pinko
-
Posts
1,164 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by pinko
-
-
It remains to be seen how the Supreme Court addresses this issue nowithstanding the opinions offered here.
-
Well, I grew up in Vancouver and I don't want to buy a house there. At least not at 20 to 25 times personal disposable income.
These people are fools.
Homes are all about conspicuous consumption.
Any rational person knows that in Vancouver most of the people are paying 50%+ of their income to mortgage payments. That's enslavement and a foolish amount of risk to take.
IOW, it's an illusionary lifestyle based on indebtedness.
Yes, one can rent in the market if one so chooses and I happen to know quite a few people who do this because they "must" live in "their hometown."
I enjoy a similar lifestyle across the pond with some important differences: my only debt is tax deductible and will be completely gone next year (investment in my business).
And, when the fundamentals return to a more normal level I will be able to buy a house, likely with 50% to 60% down and be able to pay off the mortgage within 5 years while still enjoying the vacations, ski trips, and yoga retreats that I currently do.
It's a hard life but that's the price one has to pay to not live in their hometown.
You make some good points. Would you not agree that Vancouver is somewhat of an anomaly?
-
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Texan+appeal+many+Republicans/5239648/story.html
With Perry likely to announce his candidacy for the GOP ticket this Saturday, what impact do you feel this will have in the GOP race and eventually with Obama…….
Personally, I like Perry and his chances………Texas is one of the few states still experiencing strong economic growth, he will bode well with the Christian voters, the Tea partiers’ (was one of the first Republican leaders to recognise them), fiscal conservatives and should play well with the GOP establishment…..
I’d perhaps question his ability to attract swing voters, but with Obama’s handling of the economy, I doubt that will be much of a concern……..he was a former Democrat though...
Your thoughts?
You mean Governor Perry the man who wants to seperate from the USA.
-
"the first wife could ask for a divorce if she objected to her hubby having a 2nd wife...which is what wives do now when hubby has girlfriend...the rich and the powerful have always had more than thier share of multiple women that isn't anything new and it hasn't destablized our society..."
You have an interesting way of framing the issue in relating the mores of the cult to that of society at large. If I am not mistaken in Canada a divorce can be proceeded with by either gender and in some cases via joint application. Both bigamy and polygamy are currently prohibited in Canadian law and the desire to denote extra-marital relationships as being that of husband and wife is a misnomer.
Whatever the shortcomings and permissiveness of the modern day society may be there is no comparison between the degree of control exercised within the cult by the likes of Blackmore and Osler in Bountiful, B.C. and those of these rich guys you speak of. Secondly I am wondering if these rich guys you refer to routinely have sex with minors.
What does destabilize our society is the exploitation of children and that is an issue, aside from polygamy, that needs to be addressed.
Here is a book which may be instructive to the issues at hand. "The Secret Lives of Saints: Child Brides and Lost Boys in a Polygamous Mormon Sect" [Hardcover]
Daphne Bramham (Author)
-
With a life sentence now in place for Jeffs I wonder if this will deter the use of underage girls within the confines of this cult. I include in that the FLDS location in Bountiful.
-
You're trying to tell me it's not sexist because that's the way things happen in a sexist society. I'm not sure that's the argument you really want to be making.
I am telling you no such thing. I am suggesting you have created a strawman argument on a false premise.
-
All this talk about rich old guys buying up all the "prime girls" is sexist nonsense. You're all predicating that notion on the idea that women's sexuality is a commodity to be bought and sold. While our society is still patriarchal, shouldn't we be moving away from this knuckle-dragging ignorance into a more enlightened state of equality between the sexes? Women are not whores using sex to procure fiscal security and I find it offensive that the comments in this thread are suggesting that this would be the case on such a wide-scale basis that there would barely be any women left for anyone outside the fiscal upper-class.
Hardly sexist nonsense in a cult setting such as that of the FLDS. I am wondering if you have done any reading about the FLDS value system. You have also conventiently overlooked the so called "Lost Boys" in your effort to misrepresent the opposition to the indoctrination utilized by the old white guys within the cult hirearchy in controlling those within the cult.
-
It's very animmalistic to have the rich bull monkeys run the young male monkeys off...so they can have all the prime breeding females. You would assume that those with money and power would want to behave more like evolved human beings than alpha apes?
The alpha apes also control the finances and with this the lives of those under their thumbs.
-
We don't have to accept polygamy in the name of tolerance, if there is clear evidence that allowing plural marriage will lead to harmful social consequences. As soon as there is polygamy, there is a desire to get the girls before they come of age and have time to mess around with the boys. Most Muslim countries that aren't floating on oil, are trying to outlaw or restrict and discourage polygamy because of the negative social effects. Some countries like Yemen for example, have laws against marriage under 16, which are constantly flouted every time a case of an under 13 year old girl in an arranged marriage makes the news.
I would say that the problems of so called "lost boys," which I forgot to mention last time, is another one of the big problems. If you have a society where rich old guys can marry lots of women, there are going to be lots of young men who are unable to get married or even have a girlfriend. In the FLDS communities, they find excuses (especially teenage boys trying to get with the girls) to kick them out and banish them from the community....so that they become the problem of the larger society.
What happens when you look at a society where polygamy is widespread? Well, if we take Saudi Arabia for example: they spent most of the 80's and 90's encouraging young men to go off to wage jihad in Afghanistan or elsewhere....and hoped most of them wouldn't make it back home! Polygamy was only a sensible family structure in ancient times, when we had warrior societies that were constantly at war and having young men killed in battle with enemies. If there was an actual disparity in male/female ratios, it might make sense; otherwise it's a recipe for disaster...Saudi Arabia again! In the end, the welfare of society has to take precedence over individual wishes and desires.
Well put.I take the position polygamy should not be legal.
-
Among Clinton fans, particularly older women, the language was frequently far more caustic. “Obama has no spine and no balls,” said a 67-year-old New Yorker.
Looks like buyer's remorse. Obama is seen as weak and ineffective.
-
If you are seriously considering a home ownership option here is a link related to rental vacancy rates.
-
And the Republicans got 98% of what they wanted remember?
No hurry. They will get the remainder next time.
-
Yes.
But is the government going to seriously and aggressively enforce our law....that's another topic.
In British Columbia the provincial government has instituted court action. Evidence and argument have been presented by a variety of parties and a decision is pending from the B.C. Court of Appeal.
I would suspect the case is headed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
-
Like you, I am not in favour of polygamy. And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to give any excuses for the leader of this sect. He is a pedophile.
My point is that polygamy shouldn't be about women's rights! If all are consenting adults, no one's rights is violated!
As I've said, what do we know about a sect's moral code on their polygamous marriage? For one, we assume that it's only the women who has to marry. What if a man is also put upon or pressured to marry a woman?
It should be about the law. If polygamy is against our law, then it is a crime.
If I'm not mistaken, Muslims practice polygamy. It's not a just a cult or a sect.
But yes, I understand what you mean about sects or cults. Since usually people who join these are troubled (which makes them vulnerable), they tend to be of serious concern....most especially when there are children involved.
Here is what the Criminal Code states in relation to polygamy:
"Polygamy
293. (1) Every one who
(a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into
(i) any form of polygamy, or
(ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time,
whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or
(
celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii),is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
Evidence in case of polygamy
(2) Where an accused is charged with an offence under this section, no averment or proof of the method by which the alleged relationship was entered into, agreed to or consented to is necessary in the indictment or on the trial of the accused, nor is it necessary on the trial to prove that the persons who are alleged to have entered into the relationship had or intended to have sexual intercourse.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 257.
The question before the court at the moment is whether such a prohibition violates religious freedom outlined in the Charter.
If Muslims are practicing polygamy in Canada they are doing so in violation of the law as it currently stands.
-
That's OK...some of our janitorial and fast food workers come from Canada.
It is my custom to point out that jobs lost to Canada years ago is no different than Mexico today. For some reason, a few Canadians think they are better than Mexico in this NAFTA regard.
I am not a supporter of NAFTA nor was I a supporter of the original FTA between Canada and the USA.
-
You gotta problem with Mexicans? What about call center and auto manufacturing jobs moved to Canada?
Here's the thing....you are espousing an employment ideal that existed in the past and cannot continue. Meanwhile, you want the present attributes of the "good life" to continue. Make up your mind....
When I was down in Texas I noticed that all the yard work in the gated area my son lived in was done by Mexicans. Most of those call centre jobs and auto manufacturing jobs have moved elsewhere. You need to keep up with the times.
-
A committed relationship is when you are deeply in love and are willing to go the full distance till death do you part - polygamy does not have this - It is assembly line breeding and marriage - when one unit fails - you just replace it with the next the same day...After all my years of experience and having more than a few mates and understand what a long term marriage is - but never formally getting married - I would do it right - but maybe I did - once there is a child - you are committed..whether your mate is "ms. or mister right or not.
Agreed although divorce may also do you part. Once children are in the mix that definitely makes the relationships more complex.
-
If you're a white heterosexual male, you can't get one (except by changing one or more of those basic attributes). Otherwise, you're automatically "certified".
You need a violin to accompany your perceived victimhood.
-
No I haven't been following. Do you mean this?
But again, it's a question of what exactly do we mean by "committed relationship"?
Some of our average wives cheat on their spouses and yet claim to be in a "committed relationship"...vice versa.
So there's really no difference....just being there accepting and participating all these years to that kind of marriage/relationship is a proof of....commitment. What more when you give birth as a result of such relationship.
Do you know exactly the code of ethics being followed by members of this sect? What may be a definition of "commitment" to us....may not exactly be theirs.
Does "committed relationship" in their definition means just providing roof and basic needs under one roof? Equal time? Sex time? Equal labor contribution?
What does the matrimonial looks like? Who gets to sleep in the bed. By rotation?
Can a wife decline to have sex if she has a headache?
Is there an heirarchy among the wives? Is wife #1 considered to have more status than the other wives?
If all wives know their codes and are agreeable to it....how can we say it's a "constant state of manipulation?" Doesn't any average relationship involve a certain amount of - positive/negative or constructive/destructive - manipulation?
What do we know for us to be able to say, "oh, they're not fully committed!"
To say that - based on our own societal code or religious belief - polygamy is wrong, is one thing.
But to authoritatively say that those who practice in polygamy are not fully committed, is another.
In my view a committed relationship is one in a marriage which is exclusive to two partners to the exclusion of all others. Under my definition that would exclude more than one marital partner. In the province we live in the family residence is jointly owned. There is an expectation that there be an equitable division of labour within the family home and as well, subject to means, a proportionate contribution in financial terms. Certainly a wife (or husband) may decline or accept sex with a marriage partner.
The whole idea of polygamy is counterintuitive to the exclusivity I have described above. What you appear to miss from these polygamous collectives is that women and children are treated as chattels and may be disposed of by the leadership within the cult. Many of the women who have escaped these oppressive conditions described the systemic abuse suffered at the hands of the likes of Jeffs and others.
-
But then again, it's a speculation that these women in polygamous marriages have been coersced....or just simply brainwashed as children.
We say the same thing about women in burquas! That it's oppressive to women....or that they're just being coersced into waering them....not to mention the overall treatment of women as chatels.
YET, Sharia Law is accepted in England, and if I'm not mistaken....I've read somewhere that it's also quietly operating in Toronto.
You need not even have to look far beyond our borders. First Nations women were just recently given some fairness by the Federal Government regarding their divorce laws! After all these years of feminism....those women who really need the feminists' help appear to be invisible!
Or simply ignored!
Why single out polygamy....if your reasons for doing so is about women's right?
It is the least of your worries.
I think Oleg correctly described the nature of these relationships and if you follow his logic(which I do) it should be abundantly clear why polygamy is singled out. To my knowledge the Province of Ontario hasn't endorsed the concept of Sharia law although it may very well be considered within some segments of the Muslim community.
As for aboriginal women on reserves those changes were negotiated against a backdrop of collective as opposed to individual ownership on reserves and as constrained by the Indian Act. The benefit for those first nations signing onto such a scheme isn't limited to women. If you are interested may I suggest your read "Beyond The Indian Act-Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights".
-
Well, Bonam was the guy who suggested that even if the house depreciated by $120,000 you still come out ahead of renting. But clearly that isn't the case.
I went to a mortgage calculator website and took a $200,000 house on a 25 year mortgage at 5% -- and got payments of $1260 per month.
Then I took the same $1260 per month, spent $1000 of it on rent, and saved $260 of it at 4%.
At the end of 25 years, the home owner's $1260 per month has given him a home, and the renter's $1260 per month has given him $134,000 in savings. Who came out ahead depends on the value of the property at the end of that time.
But to make it a more realistic comparison, we should also include the other costs of owning a home. The home owner pays property taxes, strata fees, insurance, maintenance and renovations and repairs. The renter doesn't have any of those costs.
So let's say the home owner pays $1260 a month for his mortage and pays $260 a month in various home owner expenses. And the renter pays $1000 a month rent and saves $520 at 4%.
After 25 years, the home owner has a home, and the renter has $268,000 in savings.
There's a lot of factors at work, but it's not as one-sidedly in favor of home ownership as everybody seems to think.
Maybe in the future that home will be worth a fortune... but it might not appreciate in value much or at all.
If I could travel back in time 10 years with the money I have now, I'd definitely buy a home. It would have been a great investment. But I'm having a very hard time convincing myself that buying a home right now is a great investment. Prices skyrocketted in the past decade but income didn't keep up and home prices relative to income are at an all time high... so it seems unlikely that home values will continue to go up. Mortgage rules have been toughened, all the construction that was started in the housing boom from 5 years ago entered the market and vacancy rates have increased. It seems unlikely to me that real-estate prices will rise much in the foreseeable future. It kind of looks like it has the makings of a bubble, to me.
-k
It seems as if you have given this a lot of thought. When my wife and I bought our first house in 1973 we paid $15,000 for it. During that period of time we were able to gain equity in this first older home and move through a series of new homes and eventually to a custom built home on acreage. Of course during this same period of time interest rates reached double digit proportions. We sold our acreage at a time when the market was some what depressed and perhaps didn't gain as much as we could have otherwise. Since then we have downsized twice and now live in a small bungalow witn no mortgage. We have no regrets in choosing ownership over rental even with the extra expenses described in your post associated with ownership. Of course we had the necessary cash flow to meet the cost of a mortgage and the other expenses related to ownership.
If you have the necessary cash flow and can establish your credit with a bank or credit union it may well be worth your while to find a home that meets your needs. Depending on the rental vacancy rate in your community you may find home ownerhsip more appealing especially if there is high demand and limited supply of rental properties.
-
if you haven't noticed all those laws mean bugger all to stop polygamy...it's the push for a more open accepting society that will end polygamy not attempting to restrict it with laws...public secular education breaks down the barriers that means eliminating private religious schools...
Add to that the Criminal Code prohibits polygamy and the equality provisions of the Charter suggest the activities within these compounds work at cross purposes in liberating women from these arcane rituals. Were it not for the indoctrination of these people at birth I am reasonably certain most women would not tolerate these oppressive relationships.
-
What's surprising is how much Canadians cared about who we elected in the first place - "another country's leader." As I said, Obama had higher approval ratings outside the U.S. than within - and the world cheered when Obama won. Gone were the days of Bush - Americans were redeemed. Americans per se weren't hated - it was Bush and company that was hated, and Americans by extension for voting for him.
So THAT'S what I was obviously referring to in my post - and it has nothing to do with Obama's "approval rating" in the U.S. And it's a lesson learned. The anti-Americanism that existed wasn't because Americans elected Bush - and the attitude prevailing today proves it. Americans elected the loved-by-the-world Obama, yet now we take flack for that, too. And anti-Americanism still exists. It wasn't anti-Bush/blame the Americans for electing him. It was anti-Americanism. And as I said, it's a lesson learned on my part.
Maybe some Canadians saw Obama as a beacon of hope especially when considered in the context of the Bush Administration.
-
Good point. We have a rule that posters should make comments on articles and not simply paste a link.
Anyway.
If someone can afford a down payment, has the time to research properties and plans to stay at least five years or so, then buying a house/condo makes good investment sense. Both Canada and the US offer in effect a tax advantage since the imputed rental benefit is not taxed and any capital gain on a principal residence is not taxed either. In the US, this advantage is further increased through mortgage deduction on taxable income. No other investment offers such tax advantages.
Finally, we have a well organized real estate finance market (despite what you read in the papers) when compared to every other jurisdiction on the planet.
OTOH, much of the US has just recently gone through a housing bubble so while there are some good deals availabale, people are gun shy to buy.
When I posted this article I did so with the intention of encouraging discussion. Regardless of the form presented it has done just that. Requiring commentary with a link does not seem unreasonable to me.
Creation
in Religion & Politics
Posted
Don't expect Saipan to be realistic. If you do you will be disappointed.