Leaderboard

I think Conservatives have realized that running on social issues are vote losers. It's a contradiction to believe that government should stay out of people's lives but look to government to chime in on how people conduct their personal lives.

Trudeau is trying to obstruct the justice system for political gain.

There is no innuendo. The Conservatives are simply calling out Trudeau and a couple of his ministers for making negative comments about the judicial system or trial, which is political interference.

You were not paraphrasing, you were totally mistaken. Perhaps you were just "telling a bad joke".

There is only the moment and the choice to act. It's all over by the time one chats about it.

Agreed....Trudeau is such a sleazy political opportunist, he will use any divisive circumstance to interfere, as in this acquittal.

If you're pointing it at an intruder in your home - boy, I don't care what you find hateful, but I surely don't find it that. It's better I get the upper hand! Using a restricted gun would be the least of my worries. Are you willing to gamble the life of your family? You never answered that question.

I thought the only relevant part of the Bible today was the New Testament, so why the cites from the OT? If the OT can be used to prove Christian beliefs about Jesus/God/HS, then why not about gays, women and non-believers?

Finally, a conservative that seems to get it.

I'm busy at the moment and really want to answer this with depth. I think this needs its own thread on the rhetoric. So I'll have to hold off until later. As to my thread here though, I am seeing many of you digressing to the PARTICULAR case rather than to the LOGIC of the problem I'm speaking of. PRETEND, for the sake of argument that the jury's decision was an 'injustice'. I don't CARE for whether the jury was or was not appropriate here. What matters is (1) That EVERY person charged with some offense for which they have a JURY, the DEFENSE has a right to be judged by "those of his peers"; By contrast, the PROSECUTION favors those potential selections who will give them a 'win' for the charge. The DEFENSE is NOT in any wrong regardless for opting selected jury members that they believe will FAVOR their case. Why would you WANT to PICK those you know will most likely find you guilty no matter what? Given the very DEMONSTRATING anger of an almost universal hatred of the defendant BY those of Aboriginal decent, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE "WISE" for the defendant to PICK "INDIGENOUS" jury members? Please grab a brain on this. The 'anger' against this defendant BY the Aboriginal community PROVES their own interpretation that the ONLY means for justice is to REQUIRE A GUILTY CONVICTION REGARDLESS OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE OR GUILT. (2) Distracting the attention to the particular guilt or innocence purposely attempts to DIMINISH the significance of the abuses that is coming from the Aboriginal community and supporters of those politicians who REFUSE to speak against this with our media also focusing on this without integrity of 'reporting' the logical fallacies that those like myself are complaining about. I will add more on this but have to go. I already wrote more than I can for now. Scott.

The Boushie family is in Ottawa to meet with government ministers. Will Trudeau Liberals take it to the next level and make things better for the Boushie family by handing them a hefty cheque? Speaking of political gain, that would earn them a few hundred additional First Nations votes. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boushie-verdict-ottawa-parliament-meeting-1.4530880

Yep...one and the same. Must be election season again !

Kathleen Wynne wynning about NY "Buy American" policy...too bad ! https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/02/06/wynne-warns-ontario-will-retaliate-against-new-york-buy-american-law-if-no-exemption-granted.html

On politicians pretending they know better about what the result of the trial should have been. Saying anything that amounts to commenting on the correctness of the verdict, to improve your public image or ensure an appropriate approval rating, should be criticized in Canada,” Lacy said, adding public figures should stick to offering sympathies over the tragic loss of life. http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/political-commentary-on-court-verdicts-hurts-views-of-justice-system-lawyers

So if anyone watched the evening news, which I just caught. CTV and Global both had long stories on this, focusing on the 'outrage' and grief of Boushie's family, and the outrage of natives around the country calling for the justice system to be reformed. Here's what had no place in either story. The four were drunk They had just robbed a truck on the next farm One of them was rummaging in a truck they found on the farm to see what he could steal Another got onto an ATV and tried to start it Boushie was in possession of a rifle Several of the native witnesses admitted lying. I guess none of that was deemed important for people to know.

Yes, there does need to be a better validating of membership but I am not sure if that accomplishes it. What really is needed is: 1. Ensuring members are Canadian citizens 2. Members are only members of a single party (? I think this is important, but can see some minor counter arguments) 3. Members are authenticated, not just a name on a paper along with a fee

Vladimir Putin hasn't been found guilty of ethics violations, so I guess he's a nice, honest guy.

Most churches believe in the trinity. That is what the King James Bible (1611) teaches. The King James Bible is based on the Received Text., which are the Greek New Testament manuscripts available at the time the first English language bibles were produced in the 1500s. Quote The case for the Triunity of God is even stronger in the New Testament. Here it can be unequivocally demonstrated the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Furthermore, the New Testament teaches us that these three names are not synonymous, but speak of three distinct and equal Persons. (1) The Father is called God (John 6:27; 20:17; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 4:6; Phil. 2:11; 1 Pet. 1:2). (2) Jesus Christ, the Son is declared to be God. His deity is proven by the divine names given to Him, by His works that only God could do (upholding all things, Col. 1:17; creation, Col. 1:16, John 1:3; and future judgment, John 5:27), by His divine attributes (eternality, John 17:5; omnipresence, Matt. 28:20; omnipotence, Heb. 1:3; omniscience, Matt. 9:4), and by explicit statements declaring His deity (John 1:1; 20:28; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8). (3) The Holy Spirit is recognized as God. By comparing Peter’s comments in Acts 5:3 and 4, we see that in lying to the Holy Spirit (vs. 3), Ananias was lying to God (vs. 4). He has the attributes which only God can possess like omniscience (1 Cor. 2:10) and omnipresence (1 Cor. 6:19), and He regenerates people to new life (John 3:5-6, 8; Tit. 3:5), which must of necessity be a work of God for only God has the power of life. Finally, His deity is evident by the divine names used for the Spirit as “the Spirit of our God,” (1 Cor. 6:11), which should be understood as “the Spirit, who is our God.” Unquote The full article defending the trinity is here: https://bible.org/article/trinity-triunity-god

The Church (Jesus's people) did not become what Jesus preached against. OTOH, what is called organized religion DID become what Jesus preached against. The religious groups of TODAY that are commonly called "organized religion" ... (RomCatholic,Orthodox,Lutheran, Anglican, Prysbyterian, Methodist, Baptist,Mormon, SDAdventist, JehWitness etc etc etc) are as the synagogue of the NT revealed era. As Jesus's people HAD TO COME OUT of the synagogues, so Jesus's people of TODAY will have to come out of what is commonly called organized religion. The clergy of today's organized religion are NOT modern day NT Apostles. Today's clergy of organized religion are modern day scribes and pharisees.Hebrews 13:13 Therefore let us go forth to Him outside the camp, bearing the reproach that He bore.We must go to Jesus OUTSIDE THE CAMP .... outside the "camp" of what is commonly called organized religion. 22 His parents said this, because they feared the Jews. For the Jews had already agreed that if anyone confessed that He was the Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue. John 9:22 42 Yet many of the rulers also believed in Him. But because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they be put out of the synagogue. John 12:42 2 They will put you out of the synagogues. Yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he is offering a service to God. John 16:2

Who told you that? Didn't Jesus cite from the Old Testament when He was debating, or stating a point? I thought you said you've read the Bible? So....why do you ask such question? You're confused with some requirements that are no longer relevant because of the Messiah - like, the sacrificing of animals to atone for sins. We don't have to use the Old Testament to show that homosexuality is a sin. It's also stated in the New Testament.