LonJowett
-
Posts
310 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by LonJowett
-
-
Why, oh why, do you insist on suspending the operation of common sense?
Why was one Jew too many, when in general Jews are productive members of the community, yet we insist on absorbing huge numbers of Jamaicans (generally not Muslims), Somalis, Pakistanis and others who, as a group, don't assimilate?
As a Jew, I find this extremely distasteful. It's nothing but hate speech.
-
Why didn't you put it out of its misery?
-
And when you get owned, you ignore it. You don't have the integrity to respond.
I must have missed something. What are you referring to?
Edit: I think I figured it out myself. Are you referring to this?
You can't tell the difference? Reagan's was not to be read upon his death and did not use his own death to amplify a message.
If so, you'll have to take it up with Shady about whether Reagan's message was to be considered his last words. It's his example not mine. But either way, you can't make a sentence without "amplifying a message." The question is whether you feel the person's message should include absolutely anything that someone might disagree with. I think we have determined that you and Shady believe that is so (while hypocritically smearing the character of someone who can no longer defend himself), and virtually no one else on the planet agrees with you.
So much for being "owned."
-
Huh? Where have we not been open minded?
He realized he lost the polygamy equation debate, so now he's just getting desperate.
-
And I'm not sure why you would expect that. He was a political leader, and quite frankly, it was his death, not yours. Get over it.
I wouldn't let him get to you Smallc. He doesn't really believe what he says. He's just trying to "annoy liberals", as he puts it. It's all good for entertainment value though. Fortunately neither are bright enough to get through a debate without having their pants pulled down once.
-
I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks Jack Layton's assertion of Canada having to restore our good name in the world is pure NDP partisan crap.
I never said you were the only one. I said that only a few other spiteful, overly partisan, conservative hacks agree with you. Sharkman proved me right.
-
To write a letter to be read to your co-workers or members of a political party you belong to is not done. What kind of a mindset does something like this? A really big ego. Or maybe someone with a skewed take on the reality of the situation.
Are you talking about the Reagan letter or the Layton one?
-
There's plenty of "middle class" that operate under sustainable wages and benefits.
But every day you aid in the fight to get rid of them. I guess the misery of earning a very low wage loves company.
-
Not quite as classless as a politician using his death for political talking points.
Still only your opinion, and one that is only shared by a few other spiteful, overly partisan, conservative hacks. I guess it takes a certain amount of self-loathing to come out against partisanship with such vitriol.
-
This is just another example of how Ontario's manufacturing sector is going down quickly and will never recover. The days of jobs with livable wages are over. It's a have-not province now and it's just going to get worse and worse in its reliance on transfer payments.
And there's no signs of any resource-based recovery on the horizon like we have enjoyed in Saskatchewan.
-
And second, so you're saying that because the definition has been changed, in some states, regarding race, and now more recently regarding sex, that no further changes can be made? Why not? On what basis?
Nope. If our society decides it wants polygamy to be included in the definition of marriage, it's absolutely free to do so. If enough people like you continue to fight for it, I'm sure if Romney gets in you've a chance of achieving your goal.
-
The Supreme Court ruled that racial classification has not baring on marriage. What's your point?
That the court has changed the legal definition of marriage in the past and you aren't making comparisons to polygamy because of that change.
-
Which law are you referring to?
Sorry. I thought you knew. The various anti-miscegenation laws that restricted the legal definition of marriage on racial grounds.
-
You're wrong, because the definition wasn't changed.
Of course it was. The definition was a man and a woman of the same race. The Supreme Court struck that law down in 1967.
-
As for the other thread, I was making a point in the context of a particular topic.
I understood your point: you can be even more classless than Dan Savage. Way to go.
-
I apologize for the thread drift, it's defintely my fault.
Excellent way to avoid a question you find difficult to answer though.
-
Nope. It's you and others that have deemed marriage to be something different than it used to be. Laws were changed.
I know you have a habit of avoiding any question that you find difficult to answer, but in the U.S. in the 20th century, mixed-race marriages were predominantly illegal. Do you feel the same way about that change in the legal definition of marriage, or have you decided in that case it was okay?
-
In my opinion, addressing a letter to ALL Canadians and inserting partisan political talking points, talking points that were used during the federal campaign is at least a little classless.
Now it's just "at least a little"? Does that mean you are no longer "equally" classless and are more so? After the comment in the other thread about Layton and deflowering adolescent girls, I would say "way" more so.
-
It's wrong because it introduces partisan politics and divisiveness into a situation that shouldn't be about politics and division.
It's his death, not yours. He can do what he want.
Can you also explain why you think it's equally wrong for you to scorn him for engaging in politics on his deathbed, and yet still do so? Hopefully, on the day you are eventually banned from this forum, the moderators give you one last post to recant all the cheap, divisive things you've said.
-
You're welcome
Oh, come on. Give him a break. It's like the Al Gore invented the Internet thing. Facts are completely irrelevant to the talking point. He will continue to spread misinformation because, when it comes down to it, that's all he's got.
-
Um, his letter was to CANADIANS. Even people like me.
But why is it wrong for a dying person to say something that you disagree with? Can you cite a Miss Manners edict on appropriate deathbed subjects? You have stated and restated that you think it's classless and inappropriate, but I am honestly at a loss to understand the reason for your thinking.
Personally, I think you just hated the man and you were very uncomfortable seeing him praised to the extent that he was.
-
That being said, could you explain to me the right wing bias of the Toronto Star?
What's the point of having opinions if you don't think they're correct?
But I haven't read any refutations of capitalism in the Toronto Star. It cosnsistently toes the corporate line, just like the rest of them.
-
How was he introducing partisan politics on his deathbed? He wasn't addressing people like you.
I'm still waiting to find out why that would be "inappropriate" even if it were true.
-
Lord knows the rest of the media is all slanted your way. Waddaya want? The entire thing?
Why do you believe that the multi-national corporations that own and control the media have a left-wing bias? Your viewpoint may well be further right than theirs, but that doesn't necessarily make them left wing.
Time for a Little Political Incorrectness
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Jews who don't hate muslims must be self-hating? You must not think much of the jewish people yourself.