Sarah Palin At Bottom Of Presidential Hopeful Poll
Doc
With her book, 'Going Rogue,' released today, Sarah Palin is red meat to the
far right. But Palin's poll numbers have slid significantly since she quit
as Alaska governor.
By Peter Grier | Staff writer/ November 17, 2009 edition
Washington
Here's one big reason why Sarah Palin may not run for president in 2012: Her
poll numbers are awful.
It's possible for determined politicians to reverse poor ratings of public
opinion. Hillary Clinton has done it, to a certain degree. And some experts
say Ms. Palin's current situation is similar to that faced by Secretary of
State Clinton in the past.
But, still . 66 percent of respondents to a CBS News survey released Monday
said they did not want Sarah Palin to run for the White House in 2012.
Seventy percent of respondents to a CNN/Opinion Research poll said Palin is
not qualified to be president.
And for Palin, the trend is going the wrong way. As Pollster.com's
compilation shows, her numbers have slid significantly this year,
particularly following her resignation from Alaska's governorship in July.
"Perceptions of Palin's qualifications for the presidency are shockingly low
for a former presidential/VP nominee - there's been no one comparable to her
since Dan Quayle," wrote Brendan Nyhan, an assistant professor of government
at Dartmouth, in a recent Pollster.com commentary.
Palin continues to be a highly polarizing figure. Republicans are much less
dismissive of her qualifications than Democrats or independents.
In the CBS survey released this week, 43 percent of GOP respondents said
Palin would have the ability to be an effective President. But only 11
percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents agreed.
Some see opportunity for Palin among independents. Matthew Continetti,
associate editor of The Weekly Standard and author of the new book "The
Persecution of Sarah Palin," noted in a recent op-ed that Palin's rating
among independents is 48 percent unfavorable, and 41 percent favorable,
according to Gallup.
"Not good, but insurmountable. Flip those percentages, and they could be
serving moose burgers in the White House in 2013," wrote Continetti in the
Wall Street Journal.
But given the image of Palin already cemented in much of the US public's
mind, flipping that percentage might be very difficult.
Furthermore, Palin right now is running behind both Mitt Romney and Mike
Huckabee in a head-to-head matchups, according to an October Rasmussen
survey.
That in and of itself is not a huge deal, given the length of time before
primaries begin. But Romney and Huckabee are from very different parts of
the GOP coalition, notes Tom Schaller.
The fact that both now lead her means "Palin's ideological appeal is easily
dominated because it is wide but not deep on the far right and neither wide
nor deep among the party's institutional and more mainstream elements,"
writes Schaller on the popular polling blog FiveThirtyEight
LOLOLOL!!
Well, America can't really have a viable future without Palin. If these
figures hold, it looks like doomsday.
;))~~
Woodswun
> Sarah Palin 'Going Rogue' to the White House? Polls say no.
> With her book, 'Going Rogue,' released today, Sarah Palin is red meat to the
> far right. But Palin's poll numbers have slid significantly since she quit
> as Alaska governor.
She stopped being a political figure when she quit the governorship.
Now she's just looking to be a celebrity.
Woods
> http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/11/17/sarah-palin-going-r...
Jane
> On Nov 19, 11:26 am, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sarah Palin 'Going Rogue' to the White House? Polls say no.
> > With her book, 'Going Rogue,' released today, Sarah Palin is red meat to the
> > far right. But Palin's poll numbers have slid significantly since she quit
> > as Alaska governor.
>
> She stopped being a political figure when she quit the governorship.
> Now she's just looking to be a celebrity.
Of course. No doubt she's secretly thrilled by her Newsweek cover.
Woodswun
> On Nov 19, 7:40 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 11:26 am, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Sarah Palin 'Going Rogue' to the White House? Polls say no.
> > > With her book, 'Going Rogue,' released today, Sarah Palin is red meat to the
> > > far right. But Palin's poll numbers have slid significantly since she quit
> > > as Alaska governor.
>
> > She stopped being a political figure when she quit the governorship.
> > Now she's just looking to be a celebrity.
>
> Of course. No doubt she's secretly thrilled by her Newsweek cover.
That's my thinking. She makes a noise, and the right wing nutjobs
fall all over themselves generating lots of free publicity for the
magazine that featured her on the cover (making her a more desirable
"cover girl") and her book.
Woods
Bob
>
> Sarah Palin 'Going Rogue' to the White House? Polls say no.
> With her book, 'Going Rogue,' released today, Sarah Palin is red meat to the
> far right. But Palin's poll numbers have slid significantly since she quit
> as Alaska governor.
Then I'll ask again -- why are leftists so obsessed with a woman they
think is irrelevant and has no political future? Can one of you
radical fringe leftists please explain it to me?
Marvin The Paranoid Android
>
> > On Nov 19, 11:26 am, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Sarah Palin 'Going Rogue' to the White House? Polls say no.
> > > With her book, 'Going Rogue,' released today, Sarah Palin is red meat to the
> > > far right. But Palin's poll numbers have slid significantly since she quit
> > > as Alaska governor.
>
> > She stopped being a political figure when she quit the governorship.
> > Now she's just looking to be a celebrity.
>
> Of course. No doubt she's secretly thrilled by her Newsweek cover.
<sniff>
What's that smell???
<sniff>
Bob Bait!!!
;-)
Marvin The Paranoid Android
Eh yah Bob like she was trying to live a quiet life in Alaska taking
care of her disabled baby and giving her family a break from the
scrutiny of the media ... like, duh.
Doc
"Bob" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:4499066a-2f35-4112...@g10g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Your answer MAY lie in whatever reasons you have for being so obsessed with
a 'tiny leftist fringe group' that's 'insignificant.'
Caveat: you may not like what you find.
LOLOL!!
;))~
Bob
If she's so irrelevant, why do leftists help elevate her notoriety the
way they do?
Bob
>
> "Bob" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >Then I'll ask again -- why are leftists so obsessed with a woman they
> >think is irrelevant and has no political future? Can one of you
> >radical fringe leftists please explain it to me?
>
> Your answer MAY lie in whatever reasons you have for being so obsessed with
> a 'tiny leftist fringe group' that's 'insignificant.'
No, I'm debating topics with a tiny group of fringe leftists. The
leftists to which I refer above are just obsessed with Sarah Palin as
a person, and they do everything they can to diminish her standing as
a serious person in the political arena. Which is odd in itself, since
they simultaneously claim she's irrelevant. It just doesn't make
sense. Can you explain it to me? Or will you continue to come up with
diversions, as you did just above?
Marvin The Paranoid Android
We're not elevating her :-)
We're commenting on how she's such an idiot and how stupid some
Americans are to ever take her seriously.
Doc
I'd ask you the same thing. How many times will you and you brethren ignore
defending a shallow woman who couldn't follow through on her self-described
faithful commitment to her own state citizenry?
Signing books, appearing on entertainment shows, and looking hot aren't what
'serious' politicians are all about.
They're not celebs, junior.
They're public servants, lawmakers.
But, I'd not expect you'd not understand or acknowledge the vain celebrity
status-seeking of some leaders, like Palin, unless they're in the
opposition.
I make no diversion.
The discussion is about the lack of seriousness of Palin, and it has been in
the news heavily for over a year.
I merely re-emphasize it as a national poll shows most don't think she's a
'serious' contender. It is you and your silly billies that make the
diversions.
Every time you and your gang wildy defend her self-absorption, it just draws
more negative attention to her.
So, keep on doing the Devil's work, junior.
Doc
Woodswun
Or why on earth the media is even covering anything about her. I
question the sanity of the U.S. population these days - lol!
Woods
Jane
Jane
Bob
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 11:13 am, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 20, 1:20 am, Marvin The Paranoid Android
>
> > <marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 9:15 pm, Bob <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 19, 8:26 am, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Sarah Palin 'Going Rogue' to the White House? Polls say no.
> > > > > With her book, 'Going Rogue,' released today, Sarah Palin is red meat to the
> > > > > far right. But Palin's poll numbers have slid significantly since she quit
> > > > > as Alaska governor.
>
> > > > Then I'll ask again -- why are leftists so obsessed with a woman they
> > > > think is irrelevant and has no political future? Can one of you
> > > > radical fringe leftists please explain it to me?
>
> > > Eh yah Bob like she was trying to live a quiet life in Alaska taking
> > > care of her disabled baby and giving her family a break from the
> > > scrutiny of the media ... like, duh.
>
> > If she's so irrelevant, why do leftists help elevate her notoriety the
> > way they do?
>
> We're not elevating her :-)
You're elevating her notoriety every time you obsess over her and
start a new thread about her.
>
> We're commenting on how she's such an idiot and how stupid some
> Americans are to ever take her seriously.
That's how some Americans are starting to feel about Barack Obama. Do
you know that his latest approval numbers are in about the same range
as hers are?
Bob
>
> I'd ask you the same thing. How many times will you and you brethren ignore
> defending a shallow woman who couldn't follow through on her self-described
If she's so irrelevant, why are so many leftists obsessed with her?
Bob
Speaking of falling, your little country's falling birth means your
country will be history before ours will.
Jane
I won't be around to care, Sweetie.
Woodswun
Canada is the 2nd biggest country on earth, and if Russia keeps on
shrinking,soon they will be first!
;-)
Woods
Steven Douglas
The shrinking population in ALL of Canada is already smaller than the
population of California alone.
Marvin The Paranoid Android
Heard of a thing called immigration? Or immigrants don't count as
people through your Palin-Coloured Glasses?
Jane
We are quite happy to have it that way. In case you haven't noticed,
most of Canada is relatively uninhabitable. Therefore, the population
is concentrated in certain small areas. The Greater Toronto Area is
crowded enough already, thank you very much.
We went through this debate already in an earlier thread.
Jane
LOL! He doesn't want to face the fact that the main reason the U.S. is
bucking the declining birthrate trend of other industrialized nations
is the large Hispanic population, along with some Mormon megafamilies
in the *Heartland*. Stevie may just have to move to Utah, lol!
Doc
Because she and her rabid followers are so 'obsessed' with her(self).
Marvin The Paranoid Android
er ... yeah ... but somehow this is related to Sarah Palin being at
the bottom of the presidential hopeful poll ...
<cue Twilight Zone music>
Steven Douglas
We're already had this conversation, Marvin. First of all, my
Grandfather was an immigrant. Of course immigrants are people.
Secondly, as I've already informed you (though you'd rather keep your
head in the sand), you're not taking in enough immigrants to solve
your problem:
Headline: "Canada's big problem -- too few babies"
By Leonard Stern, Times Colonist
July 17, 2009
[excerpt] If Canada has never really sounded the alarm about the low
fertility rate, it's because we had an antidote -- immigration. After
all, we're a nation that is comfortable with, and even celebrates,
multiculturalism. Most of us were ourselves once newcomers. A Japanese
diplomat once told me that his assignment in Canada was to acquire
lessons on the merits of multiculturalism in an effort to convince the
Japanese people that, for them also, immigration will fix the problem
of an aging society.
Now it turns out that the curative power of immigration was vastly
overstated. The sobering revelation arrived last month courtesy of the
C.D. Howe Institute, the eminent Canadian think tank.
The C.D. Howe folks crunched the numbers, did the modelling and
discovered that the current influx of immigrants -- about 0.67 per
cent of the resident population -- barely makes a dent.
The data show that the only way immigration could offset the declining
birth rate is if Canada dismantles border controls and floods the
country with well over a half million immigrants a year.
Even then, the government would need to impose rigid "age filters" to
ensure that only young people are among the new arrivals. This is
radical stuff and therefore politically not feasible.
The security issues are obvious. Absorption would be impossible. The
age filters would spell the end of family reunification and would be
objected to on humane grounds.
The C.D. Howe Institute acknowledges as much, concluding that the time
has come to look at alternatives to immigration.
If Canadians don't want the country to go bankrupt, then we have to
start working harder (boosting "output" per worker) and having a lot
more children.
Unfortunately, these are incompatible goals. The more we are forced to
boost our output at the office or factory, the less likely we are to
have children. [end excerpt]
© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist
http://www.timescolonist.com/technology/Canada%2Bproblem%2Bbabies/1800230/story.html
Steven Douglas
That's wonderful, but it doesn't solve the problem that your country
will be facing labor shortages in the next few years as the population
ages. Even with your current immigration policy, the problem will not
be solved.
>
> We went through this debate already in an earlier thread.
Yes, I know. So the problem goes away if we don't talk about it?
Steven Douglas
You know, the warped view some Canadians have of this country is
actually funny! There's a lot more to the *Heartland* than Utah, and
there's a lot more to our higher birthrate than Hispanics (though they
do contribute). People in the Heartland have larger families, on
average, than big city people do. Our culture will go on and on, while
yours will disappear. It will interesting, though sad, to watch. Not
that you care. I wonder what your children and future grandchildren
would think of your indifference to the disappearing country they
stood to inherit?
Steven Douglas
>
> "Bob" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> Because she and her rabid followers are so 'obsessed' with her(self).
She's a "celebrity" according to Woods. She's out of politics,
according to Woods. What other "celebrity" gets this kind of obsessive
treatment from leftists?
Steven Douglas
It's called "thread drift," as described by Jane. Ask her about it.
Woodswun
wrote:
Yes, but your grandfather was a *white* immigrant, who are all legal
immigrants. The problem is all those black, brown and asian
immigrants, who you just know are all illegal, because there was a
raid once near you where they hauled some people out of a house (as if
immigration authorities always check for status before they haul
people out of a house ...).
>
> Headline: "Canada's big problem -- too few babies"
Canada's simple solution - let more immigrants in when the need
arises.
Woods
> http://www.timescolonist.com/technology/Canada%2Bproblem%2Bbabies/180...
Woodswun
wrote:
Canadians have an exceptionally clear view of this country. They get
all the same networks that you do, plus their own.
Woods
Steven Douglas
He came through Ellis Island. He jumped through all the hoops that
were required of that entry point.
>
> The problem is all those black, brown and asian
> immigrants, who you just know are all illegal, because there was a
> raid once near you where they hauled some people out of a house (as if
> immigration authorities always check for status before they haul
> people out of a house ...).
What the hell are you blathering about? You know nothing about me,
Woods. You know nothing of the immigrants (of all races) I work with
on a daily basis. You know nothing of the people I've helped get the
proper documents to become legal residents. You know nothing of the
INS raid that happened at a place where I was INSIDE the place when it
happened. And when it was over, not one person was removed because
they all had legal documents. So shove your STUPID conjecture about me
up your ass, and stop talking out of it.
>
> > Headline: "Canada's big problem -- too few babies"
>
> Canada's simple solution - let more immigrants in when the need
> arises.
It's not that simple, simpleton. And you'd know that if you were
better informed. Start by reading the article that appears just below:
Steven Douglas
Obviously not, since Marvin thought New York's 23rd district election
was about a Senate seat. And Jane apparently thinks the Heartland
consists only of Utah and Mormons.
>
> They get all the same networks that you do, plus their own.
If all I watched was MSNBC and read leftist blogs, I'd have a warped
view of this country, too.
Rod's SHAW
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:fccd3202-0a44-4b42...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
Our culture will go on and on, while
yours will disappear.
fwiw, ...... the 2 'cultures' of which you speak are essentially identical.
The "people" are very similar. It is at the leadership levels and foreign
policy levels where there is a noticeable/marked difference.
Marvin The Paranoid Android
wrote:
Spoken like a true concern trolling nationalistic nut.
Keep on clinging ... you're wasting your time.
The only constant is change. Eh. ;-)
Woodswun
wrote:
> On Nov 21, 10:20 am, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Canadians have an exceptionally clear view of this country.
>
> Obviously not, since Marvin thought New York's 23rd district election
> was about a Senate seat.
Oh, did he? What did he say?
>And Jane apparently thinks the Heartland
> consists only of Utah and Mormons.
>
Does she? Since when?
>
>
> > They get all the same networks that you do, plus their own.
>
> If all I watched was MSNBC and read leftist blogs, I'd have a warped
> view of this country, too.
MSNBC isn't a network, it's a cable station. I was referring to ABC,
NBC, CBS and FOX. You know, TV networks??
Woods
Doc
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:c424ca7e-9e3f-4dc5...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Well, let's not be stupid or coy, junior. She is being touted as a 'serious'
candidate by 30% of the Right, including you.
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.
You're talking gibberish, and you keep soiling yourself.
Jane
> On Nov 21, 1:43 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 10:20 am, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Canadians have an exceptionally clear view of this country.
>
> > Obviously not, since Marvin thought New York's 23rd district election
> > was about a Senate seat.
>
> Oh, did he? What did he say?
>
> >And Jane apparently thinks the Heartland
> > consists only of Utah and Mormons.
>
> Does she? Since when?
>
let Steve think what he wants, :).
>
> > > They get all the same networks that you do, plus their own.
>
> > If all I watched was MSNBC and read leftist blogs, I'd have a warped
> > view of this country, too.
>
> MSNBC isn't a network, it's a cable station. I was referring to ABC,
> NBC, CBS and FOX. You know, TV networks??
>
> Woods
We get 'em all up here. Imagine that! In fact, Canadians are far more
informed about the U.S. than *most* Americans are about Canada (or the
rest of the world, for that matter).
Jane
> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
He's taken total leave of his senses. Must be that 'sexual tension' he
was talking about. Apparently, it's on his end, as it sure as hell
isn't on mine!
Jane
wrote:
Oh Yay! The same old cite! What a surprise...
Jane
Woodswun
Yes, I know (I used to live near the border). Steven is, once again,
embarrassing himself without even knowing it.
Woods
Jane
He's getting very good at that.
Steven Douglas
>
> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> yours will disappear.
>
> fwiw, ...... the 2 'cultures' of which you speak are essentially identical.
> The "people" are very similar. It is at the leadership levels and foreign
> policy levels where there is a noticeable/marked difference.
Yes, I agree with that. But my comment pertained to the fact that
Canada has a negative birth rate, and is not taking in enough
immigrants to make up for it. As they increase the number of
immigrants, and the immigrants bring their own cultures with them, the
prevailing Canadian culture will eventually be lost. There was already
a movement to bring Sharia Law to Canada. Within a few decades, look
for that to be the rule of law there.
Steven Douglas
Why does it bother you that I love my country? What's it to you?
>
> Keep on clinging ... you're wasting your time.
>
> The only constant is change. Eh. ;-)
Yes, we'll be watching Canada change as our Heartland continues to
produce a positive birth rate. Just think, all those conservatives
being born in the Heartland, while the major metropolitan liberal
women are having fewer pregnancies (and aborting many of those). Fewer
liberals, more conservatives. That's the trend in this country right
now, as the two Governorships that just went Republican demonstrates.
Steven Douglas
>
> On Nov 21, 1:43 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 10:20 am, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Canadians have an exceptionally clear view of this country.
>
> > Obviously not, since Marvin thought New York's 23rd district election
> > was about a Senate seat.
>
> Oh, did he? What did he say?
Just what I wrote above, he referred to it as a Senate election.
>
> >And Jane apparently thinks the Heartland
> > consists only of Utah and Mormons.
>
> Does she? Since when?
When she said (above in this thread), "LOL! He doesn't want to face
the fact that the main reason the U.S. is bucking the declining
birthrate trend of other industrialized nations is the large Hispanic
population, along with some Mormon megafamilies in the *Heartland*.
Stevie may just have to move to Utah, lol!"
That looks to me like the Heartland consists of Mormons in Utah, where
she thinks I may have to move. Of course she also doesn't understand
that much of California is very much like the Heartland. Only the
three major metropolitan areas are liberal. The rest of California is
very much conservative.
>
> > > They get all the same networks that you do, plus their own.
>
> > If all I watched was MSNBC and read leftist blogs, I'd have a warped
> > view of this country, too.
>
> MSNBC isn't a network, it's a cable station.
Well, actually, cable stations also refer to themselves as networks.
The Cable News Network, for instance. USA Network, for instance. Etc.
etc. etc.
>
> I was referring to ABC,
> NBC, CBS and FOX. You know, TV networks??
How wonderful.
Steven Douglas
I wouldn't know it from what I see on this group.
Steven Douglas
>
> On Nov 21, 7:28 pm, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > > "Bob" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >If she's so irrelevant, why are so many leftists obsessed with her?
>
> > > Because she and her rabid followers are so 'obsessed' with her(self).
>
> > She's a "celebrity" according to Woods. She's out of politics,
> > according to Woods. What other "celebrity" gets this kind of obsessive
> > treatment from leftists?
>
> > Well, let's not be stupid or coy, junior. She is being touted as a 'serious'
> > candidate by 30% of the Right, including you.
> > Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.
> > You're talking gibberish, and you keep soiling yourself.
>
> He's taken total leave of his senses. Must be that 'sexual tension' he
> was talking about. Apparently, it's on his end, as it sure as hell
> isn't on mine!
No, as I told Marvin at the time, on my end it's all about a case of
misplaced loyalty.
Steven Douglas
I reposted it because Marvin indicated that he had not read it the
first time I posted it.
Steven Douglas
I'm not thrilled about the prospect of having a Canadastan north of
the border. Maybe that will be Canada's final revenge, eh?
Jane
That's because you only see what you want to see. you also can't
follow humour or sarcasm and so most things go screaming over your
head.
Steven Douglas
Are you still trying to dig yourself out of the embarrassment of not
knowing what is going on in your own state's 23rd district election?
Are you trying to throw your own embarrassment onto me so you don't
have to feel embarrassed anymore? I know Canadians have access to
Canadian networks. If I wanted to pay for it, I could have access to
Canadian networks, too. In fact, I used to get many foreign networks
on my big satellite dish. Those networks are still available, if I
choose to pay for them.
Steven Douglas
Actually, that would be Woods. Did you know she was completely unaware
of what was happening within her own state? I tried to inform her, and
she told me I was wrong. Imagine that. Being told I was wrong by the
almost-always-wrong Woods. And once again, it was Woods who was wrong.
Jane
wrote:
> On Nov 21, 4:52 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 12:46 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 21, 2:32 am, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > We went through this debate already in an earlier thread.
>
> > > Yes, I know. So the problem goes away if we don't talk about it?
>
> > What's it to you anyway?
>
> I'm not thrilled about the prospect of having a Canadastan north of
> the border. Maybe that will be Canada's final revenge, eh?
Get a fucking grip. You'll be long dead before that happens...if it
ever does. Meanwhile, you'll be living in sunny little Mexico, and
probably better for it. At least Hispanics have some joie de vivre!
Steven Douglas
>
> On Nov 21, 10:44 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 4:52 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 21, 12:46 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 21, 2:32 am, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > We went through this debate already in an earlier thread.
>
> > > > Yes, I know. So the problem goes away if we don't talk about it?
>
> > > What's it to you anyway?
>
> > I'm not thrilled about the prospect of having a Canadastan north of
> > the border. Maybe that will be Canada's final revenge, eh?
>
> Get a fucking grip. You'll be long dead before that happens...if it
> ever does.
So that's all that matters? Your own selfish life is all that matters?
What about the next generation? And the one after that? You really are
selfish, aren't you? A self-absorbed narcissist, with no empathy, who
could care less about anyone but herself. That's you, you've proven
it.
>
> Meanwhile, you'll be living in sunny little Mexico, and
> probably better for it. At least Hispanics have some joie de vivre!
They're also predominantly Christian, and share many of our values.
But don't worry, there are plenty of people in the Heartland (which
includes parts of the entire country, from one coast to the other, and
from border to border) who will be having plenty of babies and keeping
our culture alive and well ... while yours goes away.
Woodswun
wrote:
> On Nov 21, 4:27 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 1:43 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 21, 10:20 am, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Canadians have an exceptionally clear view of this country.
>
> > > Obviously not, since Marvin thought New York's 23rd district election
> > > was about a Senate seat.
>
> > Oh, did he? What did he say?
>
> Just what I wrote above, he referred to it as a Senate election.
Was that a quote, or a summary? I suspect the latter, which means
you're interpretting.
>
>
>
> > >And Jane apparently thinks the Heartland
> > > consists only of Utah and Mormons.
>
> > Does she? Since when?
>
> When she said (above in this thread), "LOL! He doesn't want to face
> the fact that the main reason the U.S. is bucking the declining
> birthrate trend of other industrialized nations is the large Hispanic
> population, along with some Mormon megafamilies in the *Heartland*.
> Stevie may just have to move to Utah, lol!"
>
> That looks to me like the Heartland consists of Mormons in Utah,
Well, it doesn't look that way to me.
>where
> she thinks I may have to move. Of course she also doesn't understand
> that much of California is very much like the Heartland. Only the
> three major metropolitan areas are liberal. The rest of California is
> very much conservative.
I thought you said California's legislature was run by Democrats? How
can that be if only small portions of California are liberal and "the
rest of California is very much conservative"?
>
>
>
> > > > They get all the same networks that you do, plus their own.
>
> > > If all I watched was MSNBC and read leftist blogs, I'd have a warped
> > > view of this country, too.
>
> > MSNBC isn't a network, it's a cable station.
>
> Well, actually, cable stations also refer to themselves as networks.
> The Cable News Network, for instance. USA Network, for instance. Etc.
> etc. etc.
Those are names. You know, like "Mickey Mouse"? He's not a real
mouse, you know!
Woods
Woodswun
I know what is up with the 23rd district - my family and in-laws all
live in the district.
Sheesh, but you are an idiot.
> Are you trying to throw your own embarrassment onto me so you don't
> have to feel embarrassed anymore? I know Canadians have access to
> Canadian networks. If I wanted to pay for it, I could have access to
> Canadian networks, too. In fact, I used to get many foreign networks
> on my big satellite dish. Those networks are still available, if I
> choose to pay for them.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or are you deliberately
mistating everything? Canadians have all the American networks in
addition to their own.
Woods
Jane
> On Nov 21, 7:50 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 10:44 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 21, 4:52 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 21, 12:46 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 21, 2:32 am, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > We went through this debate already in an earlier thread.
>
> > > > > Yes, I know. So the problem goes away if we don't talk about it?
>
> > > > What's it to you anyway?
>
> > > I'm not thrilled about the prospect of having a Canadastan north of
> > > the border. Maybe that will be Canada's final revenge, eh?
>
> > Get a fucking grip. You'll be long dead before that happens...if it
> > ever does.
>
> So that's all that matters? Your own selfish life is all that matters?
> What about the next generation? And the one after that? You really are
> selfish, aren't you?
No, I think those who hope for infinite growth at the expense of the
planet so that they can continue to live in insulated, gated,
homogeneous McMansions are the selfish ones, frankly.
A self-absorbed narcissist, with no empathy, who
> could care less about anyone but herself. That's you, you've proven
> it.
Since my son dates girls of different races, I may well end up with
grandchildren that are not as lily-white as I am. So what?
>
> > Meanwhile, you'll be living in sunny little Mexico, and
> > probably better for it. At least Hispanics have some joie de vivre!
>
> They're also predominantly Christian, and share many of our values.
So America is for Christians? Thought you believed in separation of
church and state? Nope, you obviously believe America is only for
Christians. That's you, you've proven it.
(A fine example of Steven-Bob-logic, right there, lol)
> But don't worry, there are plenty of people in the Heartland (which
> includes parts of the entire country, from one coast to the other, and
> from border to border) who will be having plenty of babies and keeping
> our culture alive and well ... while yours goes away.
Don't hold your breath.
Jane
He has a brutal comprehension problem! He proves it everyday.
Jane
Your *big* satellite dish? You are behind the times! Don't see too
many of those old relics around here.
Those networks are still available, if I
> choose to pay for them.
Really? Still available? Wow, are you ever lucky!
Sheesh...how do you manage to put one foot in front of the other?
Rod's SHAW
Yes, I agree with that. But my comment pertained to the fact that
Canada has a negative birth rate, and is not taking in enough
immigrants to make up for it.
AGreed ......... if the debate is 'maintaining population'. It's a
completely different argument when the issue is 'maintaining culture'.
As they increase the number of
immigrants, and the immigrants bring their own cultures with them, the
prevailing Canadian culture will eventually be lost.
THat is also true. Canada (unbeknownst to many an American :) is to say the
least, multicultural - but predominantly TWO. The French & the English. It's
always a contentious National issue.
There was already
a movement to bring Sharia Law to Canada. Within a few decades, look
for that to be the rule of law there.
Speaking as a non-believer (in any of the Religious options out there these
days) - I pay little or no attention to all of that. However, the
demographics are bearing that out, all right. There was an interesting
little graphic/text thingy circulating on the net a while back RE: the
propagation of Islam. Canada is not alone. It's coming to a place near you
in the not to distant future as well. It's somewhat disconcerting. At least
right now one can exist as a dormant atheist - but the consequences of being
labeled an infidel in a Muslim state are a tad more dire LOLOLOL
Woodswun
Canadian TV networks are not available to persons living in the United
States. I'm sure you know ex-pats living in the U.S. who have run
into that in their vain attempt to get decent hockey and some curling
on American TV. The satellite companies don't even have a hobglob of
Canadian programming available as a "Canadian" station (I looked for
my mom, since Canada has MUCH better olympic coverage than the US
networks, as you no doubt know all too well!!). There is a way to get
Canadian networks in the U.S., but not from any American satellite
company.
>
> Sheesh...how do you manage to put one foot in front of the other?
He doesn't, he puts one foot in his mouth.
Woods
Woodswun
No, you can't. Cough up the web site of your American satellite TV
provider that lists any Canadian networks available for you to watch.
Woods
JTEM
"Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sarah Palin
We have a President. We are knee deep in the worst
economic crisis since the Great Depression. All of
the foreign-policy disasters that Bush started are still
going on. Our treasury was looted to pay off the
mistakes of billionaires, AND to make good on the
salaries they pay themselves. We are in the middle of
a fight for the most important piece of legislation our
nation has seen since the PATRIOT ACT.
Why the fuck are you talking about 2012?
America is the only developed nation in the western
world that says health care is a luxury, and that if
you're poor, lose your job or come down with an
expensive disease or condition you should just go
fuck yourself.
I'm worried about the disaster of a President we have
now, the fake Democrat who doesn't want to bring us
in line with such economic powerhouses as Canada
and France, and you're babbling on about Sarah Palin,
an ex politician out selling a book.
Woodswun
A president isn't a dictator - the passage of a health care bill has
to be done by Congress, and there are a lot of special interests
spending huge amounts of money (lobbying and advertisements0 to make
sure that doesn't happen.
Woods
Woods
Steven Douglas
>
> On Nov 21, 10:37 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 4:27 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 21, 1:43 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 21, 10:20 am, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Canadians have an exceptionally clear view of this country.
>
> > > > Obviously not, since Marvin thought New York's 23rd district election
> > > > was about a Senate seat.
>
> > > Oh, did he? What did he say?
>
> > Just what I wrote above, he referred to it as a Senate election.
>
> Was that a quote, or a summary? I suspect the latter, which means
> you're interpretting.
You suspect wrong, which means you're wrong -- again. Tell me, Woods,
do you never tire of being wrong? You do it so often, maybe you're
numb to it.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/msg/344afd712bb448dd?hl=en
>
> > > >And Jane apparently thinks the Heartland
> > > > consists only of Utah and Mormons.
>
> > > Does she? Since when?
>
> > When she said (above in this thread), "LOL! He doesn't want to face
> > the fact that the main reason the U.S. is bucking the declining
> > birthrate trend of other industrialized nations is the large Hispanic
> > population, along with some Mormon megafamilies in the *Heartland*.
> > Stevie may just have to move to Utah, lol!"
>
> > That looks to me like the Heartland consists of Mormons in Utah,
>
> Well, it doesn't look that way to me.
Why would I have to move to Utah to be in the Heartland, then? I can
stay in California (parts of it, anyway), and be in the Heartland.
>
> >where
> > she thinks I may have to move. Of course she also doesn't understand
> > that much of California is very much like the Heartland. Only the
> > three major metropolitan areas are liberal. The rest of California is
> > very much conservative.
>
> I thought you said California's legislature was run by Democrats? How
> can that be if only small portions of California are liberal and "the
> rest of California is very much conservative"?
It's about concentrations of population. I'm even you can understand
that concept. You can, can't you? If not, I'll be happy to explain it
further.
>
> > > > > They get all the same networks that you do, plus their own.
>
> > > > If all I watched was MSNBC and read leftist blogs, I'd have a warped
> > > > view of this country, too.
>
> > > MSNBC isn't a network, it's a cable station.
>
> > Well, actually, cable stations also refer to themselves as networks.
> > The Cable News Network, for instance. USA Network, for instance. Etc.
> > etc. etc.
>
> Those are names. You know, like "Mickey Mouse"? He's not a real
> mouse, you know!
Incredible.
Steven Douglas
Obviously you didn't know what was up with the 23rd district, since
you told me that election was over a long time ago, and then proceeded
to argue with me repeatedly when I told you it wasn't over. The
Conservative candidate is taking THIS weekend to decide if he'll
contest the vote count. It could go on for a long time to come, and
you argued with me that it was all over a long time ago. Sheesh, talk
about wrong! In your own state!
>
> > Are you trying to throw your own embarrassment onto me so you don't
> > have to feel embarrassed anymore? I know Canadians have access to
> > Canadian networks. If I wanted to pay for it, I could have access to
> > Canadian networks, too. In fact, I used to get many foreign networks
> > on my big satellite dish. Those networks are still available, if I
> > choose to pay for them.
>
> Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or are you deliberately
> mistating everything? Canadians have all the American networks in
> addition to their own.
I meant to say, "I know Canadians have access to American networks."
But I mistakenly typed "Canadian" instead of "American" in one
sentence. I'm sure you've never made such a mistake.
Steven Douglas
>
> On Nov 21, 10:57 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 7:50 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 21, 10:44 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 21, 4:52 pm, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 21, 12:46 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 21, 2:32 am, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > We went through this debate already in an earlier thread.
>
> > > > > > Yes, I know. So the problem goes away if we don't talk about it?
>
> > > > > What's it to you anyway?
>
> > > > I'm not thrilled about the prospect of having a Canadastan north of
> > > > the border. Maybe that will be Canada's final revenge, eh?
>
> > > Get a fucking grip. You'll be long dead before that happens...if it
> > > ever does.
>
> > So that's all that matters? Your own selfish life is all that matters?
> > What about the next generation? And the one after that? You really are
> > selfish, aren't you?
>
> No, I think those who hope for infinite growth at the expense of the
> planet so that they can continue to live in insulated, gated,
> homogeneous McMansions are the selfish ones, frankly.
We're talking about national cultures right now. We can have a bad
economy, but our culture remains the same. We might have a supposed
oil crash, but our culture (our underlying values) will remain the
same. But your country's culture is doomed, and you don't care because
you won't be around to worry about it. Never mind the effect it will
have on your children and (potential) future grandchildren and great-
grandchildren.
>
> >A self-absorbed narcissist, with no empathy, who
> > could care less about anyone but herself. That's you, you've proven
> > it.
>
> Since my son dates girls of different races, I may well end up with
> grandchildren that are not as lily-white as I am. So what?
Color has nothing to do with anything.
>
> > > Meanwhile, you'll be living in sunny little Mexico, and
> > > probably better for it. At least Hispanics have some joie de vivre!
>
> > They're also predominantly Christian, and share many of our values.
>
> So America is for Christians? Thought you believed in separation of
> church and state?
I do. I was responding to your taunt about little Mexico. We have many
second and third generation Mexican-Americans born here, and they and
I are equally American (I'm also second generation American born).
>
> Nope, you obviously believe America is only for
> Christians. That's you, you've proven it.
Wrong. I've never said anything of the kind, liar.
>
> (A fine example of Steven-Bob-logic, right there, lol)
No, you've just shown a fine example of vindictive bitch logic.
>
> > But don't worry, there are plenty of people in the Heartland (which
> > includes parts of the entire country, from one coast to the other, and
> > from border to border) who will be having plenty of babies and keeping
> > our culture alive and well ... while yours goes away.
>
> Don't hold your breath.
Oh, it's going to happen. The only solution Canada has is to import as
many immigrants as possible. Unless you can import enough immigrants
(and you can't) who already share your current culture, your culture
will be replaced by whatever culture the new majority of immigrants
will bring with them.
Jane
wrote:
> On Nov 21, 8:19 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 10:37 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 21, 4:27 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 21, 1:43 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 21, 10:20 am, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Canadians have an exceptionally clear view of this country.
>
> > > > > Obviously not, since Marvin thought New York's 23rd district election
> > > > > was about a Senate seat.
>
> > > > Oh, did he? What did he say?
>
> > > Just what I wrote above, he referred to it as a Senate election.
>
> > Was that a quote, or a summary? I suspect the latter, which means
> > you're interpretting.
>
> You suspect wrong, which means you're wrong -- again. Tell me, Woods,
> do you never tire of being wrong? You do it so often, maybe you're
> numb to it.
>
>
>
>
> > > > >And Jane apparently thinks the Heartland
> > > > > consists only of Utah and Mormons.
>
> > > > Does she? Since when?
>
> > > When she said (above in this thread), "LOL! He doesn't want to face
> > > the fact that the main reason the U.S. is bucking the declining
> > > birthrate trend of other industrialized nations is the large Hispanic
> > > population, along with some Mormon megafamilies in the *Heartland*.
> > > Stevie may just have to move to Utah, lol!"
>
> > > That looks to me like the Heartland consists of Mormons in Utah,
>
> > Well, it doesn't look that way to me.
>
> Why would I have to move to Utah to be in the Heartland, then? I can
> stay in California (parts of it, anyway), and be in the Heartland.
>
I forget sometimes that you take everything literally. Sorry.
Steven Douglas
I loved my big dish. And notice the past tense, both in my paragraph
above and in what I just typed. Talk about a comprehension problem!
>
> >Those networks are still available, if I choose to pay for them.
>
> Really? Still available? Wow, are you ever lucky!
Why?
>
> Sheesh...how do you manage to put one foot in front of the other?
I'm doing quite well, thank you.
Steven Douglas
>
> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> >Yes, I agree with that. But my comment pertained to the fact that
> >Canada has a negative birth rate, and is not taking in enough
> >immigrants to make up for it.
>
> AGreed ......... if the debate is 'maintaining population'. It's a
> completely different argument when the issue is 'maintaining culture'.
>
> >As they increase the number of
> >immigrants, and the immigrants bring their own cultures with them, the
> >prevailing Canadian culture will eventually be lost.
>
> THat is also true. Canada (unbeknownst to many an American :) is to say the
> least, multicultural - but predominantly TWO. The French & the English. It's
> always a contentious National issue.
>
> > There was already
> >a movement to bring Sharia Law to Canada. Within a few decades, look
> >for that to be the rule of law there.
>
> Speaking as a non-believer (in any of the Religious options out there these
> days) - I pay little or no attention to all of that. However, the
> demographics are bearing that out, all right. There was an interesting
> little graphic/text thingy circulating on the net a while back RE: the
> propagation of Islam. Canada is not alone. It's coming to a place near you
> in the not to distant future as well.
It's already here, but it's a tiny minority. We have a much larger
population than Canada, and we can bring in people from many different
cultures without losing our own. We have little pockets of many
diverse cultures all around our country. But for the most part, even
though those people enjoy their little pockets of their own culture,
they blend in with the larger existing culture that is America.
>
> It's somewhat disconcerting. At least
> right now one can exist as a dormant atheist - but the consequences of being
> labeled an infidel in a Muslim state are a tad more dire LOLOLOL
Yes, I'm glad you recognize that. I notice many atheists (for whatever
reason) think they're exempt from the *infidel* label. Atheists will
be the first ones to go. "People of the book" will be allowed to
remain in a secondary-citizen status.
Steven Douglas
>
> Canadian TV networks are not available to persons living in the United
> States. I'm sure you know ex-pats living in the U.S. who have run
> into that in their vain attempt to get decent hockey and some curling
> on American TV.
Not if they know how to go about it.
>
> The satellite companies don't even have a hobglob of
> Canadian programming available as a "Canadian" station (I looked for
> my mom, since Canada has MUCH better olympic coverage than the US
> networks, as you no doubt know all too well!!). There is a way to get
> Canadian networks in the U.S., but not from any American satellite
> company.
I said nothing about American satellite companies.
Steven Douglas
What I said is that I once was able to get Canadian television with my
big dish, free. I could watch feeds for all the different time zones.
I had plenty of Canadian television. But then all the channels began
to go digital, so I switched to the little dish. But I miss my big
dish. I miss all the wild feeds, sports, news, Canadian television,
etc. etc. However, as I said, if I want to pay for it, I could have
Canadian television right now. It is available, and I'd have to wonder
how any Canadian could live here without knowing how to get it, since
I know and I'm not Canadian.
Woodswun
wrote:
So, you're stealing satellite feeds. Lovely ... and so very
"Christian" of you!
Woods
Rod's SHAW
.
.
.
.
On Nov 21, 9:44 pm, "Rod's SHAW" <rod.g...@removethis.shaw.ca> wrote:
>
There was an interesting
> little graphic/text thingy circulating on the net a while back RE: the
> propagation of Islam. Canada is not alone. It's coming to a place near you
> in the not to distant future as well.
fyi .... took a while to find it again:
Jane
> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
There was an issue a few years back where a Muslim group wanted sharia
law in Ontario for family issues only. It did not happen and it will
not happen. People can ask for anything, but as long as Canada has the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, something as discriminatory as sharia
is a non-starter. Even if someone managed to bring it in, it would
lose the first court challenge...and there would be challenges.
Progressive Muslim women were the most vocal in opposition to it, not
suprisingly.
Woodswun
was:
"If I wanted to pay for it, I could have access to
Canadian networks, too. In fact, I used to get many foreign networks
on my big satellite dish. Those networks are still available, if I
choose to pay for them. "
Those networks are not available whether you choose to pay for them or
not.
>is that I once was able to get Canadian television with my
> big dish, free. I could watch feeds for all the different time zones.
By stealing a signal for which you hadn't paid, yes.
> I had plenty of Canadian television. But then all the channels began
> to go digital, so I switched to the little dish.
Translation: "But all the companies started encrypting the signal
because so many vultures like me were stealing the signals without
paying, so I ended up having to pay for a service that decoded the
encryption".
>But I miss my big
> dish. I miss all the wild feeds, sports, news, Canadian television,
> etc. etc. However, as I said, if I want to pay for it, I could have
> Canadian television right now. It is available, and I'd have to wonder
> how any Canadian could live here without knowing how to get it, since
> I know and I'm not Canadian.
So, cough up the site that tells you how to sign up for it. I'd
appreciate it, since I want to get Canadian satellite for my mom in
time for the olympics.
Woods
Jane
I worked with a man who used to tell me how *Christian* he and his
wife were. They even named their son 'Josiah' (poor kid; almost as bad
as being named 'Trig'). The wife used to shop at Winners all the time
(I think it is the same chain as TJ Max in the U.S...off price, low-
end designer stuff, like Ralph Lauren and Tommy Hilfiger). She would
wear it once and then return it. They saw nothing wrong with that.
Woodswun
I have yet to meet anyone who makes a lot of noise about how Christian
they are who does not also engage in similar, or worse, behaviors. No
kidding, we actually had one of those fundie type churches near here
try to steal someone else's land by starting to maintain it, after it
came out in the news that someone who maintains "abandonned property"
can take ownership. So, they set about fencing off the back portion
of some elderly farmer's land, putting up picnic tables etc, the whole
bit. Some neighbor clued him in on what this Christian church was
doing, so he took the stuff down - and the church tried to sue him and
steal his land out from under him. No kidding. They lost, of
course. Can you imagine a whole group of atheists trying to pull a
stunt like that?!? Un.real.
Woods
Steven Douglas
False.
>
> Lovely ... and so very "Christian" of you!
Lovely ... bearing false witness isn't very Christian either, Woods.
Woodswun
wrote:
> On Nov 22, 9:28 am, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 22, 12:07 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 21, 9:45 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Canadian TV networks are not available to persons living in the United
> > > > States. I'm sure you know ex-pats living in the U.S. who have run
> > > > into that in their vain attempt to get decent hockey and some curling
> > > > on American TV.
>
> > > Not if they know how to go about it.
>
> > > > The satellite companies don't even have a hobglob of
> > > > Canadian programming available as a "Canadian" station (I looked for
> > > > my mom, since Canada has MUCH better olympic coverage than the US
> > > > networks, as you no doubt know all too well!!). There is a way to get
> > > > Canadian networks in the U.S., but not from any American satellite
> > > > company.
>
> > > I said nothing about American satellite companies.
>
> > So, you're stealing satellite feeds.
>
> False.
>
So, where's the web site that details how anyone in the United States
can legally get Canadian satellite feeds?
>
>
> > Lovely ... and so very "Christian" of you!
>
> Lovely ... bearing false witness isn't very Christian either, Woods.
I'm not. I've researched it. If you have some information I haven't
been able to locate, please do and I'll be more than happy to
acknowledge that you can, indeed, legally get Canadian satellite
feeds.
Woods
Steven Douglas
>
> >There was an interesting
> > little graphic/text thingy circulating on the net a while back RE: the
> > propagation of Islam. Canada is not alone. It's coming to a place near you
> > in the not to distant future as well.
>
> fyi .... took a while to find it again:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU
That's very interesting. Thanks for posting it. If the new Islamic
majorities, which are coming to some European countries and Canada,
consist of mostly moderate Muslims, we should be fine. However the
cultures of those counties will change, with Sharia Law finally taking
hold in some cases.
Steven Douglas
>
> There was an issue a few years back where a Muslim group wanted sharia
> law in Ontario for family issues only. It did not happen and it will
> not happen. People can ask for anything, but as long as Canada has the
> Charter of Rights and Freedoms, something as discriminatory as sharia
> is a non-starter.
Why? Ontario allowed Catholic and Jewish religious tribunals for years
before Muslims asked for equal treatment. It was only after Muslims
wanted Sharia Law that the government there decided it had to ban ALL
religious tribunals to keep Muslims from having theirs. But if it was
fine for Catholics and Jews, why won't it someday happen for Muslims
when they have the majority -- in the not all that distant future?
[excerpt] Ontario, the most populous province in Canada, has allowed
Catholic and Jewish faith-based tribunals to settle family law matters
such as divorce on a voluntary basis since 1991.
The practice got little attention until Muslim leaders demanded the
same rights.
Officials had to decide whether to exclude one religion, or whether to
scrap the religious family courts altogether.
McGuinty said such courts "threaten our common ground," and promised
his Liberal government would introduce legislation as soon as possible
to outlaw them in Ontario. [end excerpt]
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1126472943217_26/?hub=TopStories
>
> Even if someone managed to bring it in, it would
> lose the first court challenge...and there would be challenges.
I wonder why Catholic and Jewish tribunals didn't lose court
challenges starting in 1991 and after?
>
> Progressive Muslim women were the most vocal in opposition to it, not
> suprisingly.
Hopefully there will be many more progressive Muslim women when
Muslims become the majority of Canadians.
Steven Douglas
Not true. There are Canadians living in the United States who pay to
receive Canadian television.
>
> >is that I once was able to get Canadian television with my
> > big dish, free. I could watch feeds for all the different time zones.
>
> By stealing a signal for which you hadn't paid, yes.
No. It was on the satellite, unencrypted, for many years, as were many
other channels. Once they started encrypting them, I did not steal
them, I started paying for the ones I wanted.
>
> > I had plenty of Canadian television. But then all the channels began
> > to go digital, so I switched to the little dish.
>
> Translation: "But all the companies started encrypting the signal
> because so many vultures like me were stealing the signals without
> paying, so I ended up having to pay for a service that decoded the
> encryption".
That is absolutely false. By the way, there is a difference between a
signal switching to digital and becoming encrypted. Two entirely
different things. There are still digital signals that are not
encrypted available on the big dish, and if someone chooses to watch
those signals they are not stealing them.
>
> >But I miss my big
> > dish. I miss all the wild feeds, sports, news, Canadian television,
> > etc. etc. However, as I said, if I want to pay for it, I could have
> > Canadian television right now. It is available, and I'd have to wonder
> > how any Canadian could live here without knowing how to get it, since
> > I know and I'm not Canadian.
>
> So, cough up the site that tells you how to sign up for it.
Well, since you put it that way, no.
Steven Douglas
Since you're responding to Woods, who was responding to me, does that
mean your little story is supposed to have something to do with me?
Steven Douglas
>
> I have yet to meet anyone who makes a lot of noise about how Christian
> they are who does not also engage in similar, or worse, behaviors.
Well then, I'm relieved to know you're not talking about me, because I
don't make a lot of noise about "how Christian" I am.
JTEM
Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A president isn't a dictator -
And our President isn't a Democrat, placing
the concerns & bank accounts of billionaires
ahead of everyone & everything else.
Jane
LOL. Surprised by this answer, Woods?
Me, neither.
Jane
wrote:
> On Nov 22, 11:05 am, Jane <pushlin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > There was an issue a few years back where a Muslim group wanted sharia
> > law in Ontario for family issues only. It did not happen and it will
> > not happen. People can ask for anything, but as long as Canada has the
> > Charter of Rights and Freedoms, something as discriminatory as sharia
> > is a non-starter.
>
> Why? Ontario allowed Catholic and Jewish religious tribunals for years
> before Muslims asked for equal treatment. It was only after Muslims
> wanted Sharia Law that the government there decided it had to ban ALL
> religious tribunals to keep Muslims from having theirs. But if it was
> fine for Catholics and Jews, why won't it someday happen for Muslims
> when they have the majority -- in the not all that distant future?
>
> [excerpt] Ontario, the most populous province in Canada, has allowed
> Catholic and Jewish faith-based tribunals to settle family law matters
> such as divorce on a voluntary basis since 1991.
>
> The practice got little attention until Muslim leaders demanded the
> same rights.
>
> Officials had to decide whether to exclude one religion, or whether to
> scrap the religious family courts altogether.
>
> McGuinty said such courts "threaten our common ground," and promised
> his Liberal government would introduce legislation as soon as possible
> to outlaw them in Ontario. [end excerpt]
>
>
>
>
> > Even if someone managed to bring it in, it would
> > lose the first court challenge...and there would be challenges.
>
> I wonder why Catholic and Jewish tribunals didn't lose court
> challenges starting in 1991 and after?
>
>
>
> > Progressive Muslim women were the most vocal in opposition to it, not
> > suprisingly.
>
> Hopefully there will be many more progressive Muslim women when
> Muslims become the majority of Canadians.
I know the details of the case. I posted about it here at the time.
No, there should not have been tribunals for any religions and that
situation has been rectified. If they weren't challenged in court it
was because no one had a reasdon to challenge them. I think they were
fairly innocuous and not used by that many people.
Jane
You take my little story any way you want.
Woodswun
Not with their American address, they don't. They have to have a
Canadian billing address.
>
>
>
> > >is that I once was able to get Canadian television with my
> > > big dish, free. I could watch feeds for all the different time zones.
>
> > By stealing a signal for which you hadn't paid, yes.
>
> No. It was on the satellite, unencrypted, for many years, as were many
> other channels. Once they started encrypting them, I did not steal
> them, I started paying for the ones I wanted.
They became encrypted because people (like you) were tapping into
signals you were not authorized to access.
>
>
>
> > > I had plenty of Canadian television. But then all the channels began
> > > to go digital, so I switched to the little dish.
>
> > Translation: "But all the companies started encrypting the signal
> > because so many vultures like me were stealing the signals without
> > paying, so I ended up having to pay for a service that decoded the
> > encryption".
>
> That is absolutely false. By the way, there is a difference between a
> signal switching to digital and becoming encrypted. Two entirely
> different things. There are still digital signals that are not
> encrypted available on the big dish, and if someone chooses to watch
> those signals they are not stealing them.
>
>
>
> > >But I miss my big
> > > dish. I miss all the wild feeds, sports, news, Canadian television,
> > > etc. etc. However, as I said, if I want to pay for it, I could have
> > > Canadian television right now. It is available, and I'd have to wonder
> > > how any Canadian could live here without knowing how to get it, since
> > > I know and I'm not Canadian.
>
> > So, cough up the site that tells you how to sign up for it.
>
> Well, since you put it that way, no.
Because I've caught you lying and you can't produce one. Like I said,
I've researched this very thing so that I could get Canadian satellite
TV. It's not legal to get in the U.S. Period. Now that we know
you'll lie about something as stupid as a satellite feed, we also know
you'll lie about anything at all. Once a liar, always a liar.
(Everyone else here is more than welcome to google "canada satellite
TV usa" to check this out for themselves).
BTW, this explains a lot about your constantly calling people "liar" -
you're suspecting everyone else of what you know yourself to be guilty
of.
Woods
Woodswun
wrote:
You just did, and I now know that you're a compulsive liar. Who lies
about dumb crap like getting Canadian satellite TV?!? It's a
ridiculous thing to lie about, something only a pathological liar
would even bother considering.
You need a shrink.
Woods
Woodswun
Actually, I was. I was more expecting him to drop the subject.
Apparently, he's got 2 dueling issues - a pathological need to get the
last word in *and* a compulsive liar. I just thought he'd screwed up
and misremembered something, and that he'd just let it drop. Instead,
he just dug himself in deeper. Incredible, really.
Woods
Jane
Why are you not able to get Canadian TV legally, Woods? Any reason for
it? There was a time when you couldn't get HBO here, but we have been
able to for a couple years now. Other than that, I think we can most
of the American networks legally here.
Jane
Yes, there are a few other threads where I was waiting to see what he
had to say and he has just ignored them. His usual pattern is to
ignore questions he can't answer. However, I do recall him using the
'I'm not going to tell you because you have made me indignant' tactic
before, so I WASN'T surprised.
Woodswun
It's illegal for Canadian companies to provide satellite TV to the
U.S., and vice versa. So, no Canadian company will accept a
subscriber with a U.S. address. If you have a Canadian address, and
then set up the equipment in the United States, you can do it, but
otherwise you are out of luck.
The same is true of American satellite providers in Canada. None of
them will sign you up as a customer if you don't have a U.S.
address.
For HBO, etc, those are individual stations that negotiate with the
satellite TV firms. If your satellite or cable company gets the right
to broadcast (in Canada) and pays those fees to the channel, then your
satellite/cable company will provide them to you.
None of the U.S. satellite companies provide CBC or CTV. Bummer,
because (as you know) coverage of the Olympics and hockey *sucks* in
the U.S., and curling coverage is basically nonexistant.
Woods
Woods