Oleg Bach Posted March 5, 2009 Report Posted March 5, 2009 And don't forget the tolerance of supernatrual adutlery... And spiritual adultery or adulteration.. When a man and woman share the same chemistry after years of marriage and she then has sex with another - she is no longer flesh of my flesh bone of my bone and blood.." as they say - If a man is UNFAITHFUL..OR A WOMAN IS UNFAITHFUL...It does not always mean sexually - when she loses FAITH in her husband that is also adultery - supernatural and natural. You get the point. You have to remember that the term super - natural is natural - it is just an extension and higher level of the natural world and existance - it is not some mythical magic (trick) .... We all look for supernatural miracles -- Look at the enternal void of outer space and the limitless distances - YET we sit on this speck of sand with our little grey jello brains and we are aware - THAT IS A MIRACLE - what more proof do you need - we want smoke and mirrors and miracles - when we are the miracle. Quote
Progressive Tory Posted March 5, 2009 Report Posted March 5, 2009 And spiritual adultery or adulteration.. When a man and woman share the same chemistry after years of marriage and she then has sex with another - she is no longer flesh of my flesh bone of my bone and blood.." as they say - If a man is UNFAITHFUL..OR A WOMAN IS UNFAITHFUL...It does not always mean sexually - when she loses FAITH in her husband that is also adultery - supernatural and natural. You get the point. You have to remember that the term super - natural is natural - it is just an extension and higher level of the natural world and existance - it is not some mythical magic (trick) .... We all look for supernatural miracles -- Look at the enternal void of outer space and the limitless distances - YET we sit on this speck of sand with our little grey jello brains and we are aware - THAT IS A MIRACLE - what more proof do you need - we want smoke and mirrors and miracles - when we are the miracle. What? Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Oleg Bach Posted March 5, 2009 Report Posted March 5, 2009 What? If you want to know how civilizations get structured you have to look at their relgious text - not with a fundamentalist or fanatical eye but with a logical and pragmantic one ---- If you read a passage that defys logic - dump it - if it makes sense use it - If a passage is a lie - you will see it --- those that believe that all scriptures are the unadulterated word of God are fools...how can a book or books written by man be perfect and Godly - my point was not to toss the baby out with the bath water...Yes I put in some study because I wanted to know the truth (reality) - and it was a very cold and alienating path to gain some degree of enlightenment - once you have some you can not go back......and of course because you are not intereted in such things I will retort on your behalf to save you the typing .. WHAT? Quote
Progressive Tory Posted March 5, 2009 Report Posted March 5, 2009 If you want to know how civilizations get structured you have to look at their relgious text - not with a fundamentalist or fanatical eye but with a logical and pragmantic one ---- If you read a passage that defys logic - dump it - if it makes sense use it - I understand and agree. I was just a little confused about what constituted being unfaithful and what it had to do with my blood and bones. If I am attracted to another man, but never act on the attraction; I've been tested, but not unfaithful. I only view any scripture as a loose guide. Let's face it. It doesn't matter whether you pray to God or a two headed goat, if it inspires you to do good, and there is a heaven, you'll get there. Just memorizing the Bible won't. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Oleg Bach Posted March 5, 2009 Report Posted March 5, 2009 I understand and agree. I was just a little confused about what constituted being unfaithful and what it had to do with my blood and bones.If I am attracted to another man, but never act on the attraction; I've been tested, but not unfaithful. I only view any scripture as a loose guide. Let's face it. It doesn't matter whether you pray to God or a two headed goat, if it inspires you to do good, and there is a heaven, you'll get there. Just memorizing the Bible won't. There is nothing wrong with being attracted to beauty - but eating it is another matter - or attempting to possess that beauty (thing or person) to objectify it is not good for anyone - It's unwise. Yes I take scripture with a grain of salt - and here and there you might find something brilliant - out of the NT - there are about 2 paragraphs that are powerful - most is filler. No one is testing you - other than you testing yourself... Futher - marriage is the union of sex - that is natural law....civil and religous marriage are social control mechanisms.. as for heaven -" the kingdom of heaven is at hand "(here) I believe that- what comes later is a mystery and will always remain as such. As for goodness or God - the old spelling of good was god..that sums it up...simple...Memorizing the bible is bullshit - it is like a muscian taking a chart that he does not fully understand - and parroting the music - ti makes for a bad tune -----after I did a bit of study years ago - finally I took all the reference books and put them away...and said to my self - If you want to find the truth you will find it inside of yourself "the kingdom of heaven is within you" .. - fundamentalist or literalist are cumbersome and can be dangerous.. I believe that the endless universe has a consciousness - I call God - and if that thing can sustain me - then I will not deny nature..because I am of nature - I am not God --- just a faint image or mirror of the devine - one half - the other half is out there..that is the basis of the old contract with existance - or nature or God...how every you want it... so on we go - leaning for eternity...It's a very interesting trip...I love the fact that I was born and am thankful....lets leave it at that....thanks.. Quote
Canadian Blue Posted March 5, 2009 Report Posted March 5, 2009 To believe that mankind came from one man and woman, means that you also believe that incest is acceptable. The next generation would mean that brothers and sisters had to cohabitate. I read an argument that the Bible clearly states that Adam had other children besides those with Eve. So who did he have them with. His daughters? Ever read the Koran, I'm sure theirs plenty of crazy shit in there. But then again you likely won't criticize it, after all it's safer to criticize Christianity since it's western. Quote "Keep your government hands off my medicare!" - GOP activist
Oleg Bach Posted March 5, 2009 Report Posted March 5, 2009 Ever read the Koran, I'm sure theirs plenty of crazy shit in there. But then again you likely won't criticize it, after all it's safer to criticize Christianity since it's western. Reading the New Testiment was a gentle soothing and hopeful experience - Reading the Koran was like getting slapped in the face everytime I turned a page --- It was unpleasant and full of "blood clots" and talk of cloning - damned weird book ----- where are you Soleman Rusdie --- I need a place to hide... actually for safety sake in case a zealot reads this ----It did have some nice stuff - even mentioned Jesus.. Quote
jbg Posted March 7, 2009 Report Posted March 7, 2009 That has nothing to blame Tory. Tory did not ask Dion left. I did not see any democratic process to ask Dion leave, I just know from TV a former leader said Dion must go, and so he goes. Following that is some secret talk between Ignatieff and Harper that no one know details.If you want to blame Tory, blame Libral first who betray NDP first. So I guess no one should use the word "dictator" to blame any other country, I did not see any difference in Canada. If someone leads through an election that disastrously they go. Just ask Kim Campbell. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Shakeyhands Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Ever read the Koran, I'm sure theirs plenty of crazy shit in there. But then again you likely won't criticize it, after all it's safer to criticize Christianity since it's western. Ever read the Old Testament? There is plenty of whacko shit in there too! I sure wish Christians would stop their whinging and get on with their communion, and stop typifying the paranoid conservative. Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Shakeyhands Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Martin bribed Stronach with a Cabinet seat in order to "win" the vote.Just because you can make things up doesn't make them true. I guess you aren't going to back this claim up with any facts. Retraction then? Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
jbg Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 I guess you aren't going to back this claim up with any facts. Retraction then? Is it not a fact that Martin offered Belinda a Cabinet role in exchange for crossing the aisle and non voting non-confidence? You argument is in shaky hands. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Shakeyhands Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 That would be illegal. Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
jbg Posted March 31, 2009 Report Posted March 31, 2009 That would be illegal. It seems to be what happened. Why else did Martin arrange for the vote to be deferred for a few days? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Molly Posted March 31, 2009 Report Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) Why would a cabinet position in a lame duck government be a serious enticement for Belinda? It would be for many, but what did SHE stand gain from it? She would undoubtedly have been a senior minister in a Conservative cabinet, and floor-crossing permanently ended her aspirations for even higher office. I'd suggest that placing her very visibly in cabinet provided huge benefit for the government, regardless of whether she considered it desireable, and that evidence of the 'good faith' of her floor-crossing far, far, far outweighs any evidence to the contrary. It was never a secret that she was on the leftmost edge of the Conservatives, if not beyond it; that she intensely disliked, and disagreed with Stephen Harper on a lot of fundamental stuff, and that the feeling was mutual; that she was neophyte, and unpredictable enough to be a dangerously loose cannon; and that she thought the timing of that non-confidence vote was, at best, a strategic blunder. What, besides timing (which provides no evidence either way) and Conservative groupthink, makes you believe that she actually was 'bribed', or that any enticement was needed? Edited March 31, 2009 by Molly Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
jbg Posted March 31, 2009 Report Posted March 31, 2009 Why would a cabinet position in a lame duck government be a serious enticement for Belinda? It would be for many, but what did SHE stand gain from it? She would undoubtedly have been a senior minister in a Conservative cabinet, and floor-crossing permanently ended her aspirations for even higher office.Not so fast. The government was not "lame duck" in any sense at that point. It had, less than one year earlier, beaten the reunited CPC in the June 28, 2004 election. PMPM no doubt expected that he could work with the NDP and thus prevent an election. It was their bolting over a scandal during November 2005 that led to the defeat of the Martin government and the January 2006 election.I'd suggest that placing her very visibly in cabinet provided huge benefit for the government, regardless of whether she considered it desireable, and that evidence of the 'good faith' of her floor-crossing far, far, far outweighs any evidence to the contrary.What benefit could it have possibly yielded the government beyond surviving the confidence vote. She was spurned in the CPC leadership vote during December 2003, and seeing no future in the CPC since Harper wasn't about to use her for much, she decided to move on to hopefully greener pastures. Too bad for her things didn't work out that way.It was never a secret that she was on the leftmost edge of the Conservatives, if not beyond it; that she intensely disliked, and disagreed with Stephen Harper on a lot of fundamental stuff, and that the feeling was mutual; that she was neophyte, and unpredictable enough to be a dangerously loose cannon; and that she thought the timing of that non-confidence vote was, at best, a strategic blunder.So, she disagreed with the timing of the vote on strategic grounds? That's interesting since it implies that she felt that the government should be defeated and didn't see eye to eye on strategy, so she bolts to the other side and decides the government maybe shouldn't be defeated after all? Strange reasoning, but then again exactly Benedict Arnold's methodology. He disagreed with the Continental Army's military tactics (and choice of leaders) for defeating Britain in the U.S. Revolutionary War, and switched to the British side. The British were smarter than PMPM in that they understand that a traitor has little long-term loyalty.What, besides timing (which provides no evidence either way) and Conservative groupthink, makes you believe that she actually was 'bribed', or that any enticement was needed?Putting events in chronological order makes many things seem quite logical. The events, in days-apart order, during April-May 2005 were several scheduled non-confidence votes (including one that PMPM lost and ignored), a delay in a vote that PMPM agreed to recognize as a proper confidence vote, and a weekend aisle-cross by Stronach, with her being given a senior Cabinet post. This was followed, of course, by the Government's surviving the non-confidence vote.Thus, it makes perfect sense to conclude that she was bribed by an offer of office. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Molly Posted March 31, 2009 Report Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) NOT lame duck? The scandal was gaining steam, they were in minority, and the opposition was voting no confidence, in hope and expectation of winning it! It doesn't get much lamer than that! The NDP were only along for the ride for that session, and only if the budget passed. They were doomed. The only question was how long they'd be able to hang on, 'cause they weren't going to get any stronger. What the government gained by parading Belinda was a chance to win some serious PR points against the Conservatives, and a chance to change the subject for a while. If the world was talking about Belinda, they weren't talking about Gomery. They used her to embarrass Harper and MacKay all day, every day, for as long as folks would pay attention. What did she gain? As I said before, even with the hate/hate relationship she had with Harper, he would not have dared leave her out of cabinet. Papa Stronachs money and influence made such a thing downright impossible, even if her own clout within the red range of the party might not. Pastures on the other side of the fence are NEVER green for anyone who hopes to have much political future. They answer to it for the rest of their lives. 'Traitors' don't recieve much trust in any camp. She could have outwaited Harper, to run again for the leadership, wiser and more experienced, but there was no path but descent after crossing the floor. Even a 'loose cannon' neophyte knows that as a certainty. It's absurd to think she could be 'bribed' by being offered the utter end of her political career, and the chance to be publicly harrassed for months. You have a strange notion of the meaning of 'enducement'! 'Strategic grounds' means that she not only didn't like what the Conservatives were doing (openly, for quite some time before that vote) , but didn't like the WAY they were doing it, either. Edited March 31, 2009 by Molly Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
jbg Posted April 1, 2009 Report Posted April 1, 2009 NOT lame duck? The scandal was gaining steam, they were in minority, and the opposition was voting no confidence, in hope and expectation of winning it! It doesn't get much lamer than that! The NDP were only along for the ride for that session, and only if the budget passed. They were doomed. The only question was how long they'd be able to hang on, 'cause they weren't going to get any stronger.A week in politics is a long time, and the Stronach bribe enabled them to survive many more weeks. They just spent the time poorly, and the scandal Goodale was in the middle of (I forget which one) was the nail in the coffin.What the government gained by parading Belinda was a chance to win some serious PR points against the Conservatives, and a chance to change the subject for a while. If the world was talking about Belinda, they weren't talking about Gomery. They used her to embarrass Harper and MacKay all day, every day, for as long as folks would pay attention.Agreed. And that was the consideration that the Liberals received for the bribe. What did she gain? As I said before, even with the hate/hate relationship she had with Harper, he would not have dared leave her out of cabinet. Papa Stronachs money and influence made such a thing downright impossible, even if her own clout within the red range of the party might not. Pastures on the other side of the fence are NEVER green for anyone who hopes to have much political future. They answer to it for the rest of their lives. 'Traitors' don't recieve much trust in any camp.Agreed also, especially that she's a gutless traitor. but why do people in your pew consider Emerson to be so much worse? After all, Emerson crossed right after an election, not to prevent a fall of the incumbent government.She could have outwaited Harper, to run again for the leadership, wiser and more experienced, but there was no path but descent after crossing the floor. Even a 'loose cannon' neophyte knows that as a certainty. It's absurd to think she could be 'bribed' by being offered the utter end of her political career, and the chance to be publicly harrassed for months. You have a strange notion of the meaning of 'enducement'!Hope always springs eternal. Ask any investor in a Ponzi scheme.'Strategic grounds' means that she not only didn't like what the Conservatives were doing (openly, for quite some time before that vote) , but didn't like the WAY they were doing it, either.Is there a book of etiquette for a non-confidence vote against a crooked Government? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Molly Posted April 1, 2009 Report Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) Well, we've established that we won't agree: you will continue to insist against reason that placing her in cabinet was a bribe without which she would have remained a happy Conservative, and I will continue to see that claim as being as utterly bogus as the proposal that the coalition was an undemocratic 'coup', that 'parliament was disfunctional', or, yes, even that Emmersons crossing was a good faith act. Emmersons crossing was, in fact, a pivotal moment for me. I can tell you why I found it so reprehensible. I'm a serious supporter of a rep.s right to cross-- feel very strongly that we are electing representatives, not parties; would like to see party affiliations removed from ballots. I don'[t consider it a traitorous act against a party, but rather an act of being true to onesself, and asa rule, to the folks one is supposed to be representing. It's a VERY important freedom. That freedom was deeply undermined by Emmerson/Harper. There was no shift of conditions , no change of terms, no unsupportable injustice nor necessary policy that could not be denied to consitiuents to necessitate that shift. It was simply a fraud, probably negotiated even before ballots were cast. It's the FIRST and ONLY time that I've felt that a floor crossing lacked legitimacy. I condemn that lack of legitimacy on its face, but I am particularly resentful that they would bring such an important democratic freedom into disrepute, and by so doing, threaten it's existence. It was at that moment that I realized that I could not (and breathed a sigh of relief that I did not) ever vote for that pack of moral midgets. Edited April 1, 2009 by Molly Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
jbg Posted April 2, 2009 Report Posted April 2, 2009 Emmersons crossing was, in fact, a pivotal moment for me. I can tell you why I found it so reprehensible. I'm a serious supporter of a rep.s right to cross-- feel very strongly that we are electing representatives, not parties; would like to see party affiliations removed from ballots. I don'[t consider it a traitorous act against a party, but rather an act of being true to onesself, and asa rule, to the folks one is supposed to be representing. It's a VERY important freedom.Obama has Republicans in his Cabinet. I believe SH was simply trying to tap the best talent available for the various portfolios. In Canada (unlike the U.S.) sometimes that requires an aisle cross. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Molly Posted April 2, 2009 Report Posted April 2, 2009 (edited) Canada isn't a republic, concensus isn't a novelty within a parliamentary system, and nuanced party selection is possible. Apples/oranges-- and irrelevant. Harper could tap whatever talent he wanted both before and after the election. Emerson betrayed his constituents by misleading them as to his intentions during the election. ... So Harper recruited someone who was stunningly, brazenly mendacious. Birds of a feather. Edited April 2, 2009 by Molly Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
Shakeyhands Posted April 2, 2009 Report Posted April 2, 2009 It seems to be what happened. Why else did Martin arrange for the vote to be deferred for a few days? You stated it as if it were fact, now it's a hypothesis? Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.