punked
-
Posts
11,943 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by punked
-
-
Let's keep it on topic guys. This thread is about the rise in the Christian right within the Conservative Party and it's coming effect on policy as is done in the USA.
Gay rights would be on topic then.
-
I am continually amazed by how some can take what Harper said before the election and ascribe it to mean we were okay. I took it to mean that our economy is not under the same degree of stress as the US, our economy is different and DON'T PANIC.
I guess when you don't understand the basics of our economy, panic and confusion comes easily.
"I know economists will say well, we could run a small deficit but the problem is that once you cross that line as we see in the United States, nothing stops deficits from getting larger and larger and spiralling out of control."
- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Oct. 6)
-
Lets just talk about October when Harper was telling us everything was ok and everyone was crazy to talk about deficit. It appears the goverment ran a half billion dollar deficit while saying those things. Lieing right to all of us.
"Read my lips no new taxes"
http://business.theglobeandmail.com/servle...y/Business/home
-
Please explain this so-called deregulation that occurred under their watch, and how it forced banks and lenders into lowering credit standards, as to give the poor and disadvantaged access to 'affordable housing.'
Those damn Republicans, always bending the rules for the good of the poor!
Alan Greenspan.
-
Me thinks you'll be hearing plenty about her after she's in the United States senate, or wins the Iowa caucus in 2012.
Yah right 2012 will be a split in Iowa between the Fundies, Palin, Huck, and Jindal that opens the door for a Fiscal con to slip in for the win. Romney's 2012 run is assured.
-
Please, let's not.
But if it really has to, the government could bury money in the ground and then businesses cooperations could hire people to go looking for it.
How about expanding High speed Internet? This will help business stay competitive, if this is now the time to spend then let us do it on Canadians.
-
That still doesn't make Toyota unsucessfull. The company posted a 1 quarter loss after massive growth and profitability and is not anywhere near a situation where they would need a bailout. They'll weather the auto market collapse and be stronger for it.
GM and Chrysler, however, are completely boned.
This 'bailout' is nothing but a temporary measure. The companies are going bankrupt either way, but now they have until March to plan for it.
Considering they are subsidized by both their governments and those of the southern states they can afford that loss right?
-
Ottawa Citizen
This is insane. Now is the time to cut taxes.
Cooperations got 50 billion in tax cuts how many did the Canadian family get?
-
I hate to sound like the scolding grandmother but:
Willy - NO. The numbers are changing for ALL parties. The average Canadian was 27% or so more likely to vote for Harper and he didn't get *more* movement from religious folks in fact he got *less* movement from evangelicals.
The idea that Harper is creating some kind of religious right is completely false. A hippy pot smoker could be as likely to switch to conservatives as a Baptist if the numbers are correct in the OP.
The second part of this is that Harper gets a majority of religious votes. That is true, but there is a fallacy in the argument that says he is getting those votes BECAUSE they're religious.
One could do a study that says Harper gets more model plane enthusiasts too. Does that mean that his policies are more favourable to model plane enthusiasts ? No, not necessarily.
Again, these are COFACTORS. Religiosity is related to a lot of other things that are related to voting factors - things such as income, age and geography.
OK I am going to point this out. It is easier for Harper to get 27% movement from those who don't vote for him then those who do. If 90% of Blacks vote for Obama and only 45% of whites do then Obama has a lot more room for improvement among the white the vote then the Black vote. There is just a bigger pool, just becuase Harper got less movement does not mean he does not a large proportion of the religious base. It could mean he just has more room to improve among those who do not fallow a religion. Stats can be helpful I don't see them being helpful here if I get 100% of the vote that means I can not get any more of the vote from anyone does that mean people are not supporting me? No obviously not.
PS Harper will never come close to 100% of the vote.
-
Is this the change we've been waiting for? When asked tough questions, Barack Obama refuses to answer, cuts the reporter off, and then proceeds to direct him to ask a different question. Perhaps this is some insight as to how his Administration will behave during future problems.
He does not want to talk about an ongoing investigation and is releasing a report about the question which will be the answer to the question. Do you expect him to answer questions on where they think Bin Laden is? Or what the FBI is investigating at this time too?
-
I say let them all go intot the first stages of bankrupcy so they can force the Unions to cut slaries, get rid of the job bank, hold pension pay-outs until a worker is 60 not just 25 years worked (my buddy retired at 47 and collects his full GM pension now plus has a new job.)
Then do a top down reform cutting many managment positions, and trim the fat out of the company so it will be profitable like all the Japanese auto makers that have Auto factories in Canada and the USA.
Didn't Toyota post a loss not a profit this quarter?
-
The only reason the Liberals balanced any books was because they made EI harder to get for out of work Canadians and raised the premiums and then spent the windfall.
I am just going to point out from your article.
"The court, though, rejected union claims that Ottawa diverted money from deliberately-over-inflated EI surpluses to balance the federal budget and fund programs."
-
Do we?
And by your logic, I guess we know who Adrienne Clarkson voted for.
Unfortunately, we still don't know how Michaelle Jean (or her husband) voted in 1995.
I know which side Michel Rivard one Harpers other appointments to the Senate was in 1995. He was for Separation in fact he work on the Yes campaign, giving power to Harper is giving power to the separatist I guess.
-
Listen I am a teacher and my personal opinion what is best for the students is to either go to school longer or have shorter breaks. We teach our kids less then almost any other country. We could teach them and reach them so much more if we did 9-5 with them. It would make physical education for all students possible, open up time for civics classes and we would no longer need to cram everything in glossing over important things. They did it in Mass, and there test scores become some of the best in the US. Also parents no longer need babysitters saving them money as well. Although I am not in the Union full time yet so you wont hear me saying it in public, but that is what I think and it is true. If I have to work longer so be it.
-
It is easy to say just about anything when you have no power to make it come true. For Layton to say abolish is fine, he is not in a position to make it happen. For Harper to do the same thing it would mean entering into constitutional talks with all the provinces etc.
Protest party = pie in the sky. Governing should and is tempered by practicality. For all those who said Harper was an ideologue you should be happy he has shown to be very pragmatic. I.e. auto loans, deficits in recession, appointing without consultation etc. All good Liberal policies. Can the opposition say they would have done different or would they still say more is needed?
I agree Harper is looking more and more like a Liberal everyday. Why not just go for the real thing or even better lets get ride of both those parties.
-
Matthew 22:36-40
Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Nope. Only two which all the law hangs on......
Romans 1 isn't the testament of Jesus and it does not condemn homosexuality. It condemns all lust as a perversion of faith.
I think we can both agree on those things. I like the way you think.
I also like the way the religious right thinks they some how own the bible and people like us have no right in reading it for what it truly says.
-
First you might want to go back and read the Bible again.
Secondly the 10 Commandments are not part of the Christian doctrine proposed by Jesus. Instead he replaced all 10 commandments in the Old Testament with only 2 in the New Testament.
By definition in our society a fetus is not a human being. It is a woman's appendage.
Lastly Jesus never took a stand on abortion, neither condemning it or approving it. Jesus promoted that free choice was the only way to get to Heaven. And it is just as likely that He would allow free choice - pro-choice - if He was cornered to come up with a position.
You lose.
Not true he did have the 8 Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mountain which you could almost interpret as his commandments. Although yur modern Christians wouldn't becuase he preaches against the Rich, those who hold Power, and or the peacemakers.
-
Come on, even I know the answers to these and I am the least religious person you will meet.
Romans 1 is the answer about the gays not doing what is right.
And in the 10 Commandments there is "Thou shall not kill" , Christians, Jews, Muslims and many non-religious people believe and hold firmly to the fact life begins at conception since the cells begin taking on their own form assisted by the mother's body but still independant in nature thus to abort is KILLING a human life.
I love how so many "Save the whale, seals, trees, enviroment" people are also the first to choose Pro-choice. Is a whale, tree, seal or even the enviroment more important than a child??? How hypocritical of them.
I think any of the Christians in the form here will tell you to take all of your quotes in context and also quote the bible in context too not twisting small parts of the bible without taking the whole of the paragraph or chapter in context.
Yes Paul does say some stuff about homosexual behaviour in Romans I. He however is not Jesus.
Paul in this passage speaks specifically of those who sleep with women and men. Homosexual do not lay with members of both sexes. In fact if you read it this way it would be a sin for Homosexuals to lie to themselves and be Heterosexual. In this way we honor the way God made us, thus honoring God.
Further more if we are to look past Romans I 25-27 we see that Paul is talking about Pagan non Christians things which are happening in this society and condemning those. This means temple sex. He is also telling those Roman Christians to pass judgement on others for doing the very things they do themselves. The gay sex is thrown in as an example of something which they condemn but do. This is a passage which can be interpreted in many ways but those who choose to pass judgement becuase of it are DOING WHAT PAUL WARNS AGAINST IN ROMANS I.
Funny about taking the whole thing. That is what Christians do with Romans 25-27 they don't look at the whole passage and then they assume it condemns the Gay lifestyle. That is not what it does. Jesus loves all his children and has made some of them so they find love in someone of there own sex. This is not a test of faith it is a test of love. If you so jaded to think God would create someone so they have to live life wanting someone of the same sex but instead being with someone of the the opposite so God wont hate them then you don't understand Jesus or his teachings.
-
Jerry, I think you're right in a lot of ways. It's my opinion that trying to grow commerce in a recessing economy is like trying to swim upstream. I will agree that Canada didn't cause the problem but as you point out we are affected with it like a disease. Unfortunately at this point laying blame doesn't help. The truth is that after the meltdown of the 1930s that safeguards and regulations were made to prevent such a collapse recurring. What's troubling is the way that people, businesses, banks and governments around the world have all largely ignored the rules in the face of hyper-growth, exponentially increasing profits, and overflowing public coffers (tax revenues). Now we are in imminent danger of a largescale collapse again and because desperate times call for desperate measures, Harper said he'd rather go into deficit than risk the economy collapsing. In 1929 the government allowed the money supply to shrink and the markets collapse, today the government is willing to expand the money supply to help prevent such an event. I think this isn't even a partisan issue as much as it's an emergency measure and although the Liberals would have a larger surplus to work from that we'd still have to deal with the possibility of deficit, simply because of the times.
I will also say that taxes and jobs are directly related. Our jobs are not "created" they are a function of supply and demand. As demand for products and services increase, so does the need for people to fulfill that demand. What people forget is that businesses require investment and re-investment to build, grow and operate and by reducing taxes in the right sectors it mobilizes money and creates jobs.
By reducing personal taxes it helps to spur spending because people have more money, by cutting corporate taxes it improves bottom lines and promotes growth within corporations, and by cutting taxes on investment dividends (and capital gains) it encourages people to put up capital for companies to operate and grow upon. The whole thing is cyclical and more jobs means more money, which means more demand and again more jobs. Tax reductions are in fact a reasonable measure to help spur the economy.
Or you keep taxes at the same level and invest in infrastructure. This means things are made such as concrete, roads, steal and so fourth. This is made inside your country not like that DVD from china. So instead of promoting a consumer economy driven on buying things from china we promote an economy and jobs created here dependent on jobs created here. This assumes our government chooses to buy from Canadian companies which has not been true of the CPC but I would hope they would try. This creates those jobs you need and the spending you want in hard times.
This however is bottom up approach not a top down one. You give the jobs to the middle class and they spend the money and the rich benefit from strong spending. As opposed to tax cuts which is your top down approach. Give the money to the rich in hopes they employ the middle and lower class. I prefer the invest in infrastructure approach.
-
ROTFL. Layton was all huffy about the respecting "rules of parliment" when he thought he could grab a cabinet seat despite the fact that a clear majority of Canadians rejected the idea even if it was constitutionally legal. Now he is whining about the PM using those same rules.
The NDP have been "whining?" about the Senate wayyyyyy before the Reform party took it on. They stick their guns unlike Harper at least.
-
You must be furios then. Will it change your vote to a party that wants to end the Senate?
Quite right the only party that does not recognize their own Senators? The party which is not a bunch of hypocrites who believe in what they say?
-
If he knew well in advance and didn't kick off the new process in a timely manor than I agree he acted unethically here with the supreme court appointment.
Well he retired 8 months ago do you think 8 months was enough? I think Harper just doesn't want the public to actually pick who they want. He is scared that 64% of them are on the left side while only 33% of them are on his.
-
Reading http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home it looks like the Supreme Court recommended the appointment. It doesn't sound like it was a partisan decision.
Hopefully the process will be refined so such long process delays won't be present in the future.
Again pragmatic decision. I don't think anyone should expect a transition such as electing senators or supreme court appointments to be binary.
They recommended he make an appointment before January, he knew they retiring was coming for close to a year. Yah right now we need someone in that seat I will agree to that. I will not agree however becuase Harper did not do the consultations over the time period he had we should let him off the hook. It is not like there was a sudden death or anything this was a planned retirement and Harper knew about it. Yes the appointment had to be made and maybe there was not enough time to do consultation from now until the court sits again but than again Harper knew about this for a long time and did nothing. This is like parliament, becuase Harper does nothing he hasn't done anything wrong? THAT ISN'T THE WAY IT WORKS!
-
Interesting. I might have said the same thing if I was in his shoes. Unfortunately, with a minority government you have to work with the other parties and don't get everything done that you want. It's hard to fault him for that.
How about his promise for consultation before making Supreme court appointments which he broke today? Why is he doing this all so close to Christmas ask yourself
Religious Right in Canada
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Killing?
http://www.norelpref.com/wp-content/upload...god-v-satan.png