The Terrible Sweal

I've somehow made a duplicate of this thread. Sorry. Please use this one and not the other one. Thx.

Have your say.

So how many votes do you think you would get? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, that's a 90 degree digression, but an interesting one... look for a new thread on this.

There are 2 different but essential questions in this issue: 1) Are parents entitled to raise thei children 'as they see fit'? 2) SHOULD parents be entitled to raise their children 'as they see fit'? The answer to both is clearly 'no'. In Canada courts have inherent jurisdiction to protect children, and the governments have well established laws about when parental 'rights' may be terminated. So, Canada has answered these two questions already. The next question, then, is whether treatment of children in accordance with religous traditions does or does not invite state intervention. I would say that it depends on the specifics. We are not concerned here with genital mutilation or severe punishments, obviously, but with cases of religious mal-education. So, the question is: should parents be allowed to mal-educate children for religious reasons (or other reasons)?

Can you read Punjabi? The other stuff is posted. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Where? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What, no answer? Let me answer then ... today the Glob and Maul reported that the tories still refuse to release the whole tape. What is the problem here? Tory sleaze.

I think a lot of peeps found the tory reaction to Belinda.ca's departure very revealing. One thing that struck me is that none of them accept that she might concientiously think bedding the Bloque is a bad idea. What is the basis of this reaction? I think it's because so many of todays tories have such a profound dislike for Canada that they simply can't conceive of anyone actually doing something out of the wish to protect Canada. So, what has anyone else learned abotu the tories from thissad spectacle?

When has ANY tory EVER wanted to 'end corruption'? I've never heard of such a thing! The party of Mulroney!? It's practically inconceivable!

YOU made an assertion. I asked you to support it. Your reply was non-responsive (some might say 'glib'), and so I pointed this out. Tough noogies. Did anyone argue for removing religious institutions? I must have overlooked that post.

A yahoo? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No. Someone who shoots her mouth off carelessly.

You overlook firewalls, currying Bush favor, and his incomprehensible positions on SSM. Not scary. Just undesireable. What is undesireable about Harper? His politics.

Just to distance myself with that yahoo. We may disagree on what the gov't should be doing about gay marriage and stuff but in my book there is nothing wrong with having deep religious convictions and teaching that to your kids. Don't get the idea that everyone opposed to 'social conservative' issues is opposed to religion. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Did you just call someone a "yahoo?". Do you know what that makes you?

So you admit your claim was without foundation. Okay, but FYI, if you thought about what you type before hitting the button, you could avoid such errors.

Can you read Punjabi? The other stuff is posted. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Where?

How so?

A liar is someone who suggests that someone's posts say something they don't actually say.

Is there no limit to the utter nonsense the Right will propound? Harper's own positions and comments during the Iraq lead-up were all that were needed to establish this. No media spin was needed. Can you demonstrate EVEN ONE lie the Liberals have told about Harper? I think you're lying.

The evidence suggests differently. Harper has promulgated more blatant falsehoods than either Martin or Layton. And Duceppe confines his lies to promoting separatism. People see rightwing ideology as mean spirited. Harper is a rightwing idealogue. Poorly disguised, not 'secret'. Where is this proof?

Please. Everyone knows what the Hidden Agenda is ... undermine inclusive programs, privatise social infrastructure, dismantle federal power, integrate more with the US, cater to religious feeling, etc. Personally, I think the term Hidden Agenda is the wrong description. It would be more correct to say, 'Unacknowledged Incentives'.

What an imbecilic comment. Hot or not, ANYone has the right to leave a political party. Prove it. Why should anypne take your word on this???

Well, that would still be an insufficient reason to send Canadian soldiers into a completely fubar illegal invasion.

What kind of crap is this? You've been here for a total of how any posts, 5? And yet you are already stalking regular posters with crapshit comments like this? Poor show.

Why do so my rightwingers make such rapid resort to mendacity in these discussions? I mean anybody who read this tread knows that Bigdude was complaining about Harper's lie, not the base closing. And yet CES blathers out this nonsense. Who do you think you're fooling?

Hmmm. I have two reactions to that. First, I don't think you really believe that as an absolute 'right'. Second, and I hope you will reply to this, I wonder on what basis you argue that one person has a 'right' to control the mind of another. Curious comment. Do you think religions would not survive if childhood indoctrination were halted? The problem is that the child's opportunities are thereby foreclosed.

That was actually Terrible Sweal's idea. Which you have naturally misrepresented and distorted. Of course, we assess the evidence with the same tool we perceive the universe. Lo and behold, the outcomes match! So is government. Indeed. As the automobile to the wheel. Fallacy. Presumes the conclusion. Who says it's defence? What says they're one's rights?

"Citizens and residents of Canada" includes many people who reject the social contract, I know of no such people. To be legally resident in Canada is to accept the social contract. Because I want you to tell me. I am disinclined to go over something both so extensive and so obvious. Because a contract is an agreement between two or more parties. Agreement is express consent. Ah, well, I think that definition is too exclusive. I see no reason that agreement/consent cannot be infered.