bush_cheney2004 Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Personally, I think anyone who takes orders from God to do political things is a religious nutbar wh shouldn't hold office. Frankly, "God" would be an improvement over a monarchy dependent on the mating habits of the European 1%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Frankly, "God" would be an improvement over a monarchy dependent on the mating habits of the European 1%. Same old broken record.... Probably not much of an improvement. Besides, it is largely ceremonial and no real power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Same old broken record.... Probably not much of an improvement. Besides, it is largely ceremonial and no real power. A big improvement..."God" does not require castles to store his hat boxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 A big improvement..."God" does not require castles to store his hat boxes. Just churches to store his pedophiles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 (edited) You aren't concerned with your own president talking with God and taking orders, why would you worry where Canada's PM gets his motivation? First of all, as I clearly stated, my own president didn't say what a Palestinian said he did; he denies having said it. There are no quotes from Bush, only a quote from a Palestinian saying that Bush said such and such. If I were to say, "The_Squid said to me, 'God spoke to me and said that it's ok for leaders to talk to God,'" is that a quote from you - or from me? Does it mean you said such a thing - or does it mean that I said it? As for where Harper gets his motivation - that wasn't me worrying about it. Surprisingly, the people who are worried didn't consult me. Hard to believe, I know. More hypocrisy. Only in your head. Personally, I think anyone who takes orders from God to do political things is a religious nutbar wh shouldn't hold office. I wouldn't vote for anyone who said they take orders from God. Bush, however, never said any such thing. I still didn't vote for him. But personally, I have no respect for someone's viewpoint when they keep speaking as if Bush did say something he didn't say - and calls me a hypocrite for something that has nothing to do with my actual views and what I've clearly said. Edited December 31, 2012 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 ....I wouldn't vote for anyone who said they take orders from God. Bush, however, never said any such thing. I still didn't vote for him. But personally, I have no respect for someone's viewpoint when they keep speaking as if Bush did say something he didn't say - and calls me a hypocrite for something that has nothing to do with my actual views and what I've clearly said. Agreed.....Bush Derangement Syndrome is alive and well even though the man left office almost four years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Huge diff between our right wing and yours. Huge. Especially once they took power and went all moderate and all, because they like that power and don't want to get voted out. Everybody here from the right to the left is asking when Harper will finally unleash his secret agenda. He hasn't, because he knows he would immediately become an also ran. What keeps him in power is the split between the middle and the left here - they get more votes combined than the CPC does. But then the same is true in the US - your "left" (ie Eisenhower republicans) get more popular votes than your nut bars, yet the nut bars keep getting elected. There never was a hidden agenda, that was all the libs and the media, making that shit up. It was typical left wing fear mongering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 There never was a hidden agenda, that was all the libs and the media, making that shit up. It was typical left wing fear mongering. I'm one of those. You can't read his speech to Republicans to know he has a hidden agenda. But his primary agenda is power, so he's willing to put his hidden agenda on the back burner, because he knows he'd be voted out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 Just churches to store his pedophiles. I don't know why you have such hate in your heart towards Christianity, perhaps you were hurt or worse in the church. Lashing out on a forum probably doesn't remove the offense for you, but perhaps it makes you feel a little better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 I have a hate on for religion in general, because it causes people to make stupid choices in the name of someone who probably doesn't even exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 Just churches to store his pedophiles. Comment of the year man. Comment of the year. But I'm talking 2012. It's not 2013 for another hour and 25 minutes on the west coast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 (edited) Just churches to store his pedophiles.Smallc, as a Protestant would say, don't confuse Christianity with the Catholic Church.Your head of state can't be a Catholic; ... Huh? True but...Yes...just as Canada's PM Chretien invoked God to win an election... WTF?B_C and AW, you may participate on this forum but you simply don't understand Canada. But I admire your American, Mark Twain, honesty. Edited January 1, 2013 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 (edited) Huh? True but.. Yeah, true - just as I said. And the "but" would be? . B_C and AW, you may participate on this forum but you simply don't understand Canada. I see. But you and all the Canadians (and Finlander) going on about the U.S. "understand" the U.S. Such as those claiming Bush said what he didn't say, for example; and criticizing Americans for voting for a president who said what he didn't say. And those claiming Americans are ignorant while Canadians are so well traveled - and therefore so much more aware of what's going on in the world. Most of this thread, in other words. Got'cha. I "understand" Canada a lot better than you may think. I may understand different aspects of it than you do, but I understand it. Edited January 1, 2013 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 B_C and AW, you may participate on this forum but you simply don't understand Canada. But I admire your American, Mark Twain, honesty. .....and you don't understand the U.S., despite watching it intently all your Canadian life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 I don't know why you have such hate in your heart towards Christianity, perhaps you were hurt or worse in the church. Lashing out on a forum probably doesn't remove the offense for you, but perhaps it makes you feel a little better. You don't know why I hate child abusers?Ok then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 I "understand" Canada You get bonus points for appropriately using irony quotes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 You don't know why I hate child abusers? Ok then. No, that's not what I said, but if you are content with that, then sobeit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 If that's not what you said, then you were making a strawman argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 the US got democracy in one big jump, fighting against a dictator. What? A dictator is an individual. There was no individual ruling the 13 Colonies prior to the early 1770s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 What? A dictator is an individual. There was no individual ruling the 13 Colonies prior to the early 1770s. The King didn't rule? So what were they revolting against? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 NZ and AUS?No, this is typical (Irish) Catholic thinking. God above decides. No, it's acknowledging reality. Perhaps you've developed a god complex? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 Your head of state can't be a Catholic; you're still very much tied to a protestant country in that regard. Tied? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) The King didn't rule? So what were they revolting against? No, the King didn't rule; the Glorious Revolution took place 90 years before the American one. The colonists may not have had local democratic government and were governed, ultimately from Whitehall, but, in Whitehall, there was a parliament, cabinet, courts, and a civil service in place to collectively govern the Empire, not a King ruling all. The latter is the stuff of American myth. There were a number of catalysts for the American Revolution; a lack of democratic participation in government--either locally, in London, or both--was one. Laws that granted certain protections to the Quebecois and First Nations were others. [ed.: +] Edited January 2, 2013 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 .... not a King ruling all. The latter is the stuff of American myth. Agreed, but the American colonists sought a formal redress of grievances through the reigning monarch, George III, who would later admit in writing that America was lost....he had bungled things badly. This is why the king became the focus of American myth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) The King didn't rule? So what were they revolting against? They were revolting against taxation without representation in Parliament, and demanded the same rights as other British subjects. Agreed, but the American colonists sought a formal redress of grievances through the reigning monarch, George III, who would later admit in writing that America was lost....he had bungled things badly. This is why the king became the focus of American myth. Yep. He's known as "the King who lost America." Edited January 2, 2013 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.