takeanumber

LMAO. Good one. But see, you're assuming that a Christian Fundamentalist party reads the book that they're forcing down your throat. The reality is that they only read the parts that they like and coincide with their world view.

Just keep on trying to revive the reputation of Mulroney. Nobody with a brain buys it. I'm not going to take economics lessons from a seperatist (still enjoying the EI transfers?) and a social con (how's the welfare?).

I think this Grewal thing is starting to hurt the Cons far more than the Libs. The allegations and experts who say that the tapes are doctored (2 exact audio pieces in two different positions), and missing tapes....it just gets incredibly honest. This makes me me wonder why the Cons doctored the tapes. After all, if the tapes in their original form are so damming, then why doctor them? Taping somebody without their knowledge is dishonest. Witholding tapes is dishonest. Editing tapes is completely dishonest. Soliticiting bribes is dishonest. The liberals playing 'footsies' is dishonest. I'd have to say when it comes to relative evil, the Conservatives come out more evil than the liberals. The Liberals were probably dealing, in all likelyhood, though I can't imagine why they'd want to attract regressives like the Grewals...they needed the votes; and I must admit, at least they didn't offer him the farm. In fact, they seem to have refused to give him quite a bit. I bet that must have stung. The Cons on the other hand: wow. The editing of tapes...that's just incredibly sleaze. It makes me smile too. -------- If somebody from the Con party calls you asking you for your support, be sure to ask them outright if they're recording you. If they say they arn't, say 'bullshit' and hangup. lol.

It's wrong that some politicians use their influence to get better service. Totally horrible. IT's equally horrible that some well-connected people do the same thing. Totally horrible. However, to argue that this horrible practice should be institutionalized instead of fought is just bad public policy.

You keep them in the private sphere, or you secularize your religious principles. The point is to remove theology from the equation, because as you can see, the momment you start questioning the theology that somebody has invoked, you get into a very big fight. That's exactly it Sweal, thank you. I'm very, very far from racist. Some of the best, most Canadian people in this country are recent immigrants. Some of the worse, most un-Canadian people in this country are intolerant Heritage Front members with zero empathy and sympathy for anybody, who have been here for fifteen generations and feel hard done by more succesful people who arrived later, realized the opportunity, and seized it. ----------- So, my ultimate point: Keep politics secular. The Con leadership, and most Cons, don't want to keep politics secular. If these Cons are going to use religion as the basis for hatred against homosexuals, the basis (their religion) is fair game for public sphere debate. (and trust me, you do not want that.)

Hyperbole much? The guy is a fundamentalist. I've done no such thing. I've done you a great service, and if anything, you should be thanking me.

Number of Public Economics Courses taken by takeanumber: 1 Number of Public Economics Courses taken by Argus: 0 'nuff said. Just keep trying to prop up Mulroney, just keep trying it.

So long as both the rich person and the poor person gets to meet the same quality of doctor at the end of the line. Moreover, equalizing the system gives the rich incentive to fix it. As it is now, many of them whining to get out of it. You raise an important dimension, but you're missing one other dimension.

1. So you see SSM as 'homosexuality rammed up your ass'. Interesting. 2. So you see it as a tradeoff between religion and homosexuality. Are the two mutually exclusive. You seem to be assuming that God isn't sympathetic to homosexuals. 3. You know what lube it. Do I detect some previous homosexual experience? I think we've just discovered a different side of RW.

There's the true face of Conservatism. Since I wouldn't be proud to call you a Canadian, I won't. That's totally un-Canadian. We gotta get along in this country. A part of that is keeping politics secular. In your case, you don't need the religion as justification. You're an exception. ----------- Have some proof. Prove to me that neither Morton nor Flannagan are not Christian Fundamentalist/Mormon. Otherwise, your assertion that I've lied is false. Moreover, somebody else on these boards can independently verify that fact.

Pretty narrow definition of 'Canadian'. Beating minorities (Jews, Sikhs, homosexuals, women with unwanted fetus') with your minority religion (every religion in Canada is in the minority, since I believe that Catholic has fallen below 50%) is un-Canadian. Go ahead and deny it. Say that forcing religious based policies is Canadian, and is a Canadian value. Go for it.

Oh? You checked did you. Alright then. When was the last time Morton and Flanagan, Harper, and Brodie got together? What were they doing? How? Quote me.

I assumed no such thing and you have no proof that I did. Moreover RightWinger, based on what you've writen on these forums, you're not much of a Canadian yourself.

Who cares if Ramesh is Hindu? He might be fourth generation Canadian. Somebody might be fifteenth generation Canadian and not be truly 'Canadian'. If you don't have Canadian values, you ain't Canadian. Being Canadian is not 'racial', and frankly I'm offended that you seem to be implying that it is. Being Canadian is an attitude. It's a good attitude towards your fellow man. Beating minorities with your minority religion (which is everybody) is un-Canadian. I don't know what using a narrow interpretation of religion as justification for hate based public policy is...but that sure as hell isn't Canadian. If you disagree, check the history books. ----- Glad you agree on the secular principle Black Dog.

LMAO. It's SOOO TRUE. That's exactly IT.

It isn't racism. Ramesh, along with most Christian fundamentalists, has demonstrated again, again and again that they just don't GET Canadian Culture. They just don't get it. Secularism goes back to confederation. Religious hatred nearly tore my province apart because BOTH side kept on bringing religion back into politics. The only time anything got better was when we ALL agreed to leave religion at HOME. Now, you get these Conservatives, who have NO CLUE, NO IDEA of the struggles we've had in this country, they're completely ignorant of the legacy that religious hatred due to politics has left, and they want to bring it back. They want to go back to those days. Well, if they're going to be so insistant, let's give them a taste of what it'll be like. I have no problem, if they're going to use religion to justify their hatred and discrimination against homosexuals, I got no problem in attacking their religion. It becomes fair game. And what's the response from the religious right if you attack their religious beliefs? Why, it's bigotry! What delicious doublethink! So it's alright to advocate religion as a method of segregating homosexuals, yet, when you question the basis of their public policy options, they get all figity. Typical Conservative. You have demonstrated your ignorance of Canadian politics yet again. Both men are in the leadership, yes, even Morton and Flan. You seem to know enough that Morton is a MLA, but don't know what his role in the Con party is. That's fine. Educate yourself. They all get together, as the leadership, and go hunting in Alberta, along with Brodie and a few other members of the Calgary School. Women are excluded. Think before you call somebody a liar. You're still PWNED. ---- I got no problem with them as people, and I'm sure some of them are nice. However, I have a problem when they force their religion into public debate. Public policy, in the public sphere, must be secular. If you bring your religion into it, it will be attacked, and such attacks, have been shown in Canadian, to lead to very real, very nasty conflict. So, if you're going to espouse hatred against homosexuals based on your religion, let's go, bring it. We'll see how well your religion stands up scrutiny.

Alright, let's give Ramesh a course on what it means to be Canadian, since clearly he doesn't get canadian culture. Classical Liberalism has been applied in Canada since before confederatin because of the tensions between protestants and catholics. There are a number of instances where politicians, especially in the 1867-1880 era, sought to seperate politics from religion, repeatedly. Canada remains a liberal country as a result of these efforts. (And we havnt' had a civil war yet.) Canada MUST be secular, otherwise, there'll be war. ------ Flan, Morton, to name just 2. Happy? Call me a liar -- you've been PWNED Ramesh. PWNED!!!!!! ------- What about MY freedoms which are endangered by THOSE heretical, disgusting and religiously hipocritical beliefs? No, they're not in the right for injecting religion into politics. Do you want me to get into specifics as to why Christian Fundamentalists and Mormons are so incredibly wrong about God and the Bible? If you bring religion into a political debate, you are subjecting those religions to an assault that will be brutal and unrelenting? I got no problem with what people do in their own home. If they want to worship a spoon or some heretical version of Christ, they can go ahead and do that in their home. You bring your God into politics, you're opening up a huge can of worms. So go ahead then. If you're so convinced that your God and your Beliefs should dictate public policy, tell us Ramesh, what would YOUR God Do?

Real interest rates exceeded the real growth rate. The debt/GDP ration ballooned, all starting in 1980. Mulroney did the greatest damage during the 1986-1993 period in particular. As a conservative, he should have known better. ---------- OAS is subject to cutback. Politically it's impossible. As is EI. Politically it's pretty difficult. ---------- The Liberal economic track record since 1995 is far better than anything the Cons would have offered.

Well, you have to be liberal about things: Religion should be contained to the private sphere. And yes, you can have nativity scenes and such in public...that's semi-private. When it comes to public POLICY...things that affect ALL of us...you know, it has to be secular. You know, where SSM-opponents fail is that they cannot come up with a SECULAR reason for their discrimination and segregation. They just can't do it. And why? Because their arguments against SSM are ultimately religious bigotry at its worse form. So there you have it. If you want to preserve religious freedom...keep it out of the public sphere; otherwise, you start making your religion subject to public debate, well, I'm all for that. Shall we go over some of the particulars of some of these religions? The religious basis for the hatred against homosexuals? Do you really want to dwelve into that? I don't think you do. I don't think anybody wants to. So, leave religion out of it.

I did not say, nor was it implied, that I hate mormons. (Moreover, there is no mormon 'race'). Nice try though. I'm not going to name names. The problem isn't that they ARE christian fundamentalist or mormon; just like the Catholics in the Liberal leadership isn't a problem. The problem is that these Christian fundamentalists and mormons are pushing THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS on everybody. THAT is the problem. The question becomes, "Well, what's wrong with their beliefs?" Well, golly gee, if we're going to have a religious debate in politics, nobody here can get offended as to what is wrong Christian fundamentalism, with Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons and Hutterites. I respect their religious rights in their own home. You bring your religion into politics, prepare to be offended and have those beliefs scrutinized. This is why politics must be liberally secular. -------- It's better to cleanse and purge the Liberal party than it is to try to moderate the Conservative party. If anything, it's more likely that the Liberal party will change...Chretien took pre-emptive measures...Martin is going furthur. I'm optimistic.

RW: Sadly, the Con party is dominated at the top by people who are in with Focus on the Family and many other religious groups (mormons in particular). And you know, it's unfair to the few economic conservatives who still fight within the Conservative party to moderate it socially and even moderate it economically. I will take the opposite stance on religion and politics. It's always best to keep it secular. Could you imagine if a Mosque and a Christian Fundamentalist church were both contesting the same nomination. Incidentally, since parties are public utilities, there ought to be a primary day. One day where everybody goes out and votes for that party's candidate in their riding. That would fix quite a few things. I think it's a better fight, for economic conservatives/social liberals to head into the liberal party and fight the Corrupt Quebec Wing than to try to fight a futile battle against fanatical religious fundamentalists in the conservative party. Face it, the fundamentalists won.

Vic Toews on Politics just said something interesting: He said that Harper has already said (really?) that should the Cons win the next election, there would be another free vote on Same Sex Marriage. Wow! So let me get this straight: The Cons are going to have another vote in an attempt to revoke marriage liscenses? What else could get onto the agenda through this free vote/private members' bills loophole? Abortion? Capital Punishment? Notwithstanding clause? With focus in the family in the drivers seat, I wouldn't be surprised.

I've dealt with the CPC leadership personally. I have friends in one portion of the NDP leadership. They don't like when I muse about joining the Greens. I've met members of the Liberal leadership more than twice. They don't like it when I bitch about their sluggishness on SSM. I really don't like any political party, but I prefer the lesser of three evils. The CPC leadership lacks empathy, isn't really interested in helping anybody but themselves, and are generally angry at everything. The NDP leadership is always mad, but they really believe that what they're fighting for is just, and they feel as though they're fighting for the little guy. The Liberal leadership feels as though they're the only party that can hold the country together. So yes, I know how the leadership operates. I'm privy to many details. Happy? Maybe more Alberta EI transfers would satisfy you? Probably not.

I hardly think August is in a position to be lecturing anybody on economics. Although it is true that nominal dollars are different than real dollars, when the Liberals were running up a debt from 1972 until 1980, the rate of growth exceeded the real interest rate...in effect, the economy was growing faster than the debt was. The Liberals were spending because it made sense to. (And indeed, it did.) However: The real sin comes from 1980 to 1993, when suddenly the bank of Canada slammed the breaks on the nominal growth rate (inflation) and suddenly the interest rates exceeded real growth. Moneterists freaked out, telling the government to stop going into debt because they were really, really incurring 'real' debt. (the debt-gdp ratio was going up very quickly.) What did Mulroney do? He kept on spending. I'm afraid Mulroney is responsible for most of the debt...he ran up the debt-gdp ratio from around 15 percent to over 50 percent. ------ Cons love Bush. If Bush is the poster child for the Con party, get ready for some huge deficits. That's the only way to pay for their tax cut and increased spending. What the cons don't tell you is that most of the benefits Canadians enjoy are locked in (EI, OAS, CPP)...they'll have to cut money to the senior, students, and the unemployed. The Cons want you to believe that all government spending is 'pork'. The reality is: Pork accounts for too much of the budget (5%), but even getting rid of most of the pork (down to 3%, because lets face it, Cons are hipicrites and will deliver the pork to the West and rural areas) will allow for a hefty tax cut. It won't. A Con government, like the Harris government, can only result in deficit.

If the tapes revealed bribery -- that would be a very big problem indeed. The tapes don't reveal that. If anything, they show Grewal looking for a bribe. If this comes down to a case of he said he said...I won't believe Grewal. I don't believe anything a Con says. That said, I don't know if I believe Dosanj et al either. It doesn't help that all the tapes are in Punjabi, and knowing how the CPC leadership operates, I think the tapes were doctored.