Jump to content

The Left is Destroying Western Civilization


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Not till he wins a seat he isn't.

 

He's subsidized by Elections Canada, which pays back expenses including his salary which is a significant percentage of party outflows.  Also he's listed as having an $89,000 pension...

So he's getting paid the same as the rest of you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, so you don't want people who are subsidized by Canada in any way to criticize it?

It's funny that a substantial portion of this topic has devolved into matters of morality and culture as bequeathed by anyone from Rome to Jesus. But I would say culture touches this issue in that my culture, at least, believes in gratitude. When your family is allowed into this country, and you're educated at the expense of others (your parents being too impoverished to pay taxes), when the society around you adapts to your people's views as best it can, and favors you with economic assistance to further your art, you ought to show some gratitude. Ingrate is never a compliment. Ingrates are generally the worst sort of people. Ingrates are selfish and entitled. And that's what she is.

And by the way, reducing my argument to something as simplistic as that is disingenuous. It isn't a matter of criticizing the country. Although, of course, criticism should be internal. You don't visit the neighbor and then yell at each other in front of them. But this wasn't 'criticism', this was condemnation. The two are peripherally related but can also be entirely different. 

And by the way again, who was it who chose her, or who advised the NBA to choose her to come and sing our national anthem in the first place? Because she's on record as saying she stopped singing the national anthem years ago, upon hearing about residential schools (of which she seems to know virtually nothing beyond the headlines). So why would anyone invite someone who was so disgusted with her country and its history that she never sang the anthem to sing the anthem? Another progressive shithead, likely, who thought her 'brave' and 'truthful'. 

But I digress... This self-righteous ingrate should renounce her Canadian citizenship and go and live in Jamaica so she's not an oppressive colonizer. 

10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Bernier is subsidized by Canada isn't he?  

This seems like nothing but a diversion. Political parties try to accomplish something. They try to build something where all this twat was doing was trying to tear things down. But aside from that, my opinion is no politicians should be subsidized. If you can't find enough people interested enough in your ideas to fund you then tough luck.

Edited by I am Groot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

Actually I find it repulsive to hear blasphemous language in McDonalds or a public place.  There should be some law and a fine for that kind of disrespectful behavour, don't you think?  

Uh, what kind of blasphemous language do you hear in McDonalds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

He's subsidized by Elections Canada, which pays back expenses including his salary which is a significant percentage of party outflows.  Also he's listed as having an $89,000 pension...

Well a pension is not a subsidy.  Seriously,- c'mon :)

And elections canada doesn't subsidize his party, elections canada pays for the election. That is not remotely the same thing.  When we have an election then Elections canada covers the cost on behalf of the taxpayer.  It is the TAXPAYER who is the beneficiary.  This is in order to provide the taxpayer a free and fair democratic process. So no - that's not subsidizing him personally.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

 



So he's getting paid the same as the rest of you...

I"m quite sure he's getting paid, but he's not getting subsidized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Wow - how childish.  You "lose" a discussion and have a hissy fit.

You losed.  Me winned!? ?

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry kiddo - the bible is in fact a unique and seperate collection of values and it did influence canada's creation. 

Influence Canada's creation?  Okay.  You're arguing with yourself on that, because nobody said otherwise.  ?

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And you haven't been able to offer a single example otherwise.  You say "Roman" then are forced to admit they had different laws and moral values. I don't know what to tell you,

I'm not sure you even know what you're arguing anymore.  I said Roman, because the Romans already had most of these laws before Christianity, and then the Romans wrote the Bible which, (I guess coincidentally) included many of the same rules and concepts.  

Rome's values and laws don't count apparently though, because the Romans murdered each other, which totally didn't happen in Medieval Christian Europe...or something. ?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. Well a pension is not a subsidy.  Seriously,- c'mon :)

2. And elections canada doesn't subsidize his party, elections canada pays for the election. That is not remotely the same thing. 

3. I"m quite sure he's getting paid, but he's not getting subsidized.

1. Ok - so somebody who benefits from government culture subsidies should have their opinions disregarded but a former MP who makes a $90K pension should be listened to.... and Don Cherry who benefits from CBC Salary and Pensions should be listened to ?  And ?  https://www.taxpayer.com/media/2019_pensions.pdf
2. My quick Google search says the government paid them back $500K for their expenses and they paid about $600K including $100K for Max.
3. It all comes out of the same pot.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Excuse me if I use Canada’s history as my example, as we do live here….  In Canada, It was always Christians who enforced blasphemy laws.  

Trudeau’s Liberals finally removed them from the law books a few years ago  

“…the charge itself has been used as recently as 1980. The owners of a movie theatre in Sault Ste. Marie were charged with blasphemous libel for the “crime” of screening Monty Python’s Life of Bryan, a British satire film about the life and death of Jesus Christ. ”https://globalnews.ca/news/3512946/commentary-at-long-last-canadas-blasphemy-law-is-dead/

Just so we're clear, it wasn't about the life and death of Jesus Christ.  It was about the life and death of Brian Cohen.

Jesus only had a bit part.

From the article:

That includes section 296 of the Criminal Code, which is the prohibition on publishing a “blasphemous libel.” It will now be relegated to the ash bin of history, along with other such relics as “challenging someone to a duel,” “possessing or publishing crime comics,” and “fraudulently pretending to practice witchcraft.”

That's good to see.  Fake witches and blasphemers should face no sanction.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You losed.  Me winned!?

I seey our english is as sharp as your wit ;)

18 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Influence Canada's creation?  Okay.  You're arguing with yourself on that, because nobody said otherwise.  ?

Oh look - yet again you try to pretend you didn't say something that you clearly did. Yawn. 

In fairness i wouldn't want to admit to saying half the stuff you do either,

18 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I'm not sure you even know what you're arguing anymore.  I said Roman, because the Romans already had most of these laws before Christianity

But they didn't. Which is the point.  You keep saying it but it's absolutely not true. As i've noted. Which was the point i made.  

You really aren't very good at this are you

18 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

, and then the Romans wrote the Bible which, (I guess coincidentally) included many of the same rules and concepts.  

The romans did not write the bible :)  LOL Oh my god :)  

And i love that you think anyone just sat down and "wrote" the bible, like they got it all done in a few months and sent it to the publisher :)   It's like "Harry Potter and the Holy Spirit" in your mind ?

18 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Rome's values and laws don't count apparently though, because the Romans murdered each other, which totally didn't happen in Medieval Christian Europe...or something. ?

Ahhh - i see that your comprehension challenges are kicking in.  :)

Let me say a few things a little slower for you.

The morality of the bible is radically different than the morality of rome or roman law.

There came a point where a 'second' roman empire started, and that was largely founded on CHRISTIANITY- not the previous roman moral and ethical codes.  It survived for about 1400 years. But it was based on the bible from pretty much  the get go.

The bible represents a complete set of morals and principles that represent a unique ethos. There is nothing else quite like it. It is not simply a mash up of roman culture.

And the Romans didn't "write the bible".

And of course the bible has been the basis of the moral codes of many countries before ours came along and our culture is based on the christian culture and bible.

Is there anything else you need cleared up? Like maybe how to button your shirt or something complex like that?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

1. It's funny that a substantial portion of this topic has devolved into matters of morality and culture as bequeathed by anyone from Rome to Jesus.
2. But I would say culture touches this issue in that my culture, at least, believes in gratitude. When your family is allowed into this country, and you're educated at the expense of others (your parents being too impoverished to pay taxes), when the society around you adapts to your people's views as best it can, and favors you with economic assistance to further your art, you ought to show some gratitude. Ingrate is never a compliment. Ingrates are generally the worst sort of people. Ingrates are selfish and entitled. And that's what she is.

3. And by the way, reducing my argument to something as simplistic as that is disingenuous. It isn't a matter of criticizing the country. Although, of course, criticism should be internal. You don't visit the neighbor and then yell at each other in front of them. But this wasn't 'criticism', this was condemnation. The two are peripherally related but can also be entirely different. 

4. This self-righteous ingrate should renounce her Canadian citizenship and go and live in Jamaica so she's not an oppressive colonizer. 

5. This seems like nothing but a diversion.  

1. I think it's central to the theme, yes.
2. Yeah, I heard people telling the Convoy Truckers to be grateful for Canada too.  It's pretty subjective as to what should be said and what shouldn't be.  You don't like Black History Month, for example.  It's definitely your right to say that.
    I feel it's very odd when you tell people that they should be grateful to get welfare because they're impoverished.  Free trade killed manufacturing jobs and sent some people into poverty... should they be grateful that their government gives them welfare ?  Not sure on that.
3. Your argument is simple too.  "Criticism vs condemnation" is splitting hairs IMO.
4. Don't say bad things about Canada if you are an immigrant, yes I got that already.
5.  I agree.  I already said making too much of this from either side is a diversion.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Uh, what kind of blasphemous language do you hear in McDonalds?

With @blackbird It went from “I’m for free speech like in USA” to “movies insulting Jesus should be banned” to “kids swearing in McDonalds should be arrested”.  
 

We know who definitely doesn’t want Canadians to have free expression.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok - so somebody who benefits from government culture subsidies should have their opinions disregarded but a former MP who makes a $90K pension should be listened to.... and Don Cherry who benefits from CBC Salary and Pensions should be listened to ?  And ?  https://www.taxpayer.com/media/2019_pensions.pdf

Well i only responded to your statement about him being subsidized, but if you're asking me to weigh in on other matters....      regardless of how it is earned a pension is private money. Whether the pension came from a public or private employer is of no consequence.  It's like buying a house - whether the gov't built your house or a contractor did makes no difference, is YOUR house now. It's got nothing to do with how you conduct yourself in public, you already own it

However - if you are taking money and getting paid and you create a platform as a result of that employment and then use that platform to attack your employer.....  yeah that's a very different issue.

If you want to create and use a platform to spread a political message or attack someone then really you should not be taking public money to do that (unless of course that's what the public job is. I mean - otherwise we couldn't have an official opposition :) )

There are a lot of nuances there which i'm skipping, and it is important to remember there's a difference between criticizing a gov't policy and the country as a whole.  But in a nutshell, there you go

44 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:


2. My quick Google search says the government paid them back $500K for their expenses and they paid about $600K including $100K for Max.

For the election? We've been over that.

44 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:


3. It all comes out of the same pot.

That's like saying that "there's only one source of money so we're ALL subsidized by the gov't."

That would be what experts refer to as a "steaming pile"  ;)   A tax write off isn't a subsidy. Receiving a govt service like health care isn't a personal subsidy. Having an armed forces to protect us isn' t a subsidy.  You can't just call something a subsidy because it involves "gov't money" somehow.

We pay for political parties to participate in elections because we want to eliminate the power of money from controlling elections. That's a chocie we make to protect ourselves as voters, not a subsidy to others.

And if doorknob manages to ever win a seat and gets paid by the people, even then he will be hired specifically to crtisize the gov't, so that's a little different.  However - if he used is political posiiton to advertize and sell coca-cola.... that would be really bad. And we all get that - but somehow the idea of a person selling an agenda that's not part of their job by using the stage their gov't funded empoyment gave them DOESN"T seem problematic to you?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Perhaps someone who is not a holocaust denier, but questions/disputes the number of Jews who were murdered by the Nazis . . . . 

Even an out and out Holocaust denier should not be prosecuted.  Ridiculed, maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Oh look - yet again you try to pretend you didn't say something that you clearly did. Yawn. 

Show me where.  It's really easy to argue against points that you make up for yourself.  

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

The romans did not write the bible :)  LOL Oh my god :)  

Not the Hebrew Bible, but they certainly did write the New Testament, first in Greek, then translated to Latin, then edited and adjusted and adapted by various councils of bishops and leaders for consumption by the masses, over a period of centuries.  

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

There came a point where a 'second' roman empire started, and that was largely founded on CHRISTIANITY- not the previous roman moral and ethical codes.  It survived for about 1400 years. But it was based on the bible from pretty much  the get go.

Nope, lol.  The "second" Empire, was merely the continuation of the eastern (and greek) half of the original one.  If it was so based on the Bible, as you figure, maybe you can explain why so many Eastern Roman Emperors were assassinated or, alternatively, deposed and then executed.  According to you, that's apparently why the Roman Empire proper condoned murder as opposed to the more Biblical states or...something.  You're all over the place here...

Edited by Moonbox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Perhaps someone who is not a holocaust denier, but questions/disputes the number of Jews who were murdered by the Nazis . . . . 

But you see simply doing that MAKES you a 'denier' under the law :)  Unless you're saying the number should be higher, that's fine.

And this is a major problem right now.  Anyone even questioning elements of "doctrine" may be found to be guilty of 'hate speech", regardless of facts.

For example - if you say "according to the records the vast vast majority of children who died in residential schools did so from tuberculosis which was also killing people on the reserves at about the same rate", you would be saying something that is factually defensible and likely true.  And - it would NOT be saying that the residential schools were a good thing or that the first nations didn't suffer there or anything like that. It would simply be pointing out that the children didn't die of some sort of abuse.

But - you will be called a genocide denier and the ndp is currently proposing a law to make that hate speech punishable under criminal law.

People should be free to point out the truths, or have their own ideas or own interpretations of the facts without fear.  Even if it upsets some people.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Show me where.  It's really easy to argue against points that you make up for yourself

Every time you say that, i post a  quote showing it. And every time you just sputter and change the subject. Everyone can see what you said - its become a common tactic for you to pretend you didn't say things you clearly did.

Quote

Not the Hebrew Bible, but they certainly did write the New Testament, first in Greek, then translated to Latin, then edited and adjusted and adapted by various councils of bishops and leaders for consumption by the masses, over a period of centuries.  

The Romans wrote the new testament.

In greek. And THEN translated it to their own language which was latin.

And these romans worked on it for centuries. Because romans wrote it.

Well - i tihnk we've definitively demonstrated that you know less about the history of these things than the average 5 year old :)  That's pretty hilarious

The romans didn't write the bible, new testament or old. And roman values and laws were very different than the ones in the bible. Which is one of the reasons that old rome kept throwing these people to the lions.  If you agree with someone's beliefs and morals you don't go tossing them to a hungry kitty :)

I think this conversation has probably reached the end of it's useful life :)  I think you need to do a LOT of reading before you'll be in a position to make any useful comments moving forward.

"The romans wrote the bible in greek" :) LOLOLOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

they certainly did write the New Testament,

The New Testament was written in Palestine, which was ruled at the time by the Romans.  But to say Romans wrote it is a bit of a misnomer.  
 

That would be like claiming the English wrote something that was written in India during English rule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Every time you say that, i post a  quote showing it. And every time you just sputter and change the subject. Everyone can see what you said - its become a common tactic for you to pretend you didn't say things you clearly did.

No you don't, but feel free to prove otherwise.  Just saying you did it doesn't count.  ?

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The Romans wrote the new testament.

In greek. And THEN translated it to their own language which was latin.

Half the Roman Empire spoke Greek - the Eastern half, because it was already speaking Greek because it was composed of successor states of Alexander's Empire.  That large continent spanning nations could speak more than one language is just...UNTHINKABLE.  ?

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If you agree with someone's beliefs and morals you don't go tossing them to a hungry kitty :)

No, you just burn them, or disembowel them, draw and quarter them, behead them, sack and burn their cities, wipe out their entire civilization etc etc...Christians certainly never did things like this.  

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I think this conversation has probably reached the end of it's useful life :)  I think you need to do a LOT of reading before you'll be in a position to make any useful comments moving forward.

"I'M THE SMART ONE!", he says, handing himself a trophy and patting himself on the back like the champ he knows he is. ?

Edited by Moonbox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No you don't, but feel free to prove otherwise.  Just saying you did it doesn't count.  ?

The proof is already there.  I feel no particular need to indulge the wishes of children who like to pay games.

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Half the Roman Empire spoke Greek - the Eastern half, because it was already speaking Greek because it was composed of successor states of Alexander's Empire.

All romans spoke latin. The fact that some also spoke greek is nice but that would mean it wasn't the romans who wrote the bible :) it would mean it was greeks who had become part of the roman empire.

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

That large continent spanning nations could speak more than one language is just...UNTHINKABLE.  ?

You mean the large nation spanning continents i assume.  Sure - but most of those people weren't romans.  Gaul was part of the empire, but the gauls weren't romans.

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No, you just burn them, or disembowel them, draw and quarter them, behead them, sack and burn their cities, wipe out their entire civilization etc etc...Christians certainly never did things like this.  

I think you got confused again. We were talking about the romans and how they treated the Christians God you have the attention span of a goldfish.

 

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

"I'M THE SMART ONE!", he says, handing himself a trophy and patting himself on the back like the champ he knows he is. ?

No no, I'm not saying i'm smart.  I'm saying you're stupid. ? :):):)

And i think that's pretty apperent to all without me saying it :)

Do better next time. "the romans wrote the bible" -  i mean... yeash kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

The New Testament was written in Palestine, which was ruled at the time by the Romans.  But to say Romans wrote it is a bit of a misnomer.  

Even that's not right, because the New Testament as a singular entity didn't even exist until it was compiled together and formalized...by clerics throughout the Roman Empire.  Before that, it was a collection of letters, writings, word-of-mouth stories and anonymously written gospels etc that spread around and were translated, interpreted and re-translated and re-interpreted for centuries.  The first record mention of the Gospels, for example, came from France, something like 200 years after Jesus.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The proof is already there.  I feel no particular need to indulge the wishes of children who like to pay games.

Proof is there...sure.  In your own little world.  

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

All romans spoke latin. The fact that some also spoke greek is nice but that would mean it wasn't the romans who wrote the bible :) it would mean it was greeks who had become part of the roman empire.

That's sort of like the bubbas saying, "We speak American here".  You can't be Roman unless you spoke Latin, sort of like you can't be Canadian if you speak French...or something?  Is that how this works?  

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You mean the large nation spanning continents i assume.  Sure - but most of those people weren't romans.  Gaul was part of the empire, but the gauls weren't romans.

Roman Citizens were Roman Citizens.  It didn't matter if you were born in Gaul, or Spain, or Africa.  Some of the greatest Emperors came from the outer reaches of the Empire and were not of Roman or even Italic ancestry - guys like Constantine.  He was the Emperor of Rome, born in the Balkans, of Balkan/Greek ancestry...but nah...not a Roman.  ?

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I think you got confused again. We were talking about the romans and how they treated the Christians God you have the attention span of a goldfish.

No, I'm saying your argument was shit.  Early christians were mistreated by Romans.  Cool.  Christians mistreated Christians too, so what's your point?  The Christians did these things as well, to each other and to others.  

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No no, I'm not saying i'm smart.  I'm saying you're stupid. ? :):):)

Yep you're the grown up here.  Keep patting yourself on the back.  ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...