blackbird
-
Posts
8,059 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackbird
-
-
3 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:
Brexit may break up the UK. Scotland and NI are being forced out of the EU against their will.
If they don't get their way, they are going to pick up their marbles and leave. waaaaa The majority has spoken.
-
4 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:
The vote seems to have been more of a plebiscite than a referendum given it turns out not to have been binding on its own after all. The UK lacks a simple, written constitution in one document so such misunderstandings are prone to arise. I do think Brexit will grind on, however, and the effects, of course, are impossible to predict: politically in Scotland and NI where the Remain vote was particularly strong and economically everywhere.
The UK Parliament has approved proceeding with Brexit. That was the main hurdle. I don't think anything is going to stop Brexit now. Scotland cannot hold another referendum on separation unless the UK parliament approves and the British PM has said no to another referendum.
-
On 2016-10-16 at 7:21 AM, Argus said:
Donald Trump is about as far from being a Christian, about as far from a man who upholds Christian values and virtues as it's possible to find in a western country. I could easily make the case that Hugh Hefner, the founder of Playboy, was a far better representative of Christian virtues, through his long years of dedicated support for the downtrodden, his campaigning for womens rights and the rights of minorities and those improperly convicted in jails.
Purely on his own self-admission, and on his own representation, without taking into account what others say, Trump is a hedonist of the first order, a selfish, wretched, covetous adulterer and sinner who has never shown any interest in helping others, but only in satisfying his own lust and narcissistic desire for fame and adulation. By all accounts, and by simple observation, a cruel and intolerant man with a mean streak a mile wide, it seems impossible that anyone who actually believes in Christian ideals would be anything but repulsed by Donald Trump. Yet any number of prominent political Christian leaders have endorsed him.
This despite the fairly obvious fact he has spent as little time in church as possible, has never read the bible, nor understands it (nor cares about it), and has, up until his run for president, taken positions entirely at odds with the social values Christians believe in, including a long history of supporting abortion.
Principled Christians, of course, do not support Trump. Christianity Today, the magazine founded by Billy Graham, in an editorial last week said “Enthusiasm for a candidate like Trump gives our neighbors ample reason to doubt that we believe Jesus is Lord. They see that some of us are so self-interested, and so self-protective, that we will ally ourselves with someone who violates all that is sacred to us.”
The editorial criticized the Republican nominee in biblical terms. Quoting a list of sins that St. Paul condemns — “sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires, and greed, which is idolatry” — Crouch wrote, “this is an incredibly apt summary of Trump’s life to date.”
The fact so many self-described Christians continue to endorse Trump seems, to me, to lay bare their hypocrisy, and to raise the question of what kind of commitment their religion has when it can be ignored for perceived political gain.
Answer is quite simple. There were only two candidates to choose from. In the minds of many christians Hillary Clinton was not a good option. She supports policies that are basically anti christian. Trump may not be a perfect candidate but he did make promises that resonate with many christian beliefs far more than the Democrats. One example is Hillary is a strong supporter of abortion which has killed something like eight million unborn babies in the last number of years. Trump said he is pro life and opposes abortion. He promised to appoint a pro life judge to the supreme court and that is what he is doing. The general anti christian stance of the Obama administration has turned many to the only other choice there is, that is, Trump in hopes that America's christian values will receive more respect. If you're not a christian and don't believe in these values, then you will more than likely prefer Hillary or some other democrat. Christians do not see Trump is the "devil". That is far fetched hate speech.
-
Conservative candidate Steven Blaney said:
Do you think a terrorist who swears an Oath of Citizenship and then murders innocent people should be allowed to retain his Canadian citizenship?
Well, Liberal Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen thinks so.
Indeed, Justin Trudeau and his Liberals want to return Canadian citizenship to Zakaria Amara, a convicted terrorist.
I disagree with him.
I strongly believe citizenship revocation has to be an option for convicted terrorists holding dual citizenship who have come to our country to kill Canadians.
That is why in 2015, our Conservative government passed bill C-24 which allows for the revocation of citizenship for those immigrant citizens who have committed acts of terrorism.
Justin Trudeau and his liberals are about to change that.
The first duty of any government is to keep its citizens safe, not to seek fame and be adored. --Steven Blaney, MPWhat do you think?
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, ?Impact said:
Unfortunately because of the insistence of Jacob Epp, PC MP from Manitoba, the supremacy of God got included in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
What's wrong with that?
-
1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:
The Catholic system is not a private school.
I'm not sure how you define a private school. If the school is under the control of a denomination or church, people generally do not think of it as a public school. It is a church-run school, although they must teach a certain minimum department of education curriculum. Because they are classified as a "catholic school", they are free to teach catholicism as well as the required curriculum. If it were classified as a public school, it would not be free to teach one particular religion. There is a distinct difference between a catholic school and a public school. Do you understand the difference?
Also, you said you check off which school system you want your taxes to go to. So one is the Catholic school system and the other is what is normally called the public school system. Trying to call the catholic school system the public school system doesn't make sense.
-
On 2017-02-19 at 7:17 AM, betsy said:
The meaning would hardly be different.
On that same token, people do not fear homosexuals. Why is dislike of homosexuals called Homophobia, instead of anti-gay? It's a form of labelling.
There is info floating out there that the term Islamophobia came from the Muslim Brotherhood - it's a term used by "soft jihadists" and Islam apologists to intimidate or label anyone who criticize Islam.
Some people posting here do not understand the difference between Islamophobia and anti-Semitism and are just confusing the meaning.
Anti mean against. Therefore the word anti-semitism means against Jews.
Phobia means a fear of. The word Islamophobia means a fear of Islam.
So anti-semitism is against a people; Islamophobia is a fear of a religion. It is not an opposition to a people. Some try to equate it with anti-semitism but this is not correct. There is a difference between opposing a race or group of people and opposing a religion or ideology because you disagree with it's teachings.
Anti-semitism has existed in Europe for about 2000 years. There is a book called "God's First Love" by Friedrich Heer (Christians and Jews over two thousand years) This is an extremely detailed book of what has been happening in Europe during the past 2000 years culminating in the Haulocaust.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Boges said:
It'd be Political Suicide to get rid of them. Also most parents that send their kids to Catholic Schools see them as Poor Man's Private Schools.
Catholic schools are a form of private religious type of school even if they receive public funding. They can't be considered as public school. So again they have the right to teach only catholicism and can refuse to allow other religions to be taught or practiced in their schools. People get public and catholic schools confused I think. They are two different entities.
Didn't the government in Ontario or Quebec sign an agreement with the catholic church authorities way back in history to provide funding for them to operate catholic schools? This creates a strange situation where catholic schools in some provinces where the most common school is catholic, but isn't there still public schools in the same cities? I think people in Quebec or Ontario who do not want to send their kids to a catholic school have the right to send them to a public school. Is that correct? Or how does it work?
-
1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:
For those who say religion has no place in schools, how do you explain all of the Catholic School boards we elect every few years?
I should have said religion has no place in public schools. Private schools can practice their religion. If people want religion in school, they have the option of sending their kids to a private school. Catholic schools are private schools. Catholic schools must still be considered as a private school even though it may receive public funding and you vote for the catholic school board. It might even be the most common school in your area. But it still is a private school and does not have to accommodate the practice of non-catholic religious exercises.
-
6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
Why are you conflating mandatory public Christian prayer for all students and private prayer clubs for some ? Do you not understand the difference, or are you looking to muddy the waters of discussion ? Are you interested in having a real discussion around culture or not ?
Not sure what you mean. I believe no religion should be accommodated in public schools whether you wish to call it prayer for all students or private prayer clubs. Neither should be permitted on public school property. If you provide public property for one religion, then you have no argument for not providing it for any other religion. That is not the function of public schools, which taxpayers are paying for. Yes, I will discuss issues around culture. I don't see this however as a question of culture. It is a question of what public schools should be used for. Since it is no longer possible to have christian prayer or teaching in public schools, certainly no other religion should be permitted to operate on the premises either.
-
28 minutes ago, ?Impact said:
So you are suggesting that the school week be Sunday through Thursday then?
No.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 2014-04-24 at 7:17 PM, WestCoastRunner said:
The Trinity University located in Langley, BC is starting a law program in 2016, however, students must abide by a covenant that requires them to abstain from sexual intimacy that "violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman".
The Ontario law society has said that graduates of this program cannot practice law in Ontario. I can't figure out how the law society of B.C.'s board allowed this school to go ahead and offer this program in the first place.
Read the story here.
Trinity Western University is a private christian university. They have that right because we have freedom of religion in the charter of rights. Secondly, the law students which graduate are being barred from practicing law in Ontario by the Law Society in Ontario. In my opinion, this law society is not respecting the right of these students to practice their freedom of religion and become lawyers. If somebody doesn't like what these students have agreed to and believe in, they are free to go to any other lawyer they choose. I think the law societies in B.C. and Nova Scotia also tried to bar the students but provincial courts overruled the law societies. From what I have heard, this will probably go to the Supreme Court.
-
On 2017-01-11 at 3:49 PM, hernanday said:
Meh, I lean towards accomodation, peel has a huge muslim population, Canada is a multicultural mosaic, people have this right.
I think public schools have banned christian prayer and distribution of Gideon bibles from their premises. Years ago in Canada, there were public schools where christian bible stories were taught or read and christianity was given a prominent place. With the gradual immigration of many non-christian peoples, people started to demand that out of respect for our immigrant friends, christianity would stop being taught in schools or given any special recognition. That is where we are at now. So why should school boards in London Ontario have turned gymnasiums into mosques on Fridays? I don't agree that people have that right. There is a limit to rights. Because of the very reason that Canada is made up of many cultures and religions, we cannot favour one over another in a public institution. Everyone should understand that and respect the principle of public institutions being secular. That is another reason why someone's face should not be covered in the citizenship ceremony. There are certain things that define Canada. Favouring one religion in public institutions is not something we should acquiesce to. Public schools, universities, courtrooms, and anywhere police and government serves the public should operate in a secular way.
-
1
-
2
-
-
On 2017-03-11 at 7:19 AM, Wilber said:
Betsy, the purpose of the residential schools was to eradicate native culture by separating the next generations from that culture.
We are beating the same drum because that is the drum.
I know there was a huge amount of unacceptable abuse that went on in residential schools and I don't agree with children having been taken from their families by force, but some claims about the schools stretch credibility. Was the goal to "eradicate native culture" or was it to teach natives how to live in a society which is 95% non-native and speaks English / French and give them a basic education? The present day reserve system has proven to be an unmitigated disaster. School dropouts, widespread domestic abuse, alcoholism, drug addiction, no jobs on reserves, and general despair and suicide. How's that working for them?
-
Somebody just pointed out to me in an Email that I am not allowed to post the complete article in a link, but can only post the link. I apologize for posting the article. It looks like somebody has removed the article from the debate. I noticed somebody has posted a video introduction screen. Wonder if that is allowed. It is more than a link. There is also a button to drag files here to attach. and another button to insert other media. If I have a file on my computer that I downloaded from the internet, and I attach it, wouldn't that amount to the same thing as copying an article from another website?
Here is my link. The Top Ten Reasons Climate Change is a Hoax: www.globalclimatescam.com/opinion/top-ten-reasons-climate-change-is-a-hoax/
-
13 minutes ago, ?Impact said:
Top reason why threads on Carbon tax degrade, because people just can`t accept reality.
Oh... OK, so your opinion is the only reality we should accept. I need to change my thinking...
-
3 hours ago, dialamah said:
That is the point, though - move people away from using resources which release chemicals in the air which increase global warming.
Here's a video explaining carbon taxes and various implementations. It's simple enough even I understood it.
I watched this video, but I don't agree with it. It has the look of propaganda. Probably made or contracted to be made by the B.C. government. There are many claims in it that are completely illogical, like somehow putting a carbon tax on some people is going to be fair. Also, the claim that carbon tax reduces consumption. I have heard that to be false. People who use natural gas furnaces are not going to turn the temperature down as someone suggested and put on more clothes. Canada is a cold climate with much of the country having long winters and low termperatures. It is hyprocrisy for some people in cities to tell other people they should turn their temperatures down and put on more clothes. It is unhealthy to live in house that is not properly heated. Ignorant comment. The whole video and carbon pricing is built on the premise that man-made climate change is a fact, when in fact it is only an unproven theory. Check out the website Ten Reason why man-made climate change is a hoax. http://www.globalclimatescam.com/opinion/top-ten-reasons-climate-change-is-a-hoax/
-
2 hours ago, Wilber said:
No, it rewards those who have the smallest carbon footprint. That's the whole point of the tax and what consumption taxes area all about. Those who consume pay.
It punishes those who happened to own homes with a natural gas or oil furnace at the time this carbon tax was started eight years ago. It would cost about ten thousands dollars to replace an older regular natural gas furnace with a new high-efficiency natural gas furnace. Why should some people be punished while everybody else gets off free? Also people who live in remote areas and must drive a lot, maybe pickup trucks, must pay more carbon taxes on their vehicle fuel. The thing is this carbon tax makes absolutely no difference to climate change. Even if one accepts that carbon emissions effects climate change, which is unlikely, Canada only emits 1.9% of the worlds' man-made carbon emissions;. B.C. a tiny fraction of 1.9%. Why do you think it is fair to hammer a small percentage of B.C. residents with this tax while the rest of the world pays nothing? Seems totally unfair and a scam. The people that brought the tax in, like former Premier Gordon Campbell, skipped off to the UK to take a job as a diplomat. He is loaded with money as are other cabinet members who brought the tax in and put it on people like me who live on a pension. Thanks for that. It does nothing for the enviironment. One big forest fire or volcanic erruption probably emits more CO2 than all the natural gas furnaces running a full year in B.C.
-
3 minutes ago, Wilber said:
The carbon tax has come back in the form of income tax cuts.
I agree with most of what you said. Except the income tax cut did not compensate the people who paid the bulk of the carbon taxes. That is a government deception. Must go out for a few hours.
-
3 minutes ago, dialamah said:
That is the point, though - move people away from using resources which release chemicals in the air which increase global warming.
Here's a video explaining carbon taxes and various implementations. It's simple enough even I understood it.
So you think people that live in homes that are heated by natural gas or oil furnaces in communities where that is the most common way of heating should abandon their homes or spend thousands of dollars? Natural gas is known to be an extremely efficient form of heating and causes almost no air pollution. It is a vast resource in the ground that creates thousands of jobs for Canadians. We also sell huge amounts of natural gas to the U.S. Billions of dollars in tax revenue for government pays for health care, education, etc.
-
11 minutes ago, ?Impact said:
Carbon taxes will not, repeat not increase the cost of living; government can reduce taxes in other areas to offset any carbon taxes.
If you believe that, I have a piece of real estate and a lot of other things to sell you.
As a senior, I paid over $2000 in direct carbon taxes in the last eight years in northwest B .C. on natural gas heating and auto gas. The B.C. government claimed they gave a tax reduction to offset it as part of the so-called revenue neutral carbon tax. Nobody seriously believes that. The fact is only certain citizens paid the most carbon taxes while the rest of the population paid little or no carbon taxes. People that did not use natural gas or oil heating paid no carbon taxes on that. People with electric heating or wood stoves (which are air polluting) pay no carbon taxes. People who live in apartment buildings and ride transit buses or skytrain pay almost no carbon taxes. So it is a very discriminatory tax Most of the rest of the world pays no carbon tax while some of us in B.C. have been used as the scapegoats in the great battle against climate change. It is an unfair and discriminatory tax grab. The slight reduction in income tax that might have been given was spread around to everyone in the province and would amount to a tiny fraction of what some of us paid in carbon taxes. Therefore while some of us paid thousands of dollars in carbon taxes in the last eight years, that money was taken and given to mostly everyone else. Hardly revenue neutral, which is phony political rhetoric.
-
3 minutes ago, Wilber said:
Regulations and standards are what are needed, not a tax which just takes money away from R&D and infrastructure. Emissions regulations have done wonders for the air of our cities. Smog was a huge problem in North American cities during the sixties and seventies, now their air is clean in spite of the fact there are three times as many vehicles on the road. There are things that can be done but they won't happen without commitment.
Agree with emission regulations to reduce air pollution, which is a major problem in many cities. The focus of Trudeau to put a price on carbon is a whole different issue. That will not affect air pollution, but it is a misguided attempt to reduce CO2. Unfortunately carbon dioxide has become the bogey man that many fear because of the fear mongering about the fiction of man-made global warming. Many do not understand that carbon dioxide is an essential part of life on earth. It is necessary for plants, forests, and vegetation to breath. It is also absorbed by oceans and performs a natural function in the equilibrium of the natural order of life on earth. Huge amounts of carbon dioxide are released by volcanoes and forest fires every year. Many scientists dispute the claims of the man-made global warming theorists.
-
1 minute ago, ?Impact said:
Wrong on all counts.
Putting a price on carbon will improve the economy and decrease the cost of living and attract investment and job while reducing the rate of climate change. It is a win, win, win, win, win on all sides.
You will notice that I have provided exactly the same substantiation to my claims as you.
You are being contrary for the sake of being contrary which is being a contrarian!
-
13 hours ago, dialamah said:
.Shall we decamp to SA because the pool offered ladies-only nights that include aquacise training in the hopes of getting us older gals out? I'm grateful that the pool is empty and that when I go to use the hot tub, it's not filled with a bunch of hairy guys, some of whom stare a little too much.
Ah, guess you let the cat out of the bag. You hoped to keep it a secret. LOL
Maybe no Brexit exit.
in The Rest of the World
Posted
It might be divisive but democracy is the system we have. There is no better system.