Argus Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 (edited) Why is this topic in local politics anyway? It should be in provincial, at the least. Edited October 28, 2017 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 On 10/19/2017 at 2:32 PM, Michael Hardner said: They did it before and I doubt anybody in English Canada remembers. The lawyers that I asked were younger, and they seem to not have heard of 'notwithstanding'. I should probably add this: ! Doesn't say much for the quality of the lawyer's your talking to. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 On 10/19/2017 at 2:56 PM, taxme said: I just don't understand as to why our stunned politicians seem to feel that flooding Canada with dozens of different languages, cultures, religions, traditions is suppose to be great for Canada or host Canadians? What makes you think our governments believe that, or would care one way or another? Governments support third world immigration because new immigrants, esp those from unsophisticated, backward cultures associate whoever is in power with them being allowed into Canada and tend to vote for them. This doesn't tend to work when you bring in people from, say, the UK or Germany. They know that the party in power is distinct from government and tend to vote without regard to who was in power when they arrived. Thus no politician, conservatives or liberals, wants to bring in Europeans. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 On 10/19/2017 at 6:28 PM, OftenWrong said: "It's not up to the federal government to challenge this, but we will certainly be looking at how this will unfold with full respect for the National Assembly," Trudeau said in French. Does anyone for a single moment think Trudeau's attitude would be the same if this law were passed in Alberta or Saskatchewan? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
eyeball Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 1 hour ago, OftenWrong said: Face covering makes sense if argued from a security point of view. Why should anyone be allowed to cover their face in public, in this day and age. I wouldn't mind if any form of face covering would be banned, as a misdemeanor lets say. Excluding situations where there is good reason to do so. For example, if two guys wearing chicken suits enter a bank... that would be suspicious behaviour. Is it just me or does anyone else notice how quick right wingers are these days to use even the silliest possibility to justify more power to the government? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 On 10/19/2017 at 7:36 PM, Michael Hardner said: How many people here have said that Islam needs to reform itself as Christianity did? Well, this would be the starting point. If it's forced by government, it won't happen. People will resist. Imagine if government told you how to dress. Islam has proven that it is unable to reform itself without outside pressure of some kind. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 On 10/25/2017 at 1:21 PM, Michael Hardner said: Nuns also wear headgear that covers their faces. They do? What nuns? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 On 10/25/2017 at 2:03 PM, Michael Hardner said: Yes, sorry I have seen this argument before in regards to Christianity's crimes throughout history. It's not objective. You have basically provided an axiom that says Christianity is better than Islam because the latter is 'most often' coerced whereas the social indoctrination of our society is apparently better... somehow. All liberals are fully aware of Christianity's and Europe's crimes throughout history. None know anything whatsoever of the crimes of other religions or other races. And if they did would blithely disregard them as unimportant. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 On 10/25/2017 at 4:08 PM, dialamah said: They both arise from the notion that women need to be covered to prove their purity. Drivel. The nun's habit is simply a female version of the priest's robe. And for the most part, nuns don't even wear habits any more. The niqab is born of that desperate male determination to protect his honor which still finds such strength of power in the middle east and western Asia. Women 'belong' to the male. Whether they are his daughters, sisters or wives. Whatever beauty they own must be jealously guarded from the lustful eyes of other men, just as the women must be controlled and guarded lest they let their natural lusts be influenced by those other men, be seduced, and harm his honor. The niqab/burka is a curtain which shuts them away from that world to protect his honor. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
dialamah Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 1 minute ago, Argus said: Drivel. The nun's habit is simply a female version of the priest's robe. And for the most part, nuns don't even wear habits any more. The niqab is born of that desperate male determination to protect his honor which still finds such strength of power in the middle east and western Asia. Women 'belong' to the male. Whether they are his daughters, sisters or wives. Whatever beauty they own must be jealously guarded from the lustful eyes of other men, just as the women must be controlled and guarded lest they let their natural lusts be influenced by those other men, be seduced, and harm his honor. The niqab/burka is a curtain which shuts them away from that world to protect his honor. Drivel. Until the last century or less, women's clothing style was driven by notion that a woman must prove and protect her purity. Currently, the nun's habit, the dress of Mennonites, fundamental Mormons, some other Christian and Jewish sects still reflect that belief in the clothing the women wear. Quote
Argus Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 Just now, dialamah said: Drivel. Until the last century or less, women's clothing style was driven by notion that a woman must prove and protect her purity. Here's a clue for you. We're not talking about a hundred years ago. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
dialamah Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 27 minutes ago, Argus said: Here's a clue for you. We're not talking about a hundred years ago. Here's a clue for you: the women in Mennonite/Mormon/Jewish clothing that requires covering up, including their hair, are alive and well today. In addition, many mainstream Christian sects expect the women to dress "modestly" today. They do so for the same reason Islam expects modest clothing for their women - to prove her purity and modesty, so that men are not unduly distracted. Quote
eyeball Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 On 10/25/2017 at 4:01 PM, bcsapper said: And really, what on earth is wrong with showing contempt and disgust for contemptible and disgusting people anyway? As long as one restricts it to them, of course. Why just them though? Why on Earth should any disgusting contemptible people be given a pass? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 Just now, eyeball said: Why just them though? Why on Earth should any disgusting contemptible people be given a pass? One only has so much time, eyeball. You have to do your bit too. Quote
eyeball Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 Just now, bcsapper said: One only has so much time, eyeball. You have to do your bit too. Christ on a stick, you've got to be the biggest dog fucker there is around here when it comes to applying a principle. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 Just now, eyeball said: Christ on a stick, you've got to be the biggest dog fucker there is around here when it comes to applying a principle. There's life outside forums mate. I'm a very busy man, helping out in the community, volunteering for charitable events, rescuing cats from trees, etc. Quote
eyeball Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 Just now, bcsapper said: There's life outside forums mate. I'm a very busy man, helping out in the community, volunteering for charitable events, rescuing cats from trees, etc. That's no excuse, I'm able to do all these things without being contemptible and disgusting. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, eyeball said: That's no excuse, I'm able to do all these things without being contemptible and disgusting. Of course. You weren't one of the targets. Perish the thought! Edit> Watch out for those dead branches... Edited October 28, 2017 by bcsapper Quote
OftenWrong Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 2 hours ago, eyeball said: Is it just me or does anyone else notice how quick right wingers are these days to use even the silliest possibility to justify more power to the government? We take other reasonable precautions for the sake of security, why should this be a problem? No more wearing a gorilla mask while walking down main street, and it's not even Halloween? Quote
eyeball Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 4 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: We take other reasonable precautions for the sake of security, why should this be a problem? Except the precautions are leading towards more insecurity not less. Now we're insecure about the clothes people wear. No more wearing a gorilla mask while walking down main street, and it's not even Halloween? Soon no more freedoms for anyone and we're not even a dictatorship. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 12 minutes ago, bcsapper said: Of course. You weren't one of the targets. Perish the thought! You were targeted by a propped up dictatorship? Where and by whom? Edit> Watch out for those dead branches... That's a new deflection. Don't have clue WTF it's on about though. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
OftenWrong Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 4 minutes ago, eyeball said: Except the precautions are leading towards more insecurity not less. Now we're insecure about the clothes people wear. Soon no more freedoms for anyone and we're not even a dictatorship. Covering the face is the issue discussed here, not clothing. Covering the face. Liberals seek to expand every issue to the point of absurdity, and of course, by then it is. Seems like making an absurd argument is the hallmark of the left. Quote
eyeball Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: Covering the face is the issue discussed here, not clothing. Covering the face. Uncovering everyone's face, is what's at issue now. Because Quebec is a dog fucker that is trying to mask its racism behind a facade of insecurity, exactly the same way you are. Edited October 28, 2017 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 21 minutes ago, eyeball said: You were targeted by a propped up dictatorship? Where and by whom? That's a new deflection. Don't have clue WTF it's on about though. Deflection? You said you rescued cats from trees. Deflection? I could never understand that accusation. Quote
Guest Posted October 28, 2017 Report Posted October 28, 2017 23 minutes ago, eyeball said: You were targeted by a propped up dictatorship? Where and by whom? Is that a deflection? I can't tell, but like you with my post, I have no idea what it means. Quote
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.