Accountability Now

You pick the best candidate of those running. When someone doesn't show up to the forum and has no experience showing that she is qualified, then she is not the best candidate. Somehwhat...yes. She was announced late and never came to the public forum. Having said that, she could have posted on her site that she had no interest in politics and yet people would have still voted for her because they just wanted to vote for NDP as it was the anti-PC vote. Most of the signs in my area didn't even have the local candidates name on it...they just said NDP and mentioned Rachel Notley. Again....a trained monkey could have ran and won as long as it was wearing orange. This was an extreme event in my mind so I don't think there needs to be a solution. Voters that usually vote are more educated and are more interested in voting in MLA's who are properly fit for the position (which doesn't mean cagy, old businessmen). This time voter turnout was really high with young voters just looking to make their voice heard. In future elections people (young and old) will go back to assessing the candidates based on what they offer assuming there isn't as much debacle at the top. Again...this election is an anomoly. Any other election would not have an unqualified person beat out other qualified candidates unless there was ulterior motives such as removing the party in power. My point is very clear. You just can't seem to comprehend basic logic.

Heatlthy democracy requires you pick the best candidate. Its not just pick whoever and hope they do ok. That is why they campaign and try to prove they can do a good job. In this example she barely did that and still got in. If you don't think that's scary then I don't know what is. Right wingers? You think the thought that people should be qualified and earnestly desire to be in a posiiton is a right wing comment? LMFAO! Let me know when you're hiring....I have a few great candidates for you then! LOL My point is that this person was a last minute replacement who had no interest of garnering the seat before being forced into it. She didn't even show up to the public forum. And you think I'm wrong for questioning her qualificiations?

Interestingly enough....the Alberta NDP wiped their website after winning. I was trying to look at something on their platform but its no longer there. http://www.albertandp.ca/platform I know its only conspiracty thinking but I do wonder how many things Notley said under the assumption that she had no chance of getting in. It will be interesting if she changes anything.

You see no problem with a person being elected after she had zero intention of running and is currently in school which begs the question of how will she actually be able to do her job while going to school. I have no problems with age rather I have an issue with someone who had little/no desire to be in this positon nor did she have any experience to earn her the spot. Our local conservative PC candidate for the PC party is young guy, in his 20s too but has been working towards a politcal career for a while now.

I don't think it will be as bad as the PC supporters make it out to be but it certainly won't be as good as the NDP fans say it will be. It is easy to pick apart leaders from the cheap seats but much different when you are in charge.

You are dead on here. People here were so pissed with the PC party that it didn't matter who was running for the NDP. Take for example the young lady who won the seat in my riding. She is a 22 year old university student that was working on Notley's campaign who got thrown into the mix after the NDP couldn't find someone to run. She didn't even attend the publich forum and yet she still got voted in despite her obvious lack of experience and her no-show at the forum. She was also running against a two time PC incumbant. Definitely an emotional vote....not logical. The other riding in my area had something similar. Two former mayors for our County were running for WR and PC but yet the vote went overwhelmingly to the retired school teacher who no one knew. It honestly didn't matter who was running and the vote was going NDP. I get the point that people needed to prove but now we are stuck with inexperienced and from what I can tell, incompetent people running our government. A lot of people that I spoke with viewed the WR to be the same as the PC after the famous floor walk. They feared that if they gave the WR too much power then a coalition would happen. For most, the WR was not option as it could still work out to be a vote for the PC.

I have shown you a direct example that was very notable as well as citations from current legal cases showing my point. You just can't comprehend what a spectrum is and therefore choose not to admit where you are wrong. No....it doesn't. The case I showed with Paul Band showed that is clearly not true despite what your opinion is. The Paul Band had no rights over the development as it was on private land. Here you want another one? And this one is in BC!!! Say whaaaaaaat??? There's that word again. Spectrum. This is a two-fer....I get to show that development on private land can occur AND it shows a case where there is spectrum that allows for consultation but NO accomodation. For the umpteenth time, can you show me what aboriginal rights currently exist in Provincial or National parks? While you're at it....what aboriginal rights do they have for my property. You do realize that ALL of Canada is a pretty big place.

Wow...my thoughts exactly. Regardless of how you feel about the NDP, the simple fact is that when the election was called a month ago there was no one who thought the NDP stood a chance...not even the people they had running. I know for a fact that the young lady who took our riding was a last minute throw in just to give the PC incumbant some opposition. And she won!. Heck...she's still in university. I have to wonder if Notley made a bunch of outlandish claims as to what she would do in the hopes of keeping the PC's accountable but yet never once thinking she would get in and have to honor these claims. It should be interesting.

You claimed that none of the followers of Jesus ever met him. A number of the writers did. Perhaps some of the later writers did not but there certainly were some that did. The reason for the delay in writing also had to do with the fact that the need for the written word wasn't brought forward until the word started to spread past their immediate area. Most people in that area had either seen Jesus or had heard the stories on first hand accounts.

No...I'm not. The Roman governments were just part of the issue. For the most part they were being perseucted by local authorities on the whim of the local community.

What about this is so hard for you to understand. There is a spectrum involved where the development doesn't infringe (or minimally infringes) on the FN's rights. At that point the only requirement is the duty to consult....no accomodation. Do you understand what a spectrum means? Not every case that Aboriginal deal with are news breaking, earth shattering cases. Many land claims and issues are discusssed on a reasonable level where they (the FN) realize that they are at THIS end of the spectrum for certain developments and at the other end of the spectrum for other developments. Are you honestly that naive that you think they are doing the full court press every time the crown comes to talk to them? They didn't become successful negotiators by being stupid and unreasonable....although you sure seem to think so. Jacee....between the two of us, who has notably been on record as being confused about issues? Remember your rant with the race card earlier which you retracted. Remember your claim about the government spending 10 billion per year on litigation? So ask yourself who is doing the misinterpreting. As for your claim on absolute....I have already said it and apparently I will say it again. I was referring to your comment of 'all' land as being the 'absolute'. Not 'absolute' rights on the land. Would you like me to bold this statement or put it in a different font so that you get it? You made the comment that Aboriginals have rights on ALL of Canada. This is not true: 1. I have shown you that their rights don't exist in Provincial or Nationa parks. 2. I have shown you legal cases outlining how First Nations have fought and lost in court trying to assert their rights on private land. Yet with these two objective examples, you still come back saying they have rights. I don't think there is any misinterpretation here....I think you are just playing daft. Your comment about ALL land is an aboslute statement Jacee which just isn't true no matter how you try to misinterpret it. Right....but the minute we suggest they move from these relocations it now becomes sacred land of their ancestors.

I find myself becoming less believing in God as described by the Bible but something greater than us. I trust that is still a step away from an atheist but definitely closer than a full on Christian. EDIT...I had put more or less when I just meant to say less.

The only story that seems to be written later is the book of Matthew which there is much debate on. The rest however were written during and shortly after. Again....the books were not released or widely spoken of due to fear of persecution. I understand that you are mostly stating your opinion and trying to pass it off as fact however the reality is that many scholars spend their entire lives trying to figure out some of these answers and the vast majority agree that Jesus walked the earth and a good portion of them agree that these gospels were written by people who knew him. With that said, I am quite certain that you and I won't solve this simply by stating our opinions and beliefs. Again....you keep looking at history with a modern perspective. We think it was difficult and brutal only compared to what we now know. For those people they didn't know any different. That was the life they lived and that was that. The only factor that came into play once they heard about Jesus was whether they should follow him or not. If they chose to follow him then there was the fear of persecution....a real fear. It was much easier to not follow and to continue to live the life they knew....which is what many did including Judas.

Yes...I do. A friend of mine who is atheist believes very strongly in Christian beliefs but just not in God or Jesus. His approach is that if you live life according to those beliefs then you will live a heavenly life and if you live against the beliefs then you will live a hellish life. Either way to him, you are worm food afterwards and that is it. Many historians have seriously investigated becasue there is really nothing to look into. How many historians continue to seriously look into Columbus landing in America or the fall of Rome. There might be misconceptions about some of the details but we are certain that a guy named Columbus came to America. Food for thought....given the fact that Christians endured wild persecution from the time of Jesus death right through the days of Charlemangne, don't you think that a 'myth' like Jesus would have been much easier to squash? Or that people would have been more willing to discount his presence on earth. Lots of fear mongering for a guy who didn't even exist...wouldn't you say?

I'll give the video a watch but won't be able to right now. I still think the vast majority of historians and scholars on the topic agree that a man named Jesus walked the earth. You will always have skeptics that think certain things didn't happen...like man walking on the moon for example. Its not really something thing that we will be able to prove unless they dig up some holy ground and find an artifact either proving it or disproving it. I agree with the jello comment but I think atheists have this upper hand because when it comes down to it, they just say 'prove it' and we can't. As such the arguement goes nowhere. All that people have are beliefs and faith which don't align with proof (actually the proof is couterintuitive to faith). I find it interesting to break down those differences and to see how they arose. For example, we have the Anglican church today simply because the King of England want to divorce his wife so he made a new church that would allow it. Man...not God...created did this. I strongly believe that most of the misconceptions, misinterpretations and causes for misunderstanding were from human involvement in religion. If you are able to break away from those things then you start to see some similarities that are quite intriguing. For examples, I don't believe the God in Christianity is any different than the God in Islam or Buddism or any other religion. There is one God or creator or ultimate being. We just understand the God of Christianity because that was the way it was spoken to us. Similar to how our language isn't better than other languages....in the end they all mean the same thing when translated properly. Like I said above, I think the thousands religions I don't subscribe to are pretty much the same as mine but written in a language that I don't necessiarly understand. I guess ulimately my reason for believing is the fact that I know as humans we are so far away from knowing everything. There is so much more to this universe than we can even grasp and I can't imagine that we are just floating out here with no connection to anything else. Perhaps that sounds desparate but my mind literally can't comprehend there not being something out there that expands on what we are doing here. I have no problems debating on Christian parables or facts because there is a good chance there are things that I am wrong about or could learn or even possibly sway me to ultimately a different way of viewing things (which is why I think I'm more relaxed than other relgious characters) however I don't think I would ever bend on my belief that there is something beyond this rock. With that said, I have no disrespect for those who disagree especially when they attack the arguement on a logical level like you have.

I hear ya. The PC's made their bad by selling their souls to the public servants just to win their votes in the last election over the Wild Rose. Now, there is no money left the budgets for teachers and health care becasue salaries have eaten this up. They certainly have made their beds and it wouldn't surprise me if they don't win. Having said that, I feel the NDP are just pandering to the crowd. The issue the PC's created with the public servants won't go away without more money. Its a very risky thing to think we are going to get more money from corporations and oil but I guess that's a risk they are willing to take.

No...there were other sources including Pliny the Younger (Roman Governor), Josephus (Jewish historian), the Babylonian Talmud and Lucian of Samosata (Greek satirist). Would you not agree that even if Tacitus was dsciussing the cult who worshiped Christ that it strongly shows evidence that Christ exsited. Again....we're not debating if he is the son of God or even if he was anything special, rather if he actually walked on this earth as a human. So you agree there is widespread agreement that he at least walked the earth. That's good. As for accuraccy we're not looking to prove every detail...just one. The one thing I have learned is that you can't use today's moral basis to judge things that happened in history. Now...that's assuming that you believe every story in the Old Testament was true. If you do, then yes it certainly is pretty gruesome of the levels that God took to rid the world of evil. In all of these cases, these people who were being killed were evil and were justifyably suffering the consequences for their actions. Again...illustrating the consequences. If you don't beleive the stories to be true then you have to ask if it is the same guy or if the story is exaggerated to get the point across. Overall, I guess if you don't believe these people were evil then he would appear to be a raging psycho but that would mean you are cherry picking your information and not reading the whole story. I guess you didn't read the part earlier where I posted the following: As I said, earlier its not an all or none situation. Jesus says many times in the Bible that we are sinners and that we will sin. There are many passages talking about the ways to go about forgivess for the sin. With that said, the items above clearly are items that you view are not sins and therefore you don't think should even be on the table. I agree but I'm not the ultimate judge and neither are you. My thought on this is that if you live a good life and are good to others that you don't need to worry about if you sin even if you don't believe its a sin. Again...it all comes down to the Golden Rule and in the end its not an all or none thing. Just to be clear, I have sinned some pretty big ones but I don't feel that I will be living in the eternal firepit. I've done a lot of other good things too. What have I said so far that would make you think I would believe that? Even Mighty AC has commented a few times that I am clearly a tempered down version of any normal religous person nevermind the zealots that you refer to. These people that you are talking about are allowed to have their opinions but I feel its people like this that scare away the logical people who normally would accept religion into their lives. At the end of the day, you need to formulate your own opinion of what religion or 'God' or whatever you believe is correct. I have often said that the Bible is not perfect since it was written by men. It has been translated and changed many times and with that it proves that its not perfect. The message however hasn't changed and to me is perfect. So if you want to believe something that man has created then there is a very good chance its not perfect. Again...I have started this conversation by saying that I don't necessarity believe in God (aka the bearded dude) but some higher power. I do believe there is something beyond what we have here...so I can't really imagine a life where this is our only stop. So yes...if we don't get another stop after this one, then nothing we do here really matters. For the vast, vast majority of us, we may be remembered by our kids or grandkids but after that what? I guess if you are some famous person then you can live on but the vast, vast majority of us won't be. So there is supposed to be some purpose in us just existing for 75 plus years on this rock just to wither away? Can't see it. Yup. He did. Of course there is context to each of these stories that you seem to leave out. For example, the Canaanites regularily practices child sacrifices. I guess they didn't think much of these infants or toddlers either. They were also a violently, evil people (according to the Bible...which if you believe that God destroyed the Canaanites then you have to believe they were evil...no?) I see you get your info from the one line in Deuteronomy which demands the total destruction of Cananites but you mustn't have read the subsequent lines where it specifically mentions total destruction of Canaanite cities. There is a good summary on this here http://www.accessv.com/~rjchin/proof/canaan.htm The article is interesting because it doesn't hold anything back and actually admits that God commits genocide with Noah, however it again explains the context which is always important. Yup....that was my point to Mighty AC. Relgion has many people that have worked for the good of mankind and many that have done bad things. So you can't just look at the ones doing bad and say that all religion is bad.

Absolutely! I will agree there seems to be a lot more resentment to the PC's this time though but I certainly wouldn't place any bets on the NDP based simply on the polls.

Pretty much every econonmy in the word is a mixed economy and every political party supports a mixed economy but to different levels. Even the US is considered a mixed economy.

Interesting. I guess that is a nature versus nurture type argument. Not sure if I agree with it but interesting nonetheless. I certainly think that religion has created the backbone for the morals of our society. Its easy to speculate what we would be like without it but proving it is impossible.

Your reasoning is deviating. First you use Santa Claus which has no existance and now you are using Harry Potter that has some existance in London. Having said that, various ancient historians who were non-biblical and had no ties to Jesus confirm his existenance and even details about his death. So your assertions about a lack of evidence are not correct. What does this have to do with anything. Seems like you are deviating your arguement again. No one is questioning the realness of Forrest Gump or Harry Potter, however there is ample evidence that Jesus walked the earth. Now...if you want to argue that he wasn't the son of God or that he actually didn't do what the Bible said he did then that's something else. I think the wishes are fairly clear its just us humans that make it unclear. Again...this goes back to the fundamentalists or extremists that interpret every word to the literal and exact meaning. Again...the main message is the Golden Rule which as I have shown is not just fundamental in Christianity but in almost every major religion. The rest is just details. And do you blame the police officer when you get a ticket? Or do you blame the other driver when you get in an accident because of your speed. Its find if you want to speed as long as you accept the consequences. And of course, the consequences should fit the action. So should you get raped for speeding? No...the consquence should never be more than the action. Even in Matthew 5, it states that one should turn the other cheek instead of taking an eye for an eye. The consquence is less. As far as your Middle Eastern women example...I would assume they aren't following Christian guidelines so I don't know what they should or shouldn't do. I do feel that the Christian churches have come a long way in understanding the literal scriptures and how their meanings apply to today's world. The problem comes to the forefront when people take just one scripture and base their decision on that without using the other scriptures to weigh in on the decision. I have...maybe not in its entirety but I have read most of it. Perhaps I remember the good things and focus on the important details. The way I view it....I can choose to believe in a certain religion that has remarkable simialities to other religions and there would be two outcomes: 1. There truly is a God and I get to go to heaven 2. There is no God but I have now lived a live filled with morality, inspiration and well being for others. And as the Macleans article/study proved, I will have a better chance of overcoming life's vulnerabilities. Conversely, if I choose to not believe then I get to live a life of believing there is nothing out there after so what does any of this matter anyway. Even if my decision is a fairy tale, I would rather choose that then alternative. And ironically, we are feeling more lonely than ever even though our technolgy has us more connected. Depression and suicide are increasing as we seem to be losing a connection with something greater than what's on Earth. Give me an example of one of these stories showing that innocent people are involved. Prove to me these people were innocent. There are also many strongly religious people that do many great things. But I guess that doesn't count right?

It certainly is a game of poker when it comes to Alberta's economy. The large percentage of oil revenue into the province and money that filters down through the province comes to all the smaller businesses. It takes one slow down like we are seeing right now to know the effects that oil has on this province. So...the poker game comes in when it comes to challenging these oil companies to the royalties or taxes they pay. If the government pushes then the oil companies might rethink their growth in the province and may even downsize. Then again, that may just be a bluff and the province can actually get much more.

Historically they can prove that many people (especially in the New Testament existed) and various events (like Jesus' death) occurred. So unlike Santa, who has never had any glimpse of proof, it is very fair to say there is some truth. Now as far as taking the stories literally....I would say that the stories were explained in the mindset of their timeframe. For example, when the Bible says that God flooded the world (Noah) that meant their world as they new it....which was the land between the Tigris and the Euphrates. We know today that there isn't enough water in the world to flood the entire world so its not possible, but they do beleive the Tigris and the Euprhrates could flood that entire land. Again...context is the most important thing. You have evaded my question. Do you believe in consquences? Do you think that people should be accountable for their actions? Why fear eternal suffering if you live a good and honest life. Its kind of like worrying about getting a speeding ticket....don't speed and you'll be ok. Everybody has this perception that religion is all about some pacifistic lifestyle where they only know good however the Bible goes into details right from Genesis showing that people make choices and there are consequencs for choices. If you are a bad person then bad things will come unto you including death. Of course, I think that you exaggerate the amount of stories there are about such consequence versus the number of stories in Bible about love, forgiveness and good will. But I guess that's how you want to percieve things. Two things on this: 1. I guess you forgot to read the lines immediately following the ones you posted. Here: "Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Clearly this establishes a gradient of some sort showing that who ever practices these laws the LEAST will given lower status in Heaven and the one who practices the most will be great in Heaven. They do set a bar by saying you must be of a certain level to get in but that doesn't equate to the absolute all or none that you suggest. 2. The line you posted is Matthew chapter 5. It is the one describing the laws and rules. However, the Golden Rule comes after this and is listed in Chapter 12 where it states: "12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." As it says...this one rule SUMS up the Law and the Prophets. Do you want to be murdered....then don't do it to others. Do you want to be raped....then don't do it to others. Do you want to have your items stolen....then dont do it to others. Again...the Golden Rule is the central message. Yet the book has lasted centuries of critics both historical and modern. It has stories written by multiple people that all come back and say pretty much the same thing. Obviously there is a central message in there that is better than what you call poorly compiled fables. As for your attempt to show its not centered on the golden rule....I think you have failed. The golden rule is about consequence. Do unto others as you would have done to you. So these people that were getting raped, beaten, murdered....perhaps they had done it themselves and now it was being done unto them. Again...this is about consequence. Its not about who had laws first....it about who had a consequence that people feared. I think those fundamentalist types are a major reason for the decline in relgion. It forces people to turn when they are claiming everything so literally and forcefully. At the same time, the whole idea of religion shouldn't suffer just because you base your opinion on these extremists.

Let me ask you this....do you believe in consquence? If so, then do you think religion should be void of enforcing consequences? The one thing that stuck with me out of all the teachings at Catholic school is that free will what life is all about. You make choices and there are consequences for those choices. From what I understand (and by no means am I scholar on this) God instructed such actions to teach consequnce. For example, he 'flooded' the earth as a result of the sin that had occurred. You think that we chose to behave morally all on our own when in fact we chose to behave morally because we know there is consquences for our actions. You can pat your self on the back all you want but our society collectively learned the lesson of consequence from religion. Not sure where that is. Can you cite the place in the Bible where he says this? So what is the central message to Christianity in your mind? And while we're at it....what's the central message to a few of the others? I don't know if the golden rule is central to Christianity but it certainly is a major part. I can't speak for other religions however the fact that all of these religions reference this message is important. Regardless human morals had nothing to do with each of these religions incorporaing these statements into their scriptures. They were there long before we evolved to that level. You keep saying that we humans are moral but you forget how we got that way. Do you honestly think that we have always been moral? Do you think that everyone of us is moral? I don't. I think that people make choices every day and for the most part we are a moral society that makes good choices based on the fact that religion has taught our society to be that way.

Man....you sure are jaded. What message in particular do you find immoral and disgusting? Is it just Christianity or all religions that have this immoral message? Is it the message or man's interpretation to the message? As per my post above, you can get lost in the details or you can focus on the message. In the Bible it even states that all the rules imposed are difficult to follow which is why Jesus said focus only on one rule....the Golden Rule. I find it humorous that you say that I have chosen to 'cherry pick' this message when again this same message is common to all the major religions as per the picture I posted.....or have you chosen to ignore that because it doesn't suit your mantra? How can you cherry pick something that is common to all religions? I guess you didn't want to address the article I presented showing that people are better off with religion? Instead you point to your own misconceptions and analogies that has made you so jaded. You ask about being able to teach yourself the lesson.....well....science and statistics say no...you can't. You can't stand on top of your pedistal and look down on people that possibly don't have that same ability as you.