of Iran's near neighbors - Iraq is a staging post for the nuclear US, ditto Afghanistan. Israel has nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons. So why not Iran? Nuclear proliferation cuts both ways.
I'm going to let this one go by and attribute it to intellectual exercises. I don't think there is any point discussing something that, really, we BOTH know the answer to. If this was just a discussion of 'what ifs' and' 'imagine' if you will...it's not...Iran is real...they are close to getting a Nbomb...we don't want that to happen. We won't let that happen. It won't happen.
There is a saying about money: 'You don't get rich giving it away.' Same concept with 'power'.. Ask yourself...who would you rather control the world? Moslem States...Western States?
Is there anything in the last 5 years that has given you confidence in either the US or the UN? Why cite their opinions?
I am a supporter of Amerika's invasion of Irag and the U,N. with all it's faults, still does a tremendous amount of good in the world and ultimately the world is a better place for it.
Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons to pose a threat, they're a threat to the US already. That'll be sorted with a few years of punitive sanctions, softening them up for the inevitable invasion to steal their oil too.
Our immediate concern is not the US. Like a dog in heat Iran is looking at the bitch across the road...not the one across the lake.
It would seem as if there are a number of people who disagree with this statement.
One thing everybody does seem to agree on is that Iran does not need a nuclear program for the reasons it claims it does... energy. Apparently they are the greatest riches in energy of any country in the world.
One final comment that I meant to have included in my previous post: In discussing this entire situation, John McCain whom I personally believe (hoping?) is 'chomping at the bit' publicly stated that if engaging in military action in Iran results in the world having to pay higher gas prices...then so be it.
NOTE: If you discover I haven written 'Iraq" where I obviously meant to write 'Iran'...just consider them interchangeable.
rorythedog
01-18-2006, 01:03 AM
It would seem therefore that the name of every country in the Middle East is interchangeable then.
Not anywhere did I say it was a good idea for Iran to have either nuclear power or weapons. I was merely trying to see things from their point of view. As far as I was aware Iran was a democracy. Do you believe the proposition in the video? I didn't catch your response.
You know, actually... stuff this. There's no point in this discussion. You believe you're right and I believe I'm right. In fact that's not really true either. I fundamentally believe that the way your lot are going about things is fundamentally wrong. It hasn't worked up to now and I see absolutely no sign of your Government (yes dude, you're in the wrong country) ever changing. But no, I don't know the answers. That's why I bring attention to these things, in the hope that someone might have a solution. From your post I can see I'm pissing in the wind.
The US will fail ultimately. All empires do, it's only a matter of time. Might it not be a good idea to work to postpone that? Nah, didn't think so. Might is right, eh?
As to your final question - "Ask yourself...who would you rather control the world? Moslem States...Western States?"
Answer - preferably "none of the above". I'd like a civilized state to give it a go. Just for a change.
acushla
01-18-2006, 03:06 AM
It would seem therefore that the name of every country in the Middle East is interchangeable then.
It would seem therefore that the name of every country in the Middle East is interchangeable then.
Afghanistan - Armenia - Azerbaijan - Bahrain - Cyprus - Iran - Iraq - Israel - Jordan - Kazakhsta Kuwait - Kyrgyzstan -Lebanon, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar - Saudi Arabia -Syria Tajikistan - Turkey Turkmenistan United Arab Emirates - Uzbekistan - Yemen
Absolutely not.
There's no point in this discussion. You believe you're right and I believe I'm right.
I'm not convinced that your assessment of 'You believe you are right and I believe I am right' is accurate. For one thing I feel it is highly unlikely that there is a right/wrong answer...and if there was, whether it makes any difference as to what the outcome would be.
I know I have a position that I have developed over the years...a perspective as to what I see happening which I project to anticipate what will happen...which in Iraq's case is moving along in the direction which had been laid out from the beginning. We all know that the insurgent's have put up more resistance than we anticipated...and of course the day to day activities of suicide bombers killing a handful here and a handful there makes for good news coverage...but it is not the story. The story is the 8 million who voted...the story is the changes occurring which lay the foundation for the growth to follow. The changes is the gratitude of the majority of Iraqis who have a hope they never had before.
It's popular and in vogue to raise one's voice in indignation at the above statements...many people want the entire process to fail...and when they are reminded that it isn't failing they are outraged. I do not know why this is. What I do know is that I have met several Iraqis here in Canada who have been through the studio and when I discuss the state of affairs as it exists now they speak openly and positively about the changes for their family members who are still in Iraq. The 'real' news.
I fundamentally believe that the way your lot are going about things is fundamentally wrong. It hasn't worked up to now and I see absolutely no sign of your Government (yes dude, you're in the wrong country) ever changing. But no, I don't know the answers.
This is too vague. First of all I'm not certain why it appears you somehow hold myself or Inthewoods or Toe or What or anybody else covered in 'your lot' responsible for how things are going. Not even if one or all of us should have voted to support those decisions. We're really not a whole lot different from you...we see the news...and some of us read the news. Knowing about something and doing something about it are two different universes. One could make the case that it's you and your lot that are the problem. After all...your physically closer to the region...why not organize some type of resistance. It's your world too.
That's why I bring attention to these things, in the hope that someone might have a solution.
Hey...I agree...if it's solutions you're looking for...I'm not the guy to talk to. If I had 'solutions' I think I'd be in pretty high demand right now.
I don't approach it from that position of 'answers'. Answers in theory can be a dime a dozen and will never have any relevance when compared to 'what really happened'....I try to understand the events as they unfold and anticipate what's going to happen. That I suppose is where the 'fun' of this is for me.
Answers?! Hell no...I don't want answers. I don't think there are answers to History. Only the truth of what happened.
As to your final question - "Ask yourself...who would you rather control the world? Moslem States...Western States?"
Answer - preferably "none of the above". I'd like a civilized state to give it a go. Just for a change.
Good luck with that. Let me know how it goes.
Might is right, eh?
Only to the extent that the winners get to write the rules. Oh yes...the books as well.
Inthewoods
01-19-2006, 06:18 PM
Well Hello everybody,
Please give a very warm welcome to my friend Jack...All together now, say it with me, "Hi, Jack".:rolleyes:
As to the direction this thread has taken, and aside from the ongoing USA bashing (thank you so much for that, btw), to even question why why the Jews should have their own state, considering that they are surrounded by at least a dozen Muslim states defies logic entirely. And don't even try using the "They are Arabic, not Muslim states" arguement, because that's utter nonsense. (Oh and BTW, no, I'm not Jewish)
rorythedog
01-19-2006, 06:40 PM
Well Hello everybody,
Please give a very warm welcome to my friend Jack...All together now, say it with me, "Hi, Jack".:rolleyes:
As to the direction this thread has taken, and aside from the ongoing USA bashing (thank you so much for that, btw), to even question why why the Jews should have their own state, considering that they are surrounded by at least a dozen Muslim states defies logic entirely. And don't even try using the "They are Arabic, not Muslim states" arguement, because that's utter nonsense. (Oh and BTW, no, I'm not Jewish)
Why not move the Jewish state to the USA then? That would be a good answer. Seems all the Israelis I hear on the TV have an American accent anyway.
As for "bashing America"? Tough.
acushla
01-19-2006, 08:34 PM
Why not move the Jewish state to the USA then? That would be a good answer. Seems all the Israelis I hear on the TV have an American accent anyway.
As for "bashing America"? Tough.
Some analysts and Jewish groups believe that there is a distinctly new form of late 20th century anti-Semitism, often called new anti-Semitism, which borrows language and concepts from anti-Zionism, but which attacks Jews as a group, rather than Zionism as a movement. Some of these analysts controversially identify anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, arguing that anti-Zionism, "advocates denial of the right to self-determination of the Jewish people"
You're statement seems to meet the criteria of this definition.
Tell me I am wrong.
rorythedog
01-19-2006, 09:27 PM
Some analysts and Jewish groups believe that there is a distinctly new form of late 20th century anti-Semitism, often called new anti-Semitism, which borrows language and concepts from anti-Zionism, but which attacks Jews as a group, rather than Zionism as a movement. Some of these analysts controversially identify anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, arguing that anti-Zionism, "advocates denial of the right to self-determination of the Jewish people"
You're statement seems to meet the criteria of this definition.
Tell me I am wrong.
You're kidding, right?
I couldn't give a damn what bloody race, creed or colour anyone is! It just seems to me that you guys with the Gods seem to be the ones who're fighting all the time, that's all. You think there might be a common link?
Should I have said Israeli rather than Jew? If so, I stand corrected.
You and your kind are showing a distinct lack of any kind of morals when you can justify bombing and killing because "it's for the greater good"? Don't give me it. Try putting yourself in Arab shoes and see what you think. See if you feel victimised. That's how it looks from the bridge.
First Iraq, then Iran, then Syria, then Saudi Arabia. We'll conveniently forget about North Korea and Pakistan shall we? And it's NOT all about oil and the wealth it creates for the fat cats in Washington? You believe that? Nonsense! Of course it's all about money. Your leaders will dress it up any way they like as long as it results in more young fools joining up for a "better life". They might die in the process but hey, what the heck, someone's got to do it.
I don't remember when the Middle East declared war on the West. It certainly wasn't in my time. As I see it it's always been the West attacking them.
BTW - The US economy is a mess. Not really the kind of climate for starting wars but they do. It's not about oil and money though, oh no.
idefiXX
01-19-2006, 10:19 PM
BTW - The US economy is a mess. Not really the kind of climate for starting wars but they do. It's not about oil and money though, oh no.
The faults of a dying superpower...
If my english wasn't that bad i would write essays for you ! :dead:
acushla
01-19-2006, 11:15 PM
...and then a giant bird flew over the land and there was a sneezing and a chorus of blowing noses and great moans...and then the earth grew quiet...and stillness reigned.
The End
rorythedog
01-19-2006, 11:19 PM
...and then a giant bird flew over the land and there was a sneezing and a chorus of blowing noses and great moans...and then the earth grew quiet...and stillness reigned.
The End
After any other comment this might sound like an insult. As it is, you're being a self-righteous twat.
Inthewoods
01-20-2006, 12:58 AM
I don't remember when the Middle East declared war on the West. It certainly wasn't in my time. As I see it it's always been the West attacking them.
To quote you..."You're kidding, right?"
September 11, 2001. And kindly cut your insults to Americans and self-righteous bullshit...It didn't happen to your country. I lost family that day, so and so did thousands of other Americans. It's obvious you are g*ddamn clueless about ANYTHING relating to the USA if you can honestly make a statement like the quote above.
So you don't like Jews and you don't Like Americans, because they don't behave the way you think they should. How f*cking arrogant and egocentric is that? Anybody else you want to take a shot at????
And people wonder why Americans take offense at some if the hate that's spewed in this forum.....sheesh.
rorythedog
01-20-2006, 01:16 AM
To quote you..."You're kidding, right?"
September 11, 2001. And kindly cut your insults to Americans and self-righteous bullshit...It didn't happen to your country. I lost family that day, so and so did thousands of other Americans. It's obvious you are g*ddamn clueless about ANYTHING relating to the USA if you can honestly make a statement like the quote above.
So you don't like Jews and you don't Like Americans, because they don't behave the way you think they should. How f*cking arrogant and egocentric is that? Anybody else you want to take a shot at????
And people wonder why Americans take offense at some if the hate that's spewed in this forum.....sheesh.
What is it with you? Is there a hamster asleep at the wheel? Again, nowhere did I say I did not like Jews. I only know one and he's a great guy.
I also did not say I did not like "Americans", although I do not like you. You don't think that after 30 years of meddling in the affairs of other countries that maybe we had it coming? Get your head out of the sand numbnuts.
BTW - I know you'll conveniently ignore this but IRAQ did NOT attack your country! How many times do you need to be told?
BALTY
01-20-2006, 01:20 AM
You're kidding, right?
I couldn't give a damn what bloody race, creed or colour anyone is! It just seems to me that you guys with the Gods seem to be the ones who're fighting all the time, that's all. You think there might be a common link?
Should I have said Israeli rather than Jew? If so, I stand corrected.
You and your kind are showing a distinct lack of any kind of morals when you can justify bombing and killing because "it's for the greater good"? Don't give me it. Try putting yourself in Arab shoes and see what you think. See if you feel victimised. That's how it looks from the bridge.
First Iraq, then Iran, then Syria, then Saudi Arabia. We'll conveniently forget about North Korea and Pakistan shall we? And it's NOT all about oil and the wealth it creates for the fat cats in Washington? You believe that? Nonsense! Of course it's all about money. Your leaders will dress it up any way they like as long as it results in more young fools joining up for a "better life". They might die in the process but hey, what the heck, someone's got to do it.
I don't remember when the Middle East declared war on the West. It certainly wasn't in my time. As I see it it's always been the West attacking them.
BTW - The US economy is a mess. Not really the kind of climate for starting wars but they do. It's not about oil and money though, oh no.
"God" for most people is the reason to care, to share, to give, to live!
I need not mention the details of the amounts of money doled out to other nations, by the USA, for fighting AIDS, starvation, and civil unrest in 3rd world nations. Billions, and more on the way. Yes, it seems like your true colors (yes, colors I spell it like an American) are showing through. You hate America, and from which it stands. It's that simple, and you won't change by what I or anybody thinks or says. You've sugar coated it in the past. You've said it bluntly in the passed. But here we are! Fine!
I'm not saying that the USA doesn't do half-assed things just for political or economic reasons, because that happens too. WOODS admits to that all the time (too much I say:ermm: ) But the America I know, stands for freedom, and liberty!
With free enterprise, as it's cornerstone, it reaches out to any country willing to trade. Hey that's what make the world go 'round! And with that it has to protect itself at times. Sometimes by force (hopefully by last choice). Oil is what makes it all move in this day and age. I won't apologize for that! Get your own powerful nation!!! Bet you won't though, by sittin' on your ass writing about the big bad boy in town(USA) 'cause your country, not only doesn't have the resources, but more-so does not have the "incentives" this great county built itself upon. It's not perfect, never said it was! It has the good with the bad. Yes, It makes worldly mistakes, But as a whole, it does worldly good. I'm sure your country aspires to do that too. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
The USA, exports not only $$$, but advanced ideas. The US Army of Engineers, have given away their time, and ideas for years, to those countries in need. Sanitarily and proper care for the land, also medicines. Both, health care professionals and the Religious have given away so much (including their life in some cases) in the poorest of counties, just to help the needy. It's not exclusive to just the USA. Or the Catholic Church with all their missionaries. Other countries of the WEST as it were, and or religions do so as well. "God" for most people is the reason to care, to share, to give, to live!
I just sit back and shake my head that you choose to absorb the bad, and by-pass the good! Obviously you fall prey to seeing the glass half EMPTY
I guess because not one nation in the Arab east, officially hasn't started a war with the West (in your life-time) you assume Al-Qaeda doesn't count. They have said it many times. Not only stated by them as the term "war", but go as far as saying that they will NEVER stop killing, and even the innocent US citizen is a target, because if they are from the US, they are guilty somehow! That's intelligent isn't it? All in the name of Allah right? So in that case you may have a point. But is the US a GOD loving country? Starting wars for the sake of GOD? Or Oil? Or because we are the devil? , Bullies because we can? Or just think we are righteous all the time? Like you?
That brings us back to you and your bashing the US. Good, do it. Just shows me your jealousy, and envy.
Hey, the middle East thinks we are the Great Satin. Not God lovers right? Now is that from all those free press newspapers peppered throughout the Mid-East??
Right! Think not!
Sorry if I offended anyone in the writing of the post. I should adhere to the suggestions within this forum.........
This forum is all about news, facts and opinions. To ensure civil discussion I hope people can follow some simple rules:
1) Respect - you may disagree, so respond and do so in a constructive manor.
2) Respond to people's points, do not attack the person themselves.
God bless America!:biggrin:
rorythedog
01-20-2006, 01:34 AM
"God" for most people is the reason to care, to share, to give, to live!
I need not mention the details of the amounts of money doled out to other nations, by the USA, for fighting AIDS, starvation, and civil unrest in 3rd world nations. Billions, and more on the way. Yes, it seems like your true colors (yes, colors I spell it like an American) are showing through. You hate America, and from which it stands. It's that simple, and you won't change by what I or anybody thinks or says. You've sugar coated it in the past. You've said it bluntly in the passed. But here we are! Fine!
I'm not saying that the USA doesn't do half-assed things just for political or economic reasons, because that happens too. WOODS admits to that all the time (too much I say:ermm: ) But the America I know, stands for freedom, and liberty!
With free enterprise, as it's cornerstone, it reaches out to any country willing to trade. Hey that's what make the world go 'round! And with that it has to protect itself at times. Sometimes by force (hopefully by last choice). Oil is what makes it all move in this day and age. I won't apologize for that! Get your own powerful nation!!! Bet you won't though, by sittin' on your ass writing about the big bad boy in town(USA) 'cause your country, not only doesn't have the resources, but more-so does not have the "incentives" this great county built itself upon. It's not perfect, never said it was! It has the good with the bad. Yes, It makes worldly mistakes, But as a whole, it does worldly good. I'm sure your country aspires to do that too. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
The USA, exports not only $$$, but advanced ideas. The US Army of Engineers, have given away their time, and ideas for years, to those countries in need. Sanitarily and proper care for the land, also medicines. Both, health care professionals and the Religious have given away so much (including their life in some cases) in the poorest of counties, just to help the needy. It's not exclusive to just the USA. Other countries of the WEST as it were, do so as well. "God" for most people is the reason to care, to share, to give, to live!
I just sit back and shake my head that you choose to absorb the bad, and by-pass the good! Obviously you fall prey to seeing the glass half EMPTY
I guess because not one nation in the Arab east, officially hasn't started a war with the West (in your life-time) you assume Al-Qaeda doesn't count. They have said it many times. Not only stated by them as the term "war", but go as far as saying that they will NEVER stop killing, and even the innocent US citizen is a target, because if they are from the US, they are guilty somehow! That's intelligent isn't it? All in the name of Allah right? So in that case you may have a point. But is the US a GOD loving country? Starting wars for the sake of GOD? Or Oil? Or because we are the devil? , Bullies because we can? Or just think we are righteous all the time? Like you?
That brings us back to you and your bashing the US. Good, do it. Just shows me your jealousy, and envy.
Hey, the middle East thinks we are the Great Satin. Not God lovers right? Now is that from all those free press newspapers peppered throughout the Mid-East??
Right! Think not!
God bless America!:biggrin:
Most other Nationalities in the rich West do all the good things that the USA does. What's your point? Why does your version of history start with 11/9? Why with Al Quaeda? Has the US and others not been meddling in the Middle East for at least the last forty years? Does that have no bearing on recent events? You reap what you sow man. I don't think it's particularly complicated.
And get it right. Have a look through all my posts and you'll see that not once have I said I dislike "Americans". That's preposterous! In fact, both online and in RL I have quite a few "American" friends. You might find this surprising (everything else seems to be) but a helluva lot of them think the way I do. You are only speaking for one demographic of your population, not the whole country. Or is it a big conspiracy against the US? You're Government would sure like you to believe it!
BALTY
01-20-2006, 01:40 AM
Most other Nationalities in the rich West do all the good things that the USA does. What's your point? Why does your version of history start with 11/9? Why with Al Quaeda? Has the US and others not been meddling in the Middle East for at least the last forty years? Does that have no bearing on recent events? You reap what you sow man. I don't think it's particularly complicated.
And get it right. Have a look through all my posts and you'll see that not once have I said I dislike "Americans". That's preposterous! In fact, both online and in RL I have quite a few "American" friends. You might find this surprising (everything else seems to be) but a helluva lot of them think the way I do. You are only speaking for one demographic of your population, not the whole country. Or is it a big conspiracy against the US? You're Government would sure like you to believe it!
I noticed you like mentioning other rich nations other than the US when it pertains to giving, but not with "meddling in the Middle East" as you put it!!!
See... Colors shining through!! You don't have to say it, 'cause brotha... You've been saying it!!!
rorythedog
01-20-2006, 01:42 AM
I noticed you like mentioning other rich nations other than the US when it pertains to giving, but not with "meddling in the Middle East" as you put it!!!
See... Colors shining through!! You don't have to say it, 'cause brotha... You've been saying it!!!
It helps if you actually READ other posts - "Has the US and others not been meddling in the Middle East for at least the last forty years?".
You need a list - UK, France Germany, Russia, USSR, China. Yup, we're all to blame. The UK more than most IMHO. But most others are not perpetuating it, that's the US who do that. It's completely futile. You think you can threaten people who are happy to die fighting against you? Come on.
rorythedog
01-20-2006, 01:48 AM
Seriously guys, I'm not trying to fall out with anyone here. But I am entitled to my opinion and that's what I'm giving you. It's the way I see it. I know you see it differently but the way things are going the future is damned scary. I don't see current US policy changing that. Do you?
Peace.
Inthewoods
01-20-2006, 01:57 AM
What is it with you? Is there a hamster asleep at the wheel? Again, nowhere did I say I did not like Jews. I only know one and he's a great guy.
I also did not say I did not like "Americans", although I do not like you. You don't think that after 30 years of meddling in the affairs of other countries that maybe we had it coming? Get your head out of the sand numbnuts.
Ya ya ya, you never said you don't like Jews, you just want to subject them to genocide and extinction by denying them a homeland, bully for you. Your single Jewish friend is so luck you have you as a friend. ya, right.
I too have seen the hate the Arabs have for Jews, and inflammatory statements like you made just feed the flames.
BTW - I know you'll conveniently ignore this but IRAQ did NOT attack your country! How many times do you need to be told? I don't have to "be told" at all. In the quote of yours that I was responding to, you didn't say "Iraq", you said "Middle East". Your words, not mine:
I don't remember when the Middle East declared war on the West. It certainly wasn't in my time. As I see it it's always been the West attacking them. BTW - I know you'll conveniently ignore this. I don't see "Iraq" in your quote, please be accurate! "Middle East" not "Iraq"! How many times do you need to be told?
As for your namecalling, it's nothing short of juvenile, and as to your statement that you don't like me....oh well... It's obvious to me that arguing with somene who just wants to personally attack other people or their country is pointless, so I'll end my participation in this thread with a quote:
...and then a giant bird flew over the land and there was a sneezing and a chorus of blowing noses and great moans...and then the earth grew quiet...and stillness reigned.
The End I quite concur.
rorythedog
01-20-2006, 02:02 AM
Ya ya ya, you never said you don't like Jews, you just want to subject them to genocide and extinction by denying them a homeland, bully for you. Your single Jewish friend is so luck you have you as a friend. ya, right.
I too have seen the hate the Arabs have for Jews, and inflammatory statements like you made just feed the flames.
I don't have to "be told" at all. In the quote of yours that I was responding to, you didn't say "Iraq", you said "Middle East". Your words, not mine:
BTW - I know you'll conveniently ignore this. I don't see "Iraq" in your quote, please be accurate! "Middle East" not "Iraq"! How many times do you need to be told?
As for your namecalling, it's nothing short of juvenile, and as to your statement that you don't like me....oh well... It's obvious to me that arguing with somene who just wants to personally attack other people or their country is pointless, so I'll end my participation in this thread with a quote:
I quite concur.
No other religions have "homelands" as far as I know. I'm not sure your Government sees much distinction between the different countries in the Middle East so does it really matter? Oh, another thing - 'bye.
BALTY
01-20-2006, 02:03 AM
Depends on the term meddling! Al-qaeda thinks so, not many others do. Or did, until Al-Qaeda twisted the meaning of business.
I don't see the ME as a Hot spot ready to explode. I see false reporting by many as to what is happening. I see the 16 to 26 year old Arab restless, and with false ideas about America.
I remember my feelings, growing up, fearing, hating the Soviets. How wrong I was?
Now the North Koreans fear/hate the US. Is that because we hate them? hate their ways? Just want their precious land :evil: and or woman? No but it gives their people something to distract themselves by. Something to keep them busy, ready, productive. Doesn't seem to work in the productive end of it. But boy... is the army ever so big! Yet, if the people really knew, they would see that the guy in charge is hungry for power, at the expense of the people.
rorythedog
01-20-2006, 02:05 AM
Depends on the term meddling! Al-qaeda thinks so, not many others do. Or did, until Al-Qaeda twisted the meaning of business.
I don't see the ME as a Hot spot ready to explode. I see false reporting by many as to what is happening. I see the 16 to 26 year old Arab restless, and with false ideas about America.
I remember my feelings, growing up, fearing, hating the Soviets. How wrong I was?
Now the North Koreans fear/hate the US. Is that because we hate them? hate their ways? Just want their precious land :evil: and or woman? No but it gives their people something to distract themselves by. Something to keep them busy, ready, productive. Doesn't seem to work in the productive end of it. But boy... is the army ever so big! Yet, if the people really knew, they would see that the guy in charge is hungry for power, at the expense of the people.
I agree completely! And it's the point I've tried to make so many times before. I get heated because I care. The average US citizen is just the same as your average Scot, German, Italian etal. There's no difference. They share exactly the same hopes and dreams. But your Government I believe to be Evil incarnate. I blame them, and to an extent your public, because they voted for these morons. As I've said before, Exactly the same situation presents itself in my own country. I'm not trying to single out the USA but there ain't a lot of Scots on this forum.
*EDIT* - The pm says "...you'll just encourage him.".
BALTY
01-20-2006, 02:21 AM
My Grandmother was a McEldowney! Why'd ya think I called ya Brotha?;) God rest her soul. She was a strong Catholic.
http://www.allfamilycrests.com/e/mceldowney.gif
But she taught me that sometimes in politics, business, and life in general, you got to break a few eggs to get an omelet! Not all people in the government use the proper methods when attempting to do what they think is best for all. What can I say.
I still say though... The basis of our government is good, not only do I believe that, but I believe the best the world has ever known. How many people are knocking down your doors to get in? My great grandfather wasn't alone when he left!;) and came a knockin'!~
AND HEY NOBODY MENTIONED THIS FACT!!.....
Interesting Year 1981
1. Prince Charles got married
2. Liverpool crowned soccer Champions of Europe
3. Australia lost the Ashes tournament.
4. Pope Died
Year 2005
1. Prince Charles got married
2. Liverpool crowned soccer Champions of Europe
3. Australia lost the Ashes tournament
4. Pope Died
Lesson Learned? - the next time Charles gets married, someone warn the Pope
acushla
01-20-2006, 06:57 AM
After any other comment this might sound like an insult. As it is, you're being a self-righteous twat.
Actually...it was me bowing out.
The great bird and the sneezing and blowing of noses was reference to the bird flu that will see most of us dead by the end of the year. Making all of this a mute point.
I guess I should have used a smiley or something.
:)
acushla
01-20-2006, 07:08 AM
...but there ain't a lot of Scots on this forum.
.
Over 'ere laddie!
rorythedog
01-20-2006, 08:10 AM
Over 'ere laddie!
Please, don't start that crap again. :silly:
Balty - You think I'm Irish?
BALTY
01-20-2006, 03:00 PM
Please, don't start that crap again. :silly:
Balty - You think I'm Irish?
She was Scottish.
The Coat of Arms was just something found on the web! Why? Do you see Irish icons there? Or does the Catholic comment thing confuse youhttp://www.quinnware.com/forum/images/icons/icon5.gif
rorythedog
01-20-2006, 05:54 PM
It's not a rule or anything but generally speaking when you see "Mc" it's Irish. "Mac" tends to be Scottish. Still, there's been enough cross-breeding between the countries to blur things.
Being Catholic isn't a problem for me but it is for a lot of my countrymen, sadly. That's partly why I can't stand to see people creating divisions where there should be none. This country and particularly the city of Glasgow is split down the middle. You guys think religious hatred is only seen between Jews and Muslims? I grew up with it. I've been beat up a good few times for being in the wrong part of town at the wrong time. C'est la vie.
rorythedog
01-21-2006, 03:14 PM
CANADIAN ELECTION 2006 MASHUP (http://election2006.kekova.ca/)
acushla
01-22-2006, 07:06 AM
CANADIAN ELECTION 2006 MASHUP (http://election2006.kekova.ca/)
Good one...I've sent it to several friends.
How many days now?
Willow of Oz
02-21-2006, 09:04 AM
Just federal elections?
I know a guy who knows a guy who, come local elections, realised at about 6:30pm that he was supposed to have voted that day. Now every day he stops to smell the roses on the way to work and refuses to open the front door on weekends...
What do you know, the damn thing does apply to local elections.
Letter.
Hello Sir.
Please Explain.
Oops.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.