Leaderboard

So the liberals attack him on his religious views while trudeau is meeting the pope, did trudeau asked the pope what he thought about abortion?

You cannot 'steal' culture.

I would have been okay with a Liberal-NDP coalition. This would be about as close as we'd get to putting politicians into the same room, locking the door and one by one cutting off their necessities of life to force a compromise.

Canadian charity should be for Canadians, not the rest of the world.

I guess like having your and my tax dollars being sent off, in the form of foreign-aid, too other countries who do not deserve it instead of keeping those tax dollars here in Canada to help Canadians. But I have found out over the years that most Canadians say they care about Canada and other Canadians when in fact it would appear as though they could careless about Canada or Canadians. My opinion of course. And I approve this opinion. Great to hear. And now I will go out and buy myself a case of beer and put the beer on your tax tab. Thanks Mr.D.

Your problem is that your world view is so profoundly anti-Western that you look at the West's reaction to growing religious fundamentalism, turmoil and attacks on their citizens and then try to pretend that is the actual cause rather than the response.

No, this logical deduction. I understand, though, why this would confuse you as logic plays no part in your political views.

Defending as in beating the enemies that attacked them, enemies which refused to sign a peace accord and thus never got their land back. The Palestinians never owned a country, and what's left of it now that Jordan has snatched off a big chunk is never going to rise to the heights of economic and political stability like Yemen. It will be the world's new basket case, utterly impoverished and home to violent extremists. There is no place for a Palestinian state. The West bank should be absorbed by Jordan and the Gaza strip by Egypt.

It's starting, folks. The lib media is trying to define Scheer. One of the news channel (I think it's CTV) was asking Rempel if Scheer's going to open up the social conservative issues - and good for Rempel who replied that that's the story the media is trying to latch on despite the fact that Scheer made it clear he won't be openning up those issues.

I don't work, and I don't need to work anymore. I am a retired rich conservative privileged white guy. And I hope that you have to work, and are contributing some of your tax dollars towards my pension checks every month. Ah, the good life.

1. Harper was from Toronto and moved out West, BIG DIFFERENCE. Harper had a minority government because the liberals ran a series of poor candidates, one who didn't live in the country, the other who spoke no English. Once Harper got a majority (which he only got because people got tired of having an election every 2 years, he was voted out the first chance Canadians had. Harper had several years to try to get some French MPs. Sheerer doesn't have that advantage. If he gets a minority government in 8 years because he won't win the next election, whose to say liberal and ndp won't form that coalition like they tried to, to block him? 2. Not really, Harper was deeply unpopular in Ontario. He really got elected once after a series of elections while luckily holding onto a minority government because alot of voters got tired of constant elections, which is why once they had the chance to boot him, they ran from him in a landslide. Sheerer opposing gay marriage makes him politically dead, it made it impossible for Harper to win a majority government for a long long time. Ontario, specifically Toronto is like the gay capital of the world. Sheerer won't win Quebec, won't win in toronto, he is at best competing for 2nd or 3rd place. 3. Sure myself included. However, that doesn't give Sheerer a chance in hell. 4. Where in the rest of Canada will these magical seats come from? Not the GTA, not BC, not quebec and maritimes. Face it, the conservatives are a regional party except when Liberals run terrible candidates. Even the NDP would have a better chance of forming a government at this point. The country has swung to the left. 3.

It's capitalized: Caucasian.

http://www.maxkeiser.com/2012/11/good-bye-red-states/

Sure. This is why people lose their homes, lives. Nice try. I can assure you. She didn't give a dam about less fortunate people.

No one is suggesting that universal day care should copy Quebec's program. The key is to learn from their mistakes. Which special interest groups are pursuing this agenda? As far as I can tell it will benefit every Canadian family. The problem is lack of leadership to implement this.

I don't see any charisma or anything like able about Sheer who did not come across to me as a man who speaks with confidence. He sounds more like a wimpy liberal. At least Leitch showed too us all that she was willing to take on political correctness, something that should have been noticed not sadly ignored.

At least Leitch had the ba-ls to bring up the problems that we have in Canada and are facing in regards to our present day destructive multicultural immigration policy that is destroying this once great nation. Leitch showed and spoke about true Canadian values unlike with your liberal values that only want to destroy Canada.

JT must be on shaky ground what with the liberal responses to the new Tory leader(the fearmongering I mean). Personally I agree with them, JT has been a disaster, and the Canadian voter seems to be getting that feeling that they kissed their sister. But it's early, perhaps JT can do something notable. Did you see him on the weekend wearing that ridiculous helmet? He is no Pierre.

The more the Libs will ramp up the scare-mongering, demonizing technique against Scheer. Because that's all they can do....... ..........when Canadians start feeling the painful pinch from Trudeau's big spending spree!

Your video provided a snippet of Dawkins' comment. Here is the context: Whether there is an all-knowing, all-loving creator or there isn't... the world we see works as if there isn't. The world is full of pain, suffering, injustice, fear, misery... delivered without compassion or discrimination. As you say, the rain falls on the righteous and the unrighteous. The video attributes qualities like "equality" and "generosity" to God, but we don't see these qualities embodied in his creation. One baby can be born with a million-dollar trust-fund and loving parents... the next can be born with leukemia. That bears more resemblance to the "pitiless indifference" Dr Dawkin describes than to Dr Craig's "equality and generosity". Everyone already has their own idea of right and wrong. Even among Christians alone, the definition of right and wrong has been hotly debated constantly, for almost as long as Christianity has existed. Your video suggests that "equality", "generosity", and "sacrifice" are objectively as "good", and "greed", "abuse", and "discrimination" are objectively "evil". And yet Christians have continuously debated and changed their ideas of all of these things over the centuries. Dr Craig confidently proclaims that Abuse is objectively evil, and yet in centuries gone by, Christians have committed horrific acts of abuse in the belief that they were doing God's work. Torture and slaughter of witches and pagans and heretics, for example. Equality? Christians proudly note that Christians were leaders of the movement to abolish slavery in America. They're not quite as proud that Christians were also leaders of the US movement to retain slavery, or that Christians were the ones who captured and kept the slaves in the first place. Discrimination? Christians continue to debate which kinds of discrimination are and aren't acceptable, to this very day. Some Christians believed that the Bible supported segregation. Dr Craig says that discrimination is objectively evil, yet many different kinds of discrimination have been embraced by Christians over the ages, so clearly this is a subjective issue, not an objective one. Discrimination remains a hot-button issue in the United States right now as some Christians go to court to claim that their religion requires them to discriminate against others. If Christians are tapped into an objective morality, how have Christian views on so many issues changed so dramatically over the ages? One might suggest that there could still be an objective morality and we're just not able to agree on what it actually is... but is there any real difference between a subjective morality and an objective moral absolute that's continually being re-evaluated through ongoing subjective interpretation? I'd suggest that there isn't. Is a moral absolute even possible? Even the most clear-cut commandment-- thou shalt not kill-- isn't an absolute. We can all agree that there are situations where killing is necessary. Trying to figure out if you're in such a situation is a matter of subjective judgment. What about greed? The video says that greed is evil, but people actually spend a lot of time and energy trying to rationalize or justify greed. The video says that God is Love, and all of this objective morality flows from that principle, and that the objective morality it talks about stems from the commandment to "love thy neighbor as thyself". And yet, people spend a lot of time and energy trying to find reasons to not love their neighbors. You yourself, betsy, recently posted a message explaining that you feel that this most central principle of the New Testament actually only applies to other Christians. The video includes an image of a newspaper with the headline "Man Kills Child" as something we universally recognize as wrong. Yes, we do. And it's not just humans, either. Most types of animals feel the same way. Every creature has some strategy for making sure its offspring survive. For some types of animals, it's simply a matter of having so many offspring that the law of averages says enough survive to continue the species. For other types of animals-- mammals, birds-- care and nurturing are part of making sure their offspring survive. Most of us have seen some of the enchanting animal videos on the internet. One of my favorites is one where a big dog shows up in a yard and tries to grab a toddler... in a flash, a little house-cat attacks the dog like a fluffy little cyclone, chasing it away from the toddler. In another, a child falls down and hurts himself... mom arrives on the scene, but the family cat arrives too, thinks the woman has hurt the child, and makes her back away. A dog sees a girl swimming, and jumps into the lake, chomps a mouthful of her hair, and swims frantically to pull her to shore. A momma dog nursing an orphaned kitten along with her own puppies. We see these videos and think it's cute or funny, but they also illustrate something much more important. They demonstrate how other animals, not just humans, are able to form bonds, even bonds that transcend species. And they illustrate the powerful instinct of protecting and nurturing their young. This is something that, as you say, is written in our hearts. And not just human hearts. It is transcendent. If there were mammals that didn't have this instinct, they've gone extinct. If there are people born without the instinct to protect their young, they're not going to pass that gene on to future generations, because they aren't going to have descendants. There might have been societies where there were no limits on killing, but those societies probably didn't last long. Every human society has some minimum amount of principles to preserve order and unity and make sure the group survived. Every society that didn't have the minimum amount of principles to ensure its own survival died out. Further on the issue of "Man Kills Child", we can look at two examples from the Bible in which God explicitly tells men to kill children. One of them is when the Israelites massacred the Amalekites. God instructed the Israelites to kill every last man, woman, and child, even infants, even their farm animals. Everything. Nothing was to be left. If one supposes the killing of children to be an objective evil, this has to be pretty tough to reconcile with the notion of God as the definition of good. But Dr Craig tries anyway... he wrote an essay on the subject. "Obviously this sounds pretty bad, but..." Ultimately, the fact that Dr Craig can attempt to rationalize such a horrific event as "not actually evil" demonstrates that no matter how black and white a case of "objective morality" appears, there's subjective wiggle-room. A second example of God killing a man to kill a child is when God told Abraham to kill his own son. Luckily for Isaac, God stopped him at the last minute, once he had seen that Abraham really did intend to go through with it. What was the point of this? To make Abraham prove that his obedience to God was absolute... that he'd do what God told him, no matter how wrong it seemed. What's the message here? The message is don't trust your instincts, that morality that is "written in our hearts". The message is, don't listen to that innate sense of right and wrong that we possess... obey your religion instead. But if God is the source of this "objective morality" we all supposedly possess, why would religion come into conflict with it? And yet we see this in our world today. We see parents who believe in faith-healing ignoring their childrens' suffering because they think God wants them to. Like modern versions of Abraham, they're sacrificing their children because they believe God requires it. Surely this would fall under Dr Craig's notion of "objectively evil", and yet here we are in 2017 with children dying from easily treatable diseases because parents are convinced that God wants it that way. -k