Accountability Now
Member-
Posts
2,890 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Accountability Now
-
The Liberals didn't win. The Conservatives lost.
Accountability Now replied to Machjo's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
It sure does when you claim that a party is 'irrelevant' when its a opposite of a majority. All parties are brought into question even though your intent is to only bash the Conservative party who as you said suffered a 'colossal' loss. I guess you're not going to comment on that now that I have shown you numbers that point the errors in your ridiculous comment? -
The Liberals didn't win. The Conservatives lost.
Accountability Now replied to Machjo's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
You don't really have a grasp on vocabulary...do you? 99 seats (30%) is not a 'colossal' loss nor are other parties 'irrelevant'. Don't get caught up in the thread title. The Liberals won this election....the Conservatives did not lose. Look at this table: The Conservatives only lost less than 1% of its votes from the previous election where as the NDP lost almost 30%. The 'colossal' loss was on the NDP side. As per the CBC article this was taken from (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-numbers-1.3281210): -
The Liberals didn't win. The Conservatives lost.
Accountability Now replied to Machjo's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
No it was intended to show you how ridiculous your comment was. So the only time the NDP has been the Official Opposition, it was 'irrelevant'. I guess Mulclair didn't get the memo. I guess he should have just kept quiet for the last four years instead of contesting what the party in power was doing since he was 'irrelevant'. Your whole talking point is to bash the Conservatives which doesn't really bother me. What I find funny is that you bash them with a point that is 10x more applicable to the NDP. -
The Liberals didn't win. The Conservatives lost.
Accountability Now replied to Machjo's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
So by your definition, the NDP (your party) has been completely irrelevant for the history of Canadian politics. Good thing that's cleared up. Thanks. -
Bible and History, "Who Never Know".
Accountability Now replied to Exegesisme's topic in Religion & Politics
Yes....there are many things that we understand now that people in biblical times did not and therefore expressed it the only way they knew how. My opinion on the historical legitimacy of the bible is that the bible was never meant to be a historical piece. It was meant to tell stories. So people that try to find historical errors are really barking up the wrong tree.- 40 replies
-
I'm glad you think so highly of your fellow countrymen. With that said, majority support on this issue hasn't flip flopped since this issue arose. You have a few bleeding heart liberals that want to make it an issue but the vast majority of Canadians haven't waivered
- 384 replies
-
- rights and freedoms
- unconstitutional
- (and 5 more)
-
You're right....all those Canadians know nothing if they don't agree with you.
- 384 replies
-
- rights and freedoms
- unconstitutional
- (and 5 more)
-
Bible and History, "Who Never Know".
Accountability Now replied to Exegesisme's topic in Religion & Politics
One of the most interesting classes I took in university was studying this very topic. In this class we went through a number of examples where the bible would say something that clearly isn't true or possible and the professor would explain how it makes sense when you're viewing it in the eyes of the people of that time. For example, you often hear about the Noah and the great flood that flooded the world. Science can prove that there isn't enough water in the world to flood all lands. Its just not possible. However, their 'world' at the time didn't include North or South America or many other places....their world was the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates. If these rivers did flood then that land could be overtaken. Hence, if you view it from that perspective the flooding of 'their' world was possible. There were a bunch of other examples like this which I wish I could remember.- 40 replies
-
Oh...but the opposition were just Harper apologists. Right?
- 384 replies
-
- rights and freedoms
- unconstitutional
- (and 5 more)
-
How is is prejudicial when other members of the same minority agree with this 'behavior" This is the funniest part about your stance. Anyone who supports the niqab ban is now a Harper apologist. The polls are showing that 82% of Canadians and 93% of Quebecois share his belief. If ALL of these people are Harper Apologists then I guess he'll have no issue winning this election.
- 384 replies
-
- rights and freedoms
- unconstitutional
- (and 5 more)
-
Harper has taken the position that the vast majority of Canadians support. Calling this a disgusting behavior is equivalent to saying the vast majority of Canadians share that disgusting behavior. Truly your HDS can't extend that far, can it?
- 384 replies
-
- rights and freedoms
- unconstitutional
- (and 5 more)
-
You're blending a couple issues together as though they are apples to apples. Nobody dies from not wearing a niqab. With that said, what more is there to this issue that the govt knows that we don't?
- 384 replies
-
- rights and freedoms
- unconstitutional
- (and 5 more)
-
It started before then...again France banning it in 2004 created waves in Quebec
- 384 replies
-
- rights and freedoms
- unconstitutional
- (and 5 more)
-
I did. It was that Harper didn't create the issue. Do you need me to repeat that point again?
- 384 replies
-
- rights and freedoms
- unconstitutional
- (and 5 more)
-
And it may hurt them. It certainly is hurting Mulclair in Quebec
- 384 replies
-
- rights and freedoms
- unconstitutional
- (and 5 more)
-
He didn't create the niqab issue. Please stay on point
- 384 replies
-
- rights and freedoms
- unconstitutional
- (and 5 more)
-
Again....this is a result of seeing the response of the vast majority. He did not create this
- 384 replies
-
- rights and freedoms
- unconstitutional
- (and 5 more)
-
The politicians are doing what they're supposed to....represent the people. Polls show that a vast majority support the niqab ban so it makes sense that politicians follow suit
- 384 replies
-
- rights and freedoms
- unconstitutional
- (and 5 more)
-
But Harper didn't create it. He picked up on the fact that one of the largest provinces was against it and used it for political gain. Perhaps he agrees with the ban but needless to say this move helps his Quebec numbers
- 384 replies
-
- rights and freedoms
- unconstitutional
- (and 5 more)
-
Is that chicken or the egg though? Quebec has been against the niqab longer than its been an election issue.
- 384 replies
-
- rights and freedoms
- unconstitutional
- (and 5 more)
-
Why is this painful. As I showed in one simplistic post it really comes down to three views with only one making logical sense. If she takes off the niqab for security purposes then I don't see an argument against it. Is that too hard for an earthling like you to understand?
- 384 replies
-
- rights and freedoms
- unconstitutional
- (and 5 more)
-
Did you take them when you got your drivers license?
- 384 replies
-
- rights and freedoms
- unconstitutional
- (and 5 more)
