Joe Clark Speech shows his patronage colours
Blake MacKenzie
correct) convention. What statements by Joe proved he is a man for the
status quo of payoff politics and vote buying? Did you hear how Joe talked
about regional development? Its called throwing money at your Atlantic
"have-nots" to buy votes under the guise of "Regional Economic Development.
Mr. Clark went on to blame the Liberals for making regional development a
patronage pig trough and the Reform(CA) for being too "narrow minded" for
wanting to axe wasteful programs like regional economic development
agencies. Joe is a Socialist, the proof is in the pudding when he makes
statements like these. Joe, this is wealth redistribution and you know it.
Don't try and fool people into believing, as you say, "regional development
programs will be market driven". Joe Clark's version of market driven will
be "how many voters are willing to vote PC in the next election". Joe, if
you want to prove you are fiscal conservative, you know these wasteful
patronage agencies like "(name your "have not" here)Economic Development,
are a waste of taxpayers money. Your vision of Canada Joe is the same as
another party in Canada we have all come to despise. Maybe you should forge
an Alliance Joe called the PLCA, the Progressive Liberal Conservative
Alliance with your campaign slogan "Same old Story, Same old Dance".
If you want real Change their is only one option the Canadian Alliance. I
hear a certain beer company is looking for a socialist named Joe to make
more commercials.
--
Blake MacKenzie
William A. Orton, "If you keep your mind sufficiently open, people will
throw a lot of rubbish into it."
David Horowitz, "Leftism is an infantile disorder/ It attracts people who
want to assert claims without accepting any responsibilities."
neb
still has no real plan ,and Politically JOE is the most
boring man not yet in the senate
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
hifl...@ecn.ab.ca
: poor JOE he has not learned a thing in the last 25 years ,he
: still has no real plan ,and Politically JOE is the most
: boring man not yet in the senate
Joe is not alone. Progressive Conservative Ralph Klein also has no plan.
Just look at the mess in health care. Utter chaos.
Joe Green
hifl...@ecn.ab.ca
: Old Joe shows his Liberal colours in his speech to the PC(politically
: correct) convention. What statements by Joe proved he is a man for the
: status quo of payoff politics and vote buying? Did you hear how Joe talked
: about regional development? Its called throwing money at your Atlantic
: "have-nots" to buy votes under the guise of "Regional Economic Development.
Didn't you all just love the Mulroney Love-In? Complete with such porkers
as John Crosbie and Barbara McDougall. And of course Joe and the old money
establishment that owns the Progressive(?) Conservative Party had nary a
word to say about how their party sewered this country in a mountain of
debt and corruption.
But the best is yet to come. Tom Long and Stockwell Day both say that
Mulroney did not really do all that well enough. THEY have plans for
patronage LIBERTARIAN SYTLE. Seems that high taxes are not enough for
these boys. What these capitalist really appologists want is the very
lifeblood of Canada's working folks. Just look how they are both lining up
to gouge Canadian taxpayers with demands to "pay off the debt" (i.e. pay
off Bay Street's Bankers) while simultaneously cutting programs to
ordinary Canadians while keeping taxes high. A Tory Tax cut is about as
believable as Klein and Harris claims that they are humanitarians.
: Mr. Clark went on to blame the Liberals for making regional development a
: patronage pig trough and the Reform(CA) for being too "narrow minded" for
: wanting to axe wasteful programs like regional economic development
: agencies. Joe is a Socialist, the proof is in the pudding when he makes
: statements like these. Joe, this is wealth redistribution and you know it.
Lets agree not to say stupid things to each other. Joe Clarke is a
centrist Tory. Tom Long is a Mulroney Tory. Both parties are run from the
back rooms of Bay Street.
: Don't try and fool people into believing, as you say, "regional development
: programs will be market driven". Joe Clark's version of market driven will
: be "how many voters are willing to vote PC in the next election". Joe, if
: you want to prove you are fiscal conservative, you know these wasteful
: patronage agencies like "(name your "have not" here)Economic Development,
: are a waste of taxpayers money. Your vision of Canada Joe is the same as
: another party in Canada we have all come to despise. Maybe you should forge
: an Alliance Joe called the PLCA, the Progressive Liberal Conservative
: Alliance with your campaign slogan "Same old Story, Same old Dance".
: If you want real Change their is only one option the Canadian Alliance. I
: hear a certain beer company is looking for a socialist named Joe to make
: more commercials.
The "United Alternative" is not a change, it is a leap backward into the
past. Complete with child labor laws, and debtor's prisons. Unfettered
capitalism is what these cretons advocate.
: --
: Blake MacKenzie
: William A. Orton, "If you keep your mind sufficiently open, people will
: throw a lot of rubbish into it."
No doubt about it. Just look at how the right wing crazies have fucked up
the country with massive public debts in both the United States and
Canada, and then try to blame this on the "left". And look at the snake
oil economics these stone age politicians sell, such as "supply side
economics".
: David Horowitz, "Leftism is an infantile disorder/ It attracts people who
: want to assert claims without accepting any responsibilities."
Actually Objectivism and Libertarian politics is a pathological disorder.
It advocates that you should be "selfish" and "self centered" even to the
point of hurting others, as long as you do not see the pain your victims
eyes. Cruelty is a mental illness that should be treated, not enacted as
public policy.
Joe Green
Keith Baldwin
Karl Pollak <ka...@dontspam.org> wrote in message
> The CA is clearly a regional party, the Conservative party is a national
> one.
This is a stupid statement. The PCs have no MPs west of Manitoba, and only 1 in both Manitoba and Ontario.
The PCs are an Atlantic party with some Quebec members. I won't say the Canadian Alliance is a true national
party 'cos they blow in Quebec and the Maritimes, but neither are the PC party a national party. Joe Clark
has no chance in Calgary Centre. Absolutely no chance.
Reform received more votes in Ontario than the PC party in the last two elections. Obviously, their policies
resonate with a significant portion of the Ontario electorate.
CA's issues, so far, are issues of Western Canada. In order for CA
> to become a national party as is Manning's dream, it would have to abandon
> a substantial part of its platform, because that part is unsaleable
> anywhere East of Kenora or the Lakehead.
Utter crap.
> But of course if the Alliance does that, it will lose the support of the
> West which is what got Reform Party to where it stands today, having
> reached its limit of incompetence, according to the Peter Principle.
> Western issues have a limited appeal even in the West. They have no appeal
> for the voters in Central and Eastern Canada.
1,000,000 votes in Ontario in '93 and '97 is having no appeal? Watch for it to grow in the next election,
guaranteed.
> So what do you do? Where are
> your options? You can re-elect Manning and have him betray the ideology
> that got him where he is today by selling out to the political interest in
> the rest of the country, or you can take the whole party and sell it to
> those political interests in the East. Either way, if your reason for
> joining Reform was to get Western issues on the national agenda, you lose.
The whole point is to attain government to implement CA policies. If that requires a "mellowing" of the
former Reform viewpoint, then that is the action of an evolving party, not a devolving party.
> Knocking a legitimate political party with a legitimate ideology and a
> program on the sole grounds that they already occupy the place on the
> political spectrum of the country into which you would like to squeeze your
> own regional party in drag, is not going to achieve the desired results.
> You may suceed in tearing down the other party, but you will take down your
> own party in the process as well. The end result? Another 8 or 10 years of
> Liberal governments, because there will be no other viable alternative for
> the voters to trust.
Prop up the PCs if you want. Others will move on. I am loyal to no party. I vote for the party which I
think is the best for Canada. I am loyal to Canada first, party second. Some in the PC party would rather
see Canada go all to hell than to see the PC party go gently into that good night. I think that's stupid.
> Being a card carrying Liberal myself, I wish you God's speed and all the
> success in your selfdestructive pursuit.
I wish Jean Chretien God speed in destroying the Liberal majority that most anyone else could secure easily.
Steven C. Britton
>
> This is a stupid statement. The PCs have no MPs west of Manitoba, and
only 1 in both Manitoba and Ontario.
> The PCs are an Atlantic party with some Quebec members. I won't say the
Canadian Alliance is a true national
> party 'cos they blow in Quebec and the Maritimes, but neither are the PC
party a national party. Joe Clark
> has no chance in Calgary Centre. Absolutely no chance.
(snip remainder)
Don't bother with Karl, Keith... he's a Liberal, and like the Tories, the
Liberals are running scared.
--
"Jesus was way cool... he could have played guitar better than Hendrix"
-- King Missile
Steven C. Britton
Calgary
"The voices of all Canadians should be heard in the national unity
debate...not just those of Quebec politicians."
Federal Tories:
----------------
No stability
No credibility
No respect
No support
No platform
No members
No leader
No money
No chance
hifl...@ecn.ab.ca
: Keith Baldwin wrote:
: >
: > This is a stupid statement. The PCs have no MPs west of Manitoba, and
: only 1 in both Manitoba and Ontario.
: > The PCs are an Atlantic party with some Quebec members. I won't say the
: Canadian Alliance is a true national
: > party 'cos they blow in Quebec and the Maritimes, but neither are the PC
: party a national party. Joe Clark
: > has no chance in Calgary Centre. Absolutely no chance.
: (snip remainder)
: Don't bother with Karl, Keith... he's a Liberal, and like the Tories, the
: Liberals are running scared.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Yeah right Steven. The Liberals are real scared of the United Alternative,
an Alternative is neither an alternative, nor united. A rag tag band of
libertarians, pirates, criminals with a sprinkling of Libertarian
"philosophers". Yeah Steven, you really have the Liberals scared, between
Long Tom and Joe Who, with Klein and Harris cheering in the wings.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Your too much for a non-engineer Steven.
: --
: "Jesus was way cool... he could have played guitar better than Hendrix"
: -- King Missile
: Steven C. Britton
: Calgary
: "The voices of all Canadians should be heard in the national unity
: debate...not just those of Quebec politicians."
The voices of Canadians will never be heard in a capitalist newspaper run
by Conrad Black or Ken Thompson. Bring on the circuses Steven, and lets
see what they did in ancient Rome.
Joe Green
John Angus
> The CA is clearly a regional party, the Conservative party is a national
> one.
And how is this decided? By MPs? By popular support? Frankly, I'm
tired of this kind of nonsense. The Green Party is a national
party, even if it has damned little support anywhere and
no MPs, and both the tories and the CA are national parties.
What does being a national party mean anyway? Surely you're
not trying to show that the Tories have a snowballs chance
in hell of getting into power? No, then what? The tories, as
far as I know, have some lukewarm support in the east, mainly
because the people out there have been sucking on the welfare
teat all their lives and are terrified the CA would take it
away. The people of Quebec will NEVER vote tory again (the
decision by Clark to focus the Tory party's main efforts on
wooing Quebec only shows yet again that the man has zero political
judgement). Ontario - aside from being the Liberal Party's
bitch, seems split equally between the two backrunners.
There seems to be backsliding in the west between elections,
but come election time people can't seem to hold their
noses long enough to vote Tory.
The Tory party is dead, at least as long as Joe Clark is leader.
It has no more support than CA - less, actually - without any
of the benefit of the enthusiasm a new party generates. Hell,
the Social Credit managed to continue to send people to parliament
right up to its last fateful year too, and now where is it?
CA's issues, so far, are issues of Western Canada. In order for CA
> to become a national party as is Manning's dream, it would have to abandon
> a substantial part of its platform, because that part is unsaleable
> anywhere East of Kenora or the Lakehead.
Which issues do you think make it unsaleable in Ontario? Because speaking
as someone in Ontario I kind of like many of its issues. I'm not too
kean on decentralization, and I'm very suspicious of a party leader
who's too damned religious if he seems likely to want to push his
morality on me, but I can't think of anything else about the party
itself which would cause me a lot of distress. BTW, aren't most
of their issues the same issues that Mike Harris has done so well
exploiting?
> Western issues have a limited appeal even in the West. They have no appeal
> for the voters in Central and Eastern Canada.
Honest government doesn't appeal to Central Canada? Well, given who
we've been electing I suppose that's possible. Good fiscal management
doesn't appeal to people in Ontario? God knows we haven't seen any
on the federal level for a generation, but some of us would still
kind of like to see it before we die. Maybe it's the idea that
violent criminals should be in prison instead of walking the
streets you think would bother us? Or do you think we've got so many
it will effect the vote? Why don't you spell out these important
issues which would make Ontario vote against them?
> Knocking a legitimate political party with a legitimate ideology and a
Whoa. Who would you be talking about here? Because you're surely not
talking tory. The tory party HAS no ideology. None. In that way it's
identical to the Liberal party. They have no policies and no platform
because they're still conducting polls and research to tell them
what kind of issues would win them the most votes. If those issues
turn out to be Marxist ideology then Joe Clark will start wearing
a Mao suit. If they turn out to be putting Jews in ovens he'll be
wearing a swastika - just like Chretien, btw. Neither man has
any ideology and neither party cares about _anything_ but getting
into power so they can dish out the patronage and pull in the
graft and bribes.
> You may suceed in tearing down the other party, but you will take down your
> own party in the process as well. The end result? Another 8 or 10 years of
> Liberal governments, because there will be no other viable alternative for
> the voters to trust.
You miss the point, Karl. The Tory party is not a viable alternative to
the Liberals. There is no difference between them whatsoever. They are
run by political whores who will spread their legs for anyone with
a vote in their hands or a buck in their pants.
I have more respect for the NDP than I do for both of them combined.
Hell, I have more respect for Marxist-Leninists than I do for Liberals or
Tories.
JA
Ralph Boerke
Blake MacKenzie wrote:
>
> Old Joe shows his Liberal colours in his speech to the PC(politically
> correct) convention. What statements by Joe proved he is a man for the
> status quo of payoff politics a.............
Whatever happened to the Whigs?
The PCs are a dying political organization.
That is how politics works.
A party develops, does its damage and then dies or, more likely, is
altered, renamed, and perhaps reborn.
What was the CCF is now the NDP.
Those PCs who are Liberal will go that way the rest will go CA
Reform started because the PCs ignored the west.
It attracted a wide range of people including leftists, as leftists like
a 'reforming' attitude especially when it comes to things like the
senate (no leftists there).
I will not cry when the PCs come to an end.
And hopefully the Liberals will end too.
God give us a dictator, despot, tyrant or king to line up all those
politicians and have them shot.
--
> David Horowitz, "Leftism is an infantile disorder/ It attracts people who
> want to assert claims without accepting any responsibilities."
And want to pay for these claims with other people's money.
--
Is there such a thing as a socialist libertarian?
Ron Wise
Hmmm...Actually Alberta has the best run Healthcare in the country. For
proof of this just go back 6 months to the flu outbreaks and every major
province was overwhelmed except Alberta. This point didn't get much media
air time, I wonder why? If you want to witness utter chaos in healthcare
check out BC.
Ron
Steve Marskell
Karl Pollak wrote:
> No, I don't think that is very obvious. There is a very good reason for
> the Conservatives being wiped out in Ontario. They still have the Mulroney
> Legacy to answer for. And so far, they have not done a very good job
> answering. In fact, they have elected 3 leaders in succession, all of whom
> were Mulroney Cabinet Ministers.
Duh! If Chretien steps down, will the next leader of that party be a
former cabinet minister. Obviously not, it will be that back bencher
who sits in the corner farthest away from the Speaker of the House.
John Angus
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Obviously I must have said something the Deformers are touchy about, seeing
> how they are crawling out of the woodwork with their indignation.
<shrug> Some days there are intelligent, reasonable, mature people to
debate issues with. Some days there are only people like you. What can
I say? I was bored Sunday so I read a Karl Pollak post.
> an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Angus) wrote:
>
>>Karl Pollak (ka...@dontspam.org) writes:
>>What does being a national party mean anyway? Surely you're
>>not trying to show that the Tories have a snowballs chance
>>in hell of getting into power?
>
> Presently? No, of course not. Nor should they have. They have not served
> enough time in the Purgatory for the sins of the Mulroney government.
Those crimes were considerable. Not _nearly_ as many as those perpetrated
on the Canadian people by the Trudeau government, however. Virtually
all the problems of this nation can be traced to that disastrous
regime - in which Jean Chretien had a very large part.
Nor
> have they sufficiently cleansed their ranks of Mulronites.
And the cadre of Trudeau loyalists who did their best to destroy both
this country's economy and it's unity are still in control of the
Liberal party. Your point again?
>>The people of Quebec will NEVER vote tory again (the
>>decision by Clark to focus the Tory party's main efforts on
>>wooing Quebec only shows yet again that the man has zero political
>>judgement).
>
> Do you really believe that? If you were right, we would be eternally doomed
> to a Liberal govenrment.
Hardly. Prior to the end of the Mulroney government Quebec was the Liberal
bastion which made the Liberals the natural governing party. The tribal
vote of Quebec went virtually all liberal, which meant the libs only
had to pick up a minority of seats in the other provinces. Now with
the BQ in place the Liberals need Ontario. If Ontario wasn't acting
like a masochistic whore, begging for more every time the Liberals
spat on her, they'd be in opposition now.
You may have noticed that Quebec voters vote with
> their wallets, not with their hearts. They have quite consistently voted
> with the party most likely to form government.
Quebecers vote with their tongues. They consistantly vote for the party
of Quebecers. When Chretien resigns the Liberals will have to put an
anglo into the leaders seat. Granted, he'll be a Quebec Anglo, but
still an anglo. We could see a lot of shift back to the BQ then.
However, the Reform-in-drag
> with its intolerant and divisive policies does not have enough pull in
> Quebec
Oddly enough the divisive, bigoted policies of the BQ don't seem to
bother you Liberals nearly as much, nor do they bother Quebecers at all.
>>Ontario - aside from being the Liberal Party's
>>bitch, seems split equally between the two backrunners.
>
> That statement is quite likely to greatly increase the popularity of the
> Reform-in-drag in Ontario ... not.
Do I look like I'm campaigning for the CA? I'll say whatever I want
about any party. When I start growing wool I'll join the Liberals
and call in for permission every time I want to say anything.
> held together by the personality of Real Caouette. When he died, so did
> the party. Reform lives and dies with Presto! Manning. Federal Scoial
> Credit was only a regional party with support only in the Eastern Townships
> of Quebec and a few pockets on the prairies.
But the CA isn't being held together by anyone's personality, but by the
fact that it is the only conservative party in Canada. Nor is it a regional
party as it's issues appeal throughout Canada.
>>Which issues do you think make it unsaleable in Ontario? Because speaking
>>as someone in Ontario I kind of like many of its issues.
>
> Just as I am not the collective view of British Columbia or of the Liberal
> party, you are not the collective opinion of all of Ontario. Obviously,
> some Ontarians are willing to park their vote with a party they feel can
> scare enoguh the Liberals but cannot do very much damage otherwise. If it
> ever comes to the eventuality that the Alliance were in any position to
> seriously challenge the Liberals for power, Ontario would take a much more
> serious look at what exactly it is that the Alliance stands for. And that
> ain't too pretty. At least not from an Ontario point of view.
Translation: Uh, I can't think of any.
See how much time you could have saved by just typing that instead.
>>I'm not too kean on decentralization, ...
>
> That issue alone is enough to turn off a substantial portion of the Ontario
> electorate.
Depends on how they push it. It was hardly even noticeable in the last
two elections, at least in Ontario, so I doubt it played any real party
in turning voters away from Reform.
>>BTW, aren't most of their issues the same issues that Mike Harris has
>>done so well exploiting?
>
> Well, that's what Long would like to bank on. I think that with Harris it
> is a bit different. First of all you have his jovial personality,
Huh? Mike Harris? Mike Harris has a personality? What kind of drugs are you
on over there? Are you going to suggest Harris is some kind of charismatic
leader? Christ, man. What kind of politicians do you have out there in
cloud cuckoo land that you'd think that?
secondly
> his policies appear to be far more tolerant of diversity and more moderate
> than those of Manning
The key word in that sentence is "appear". There really aren't any
substantial differences that I can think of.
and most importantly, he was the only credible choice
> left for Ontario after the fiascos with Petersen and Rae.
So when people get tired of Liberal corruption and arrogance, the CA will
be the only credible alternative to them.
>>Honest government doesn't appeal to Central Canada? Well, given who
>>we've been electing I suppose that's possible. Good fiscal management
>>doesn't appeal to people in Ontario?
>
> A good example of how Ontario perceives the Reform platform. It has nothig
> to do with honest government or fiscal responsibility. First of all, the
> Reform platform is not concerned with honesty in govenrment but with a
> re-distribution of powers in the Confederation.
That's not how I see it, nor, if they suceeed in gaining a number of MPs
from Ontario (as they need to eventually), will the party.
Ontario will not stand for
> that. As far as fiscal responsibility goes, part of it has to do with the
> rpevious provincial govenrments in Ontario. On the federal level, nobody
> in recent memory, in fact in the last 40 or so years, has shown better
> financial management of public money than the current Liberal govenrment.
That is sadly true. As bad, as corrupt, as incompetent as the Liberals have
been, they've still been better than Mulroney or the Liberals before
him.
> So, if that's what you want from the federal govenrment, the Liberals are
> your best bet.
No, no. I want competent fiscal management, not fiscal management that
is simply "less incompetent" than its predecessors.
>>Why don't you spell out these important
>>issues which would make Ontario vote against them?
>
> I have several times already. Reformed EEE Senate,
Ontarions hate the present senate and are more than willing to consider
a different kind. Ontarions also have a long history (well, a history
anyway) of being willing to make compromises for the sake of national
unity.
regionalism in policies,
> devolution of the Confederation, in short Manning's "New Canada".
None of this is what the people of Ontario vote on. They vote on the
basis of trust in the party and leader that they will give sound fiscal
and economic management without going to extremes in either direction.
Everything else is secondary.
The
> Alliance is extremely vulnerable on the question of national unity and is
So are the Liberals.
> largely seen as being antagonistic to Quebec and to minorities.
True enough. They have a major PR problem. But since the CA's views
are actually closer to that of most Quebecers than that of the Liberal
Party this is a solvable problem.
> The very fact that we are so earnestly debating what Ontario will or will
> not do is a good indicator of Ontario's power in the Confederation.
You overestimat Ontario's power because you overestimate the interest
Ontarions have in that power. Quebec has always had FAR more power than
Ontario because they will only vote for parties which set its interests
first. Ontario has a record of supporting parties, like the Mulroney
Tories and the Chretien Liberals, who shit on them. If the people of
Ontario ever did rise up and demand their MPs actually put the
interest of the province first then there'd be hell to pay. But I
don't see that happening soon.
>>> Knocking a legitimate political party with a legitimate ideology and a
>>
>>Whoa. Who would you be talking about here? Because you're surely not
>>talking tory. The tory party HAS no ideology. None. In that way it's
>>identical to the Liberal party. They have no policies and no platform
>>because they're still conducting polls and research to tell them
>>what kind of issues would win them the most votes. If those issues
>>turn out to be Marxist ideology then Joe Clark will start wearing
>>a Mao suit. If they turn out to be putting Jews in ovens he'll be
>>wearing a swastika - just like Chretien, btw.
>
> I guess there is not much point in debating views like that.
> If you believe that Reform is the Second Coming, carry on believing it.
I don't believe CA or Reform are the second coming. I have a lot of
doubts about them. I've been saying for more than two years that
Manning has to go, and I'm not very enthusiastic about either of the
front runnerse to succeed him. It's more a matter of, hell, look
at the alternatives. It's possible I might not even vote for
them the next election (though there is no way I'll vote tory or
Liberal).
>>I have more respect for the NDP than I do for both of them combined.
>>Hell, I have more respect for Marxist-Leninists than I do for Liberals or
>>Tories.
>
> You are right, John. That point had indeed escaped me. Had I clued it on
> it from the beginning, I would not have even bothered to discuss with you
> the previous points. I consider anyone who has any respect for evil and
> anti-social ideologies of the NDP and the Marxists (as if there was a
> difference) not worth the effort of debate.
But at least they believe in something other than power and greed.
Their beliefs might be stupid but they HAVE beliefs. Their
candidates run for office in hopes of making Canada better. The candidates
for your party and the Tories run for office in hopes of making their
own lives better.
JA
Keith Baldwin
Karl Pollak <ka...@dontspam.org> wrote in message news:391f9bce...@news.bluecrow.com...
> >> The CA is clearly a regional party, the Conservative party is a national
> >> one.
> >
> >This is a stupid statement. The PCs have no MPs west of Manitoba,
> >and only 1 in both Manitoba and Ontario.
> >The PCs are an Atlantic party with some Quebec members.
>
> By your reasoning, some parties do not even exist, because they have no
> elected members.
Wasn't it you who stated that initially with the statement above?
> Of course the PCs do not have any elected members in the
> West. But they do have oprganizations able and willing to put up credible
> candidates in the next elections in all regions of the country, which is
> considerably more than you can say about the Alliance.
What? The Canadian Alliance will be running candidates in every province. Only in Quebec may they not have a
full slate.
> >I won't say the Canadian Alliance is a true national
> >party 'cos they blow in Quebec and the Maritimes, but neither are the PC party a national party. Joe Clark
> >has no chance in Calgary Centre. Absolutely no chance.
>
> Again, the legitimacy or scope of a party are not dependant on the elctoral
> cahnces or sucfess of its leader. By the time the next federal election is
> called, the PC party may have a differnet leader.
I doubt it.
> >Reform received more votes in Ontario than the PC party in the last two elections. Obviously, their
policies
> >resonate with a significant portion of the Ontario electorate.
>
> No, I don't think that is very obvious. There is a very good reason for
> the Conservatives being wiped out in Ontario. They still have the Mulroney
> Legacy to answer for. And so far, they have not done a very good job
> answering. In fact, they have elected 3 leaders in succession, all of whom
> were Mulroney Cabinet Ministers.
People voted Reform because the PCs no longer spoke for them. It's the same now.
> > CA's issues, so far, are issues of Western Canada. In order for CA
> >> to become a national party as is Manning's dream, it would have to abandon
> >> a substantial part of its platform, because that part is unsaleable
> >> anywhere East of Kenora or the Lakehead.
> >
> >Utter crap.
>
> I love you too. Now did you have anything more exquisitely elloquent to
> offer in your rebuttal or is that all your intelligence can muster?
The Canadian Alliance has mellowed some of its policy. They haven't abandoned anything. It is sellable in
Ontario. CA policy is along the same lines as the Ontario Tory policy, and they've won 2 consecutive majority
governments. So don't try and say it's not sellable in Ontario, 'cos you're wrong.
> >1,000,000 votes in Ontario in '93 and '97 is having no appeal? Watch for it to grow in the next election,
guaranteed.
>
> You are apparently failing to explain how will those growing millions of
> Reform-in-drag voters going to support Western policies which seek to limit
> the influence of Ontario in the national government? How many times do you
> expect the Ontario voters to vote in protest?
Voting for tougher laws for criminal acts is not a Western policy.
Wanting to protect children from child pornography is not a Western policy.
Wanting to get full value for our government dollars is not a Western policy.
Wanting to cut taxes to spur investment in Canada is not a Western policy.
They are all just policies that make sense.
> >The whole point is to attain government to implement CA policies. If that requires a "mellowing" of the
> >former Reform viewpoint, then that is the action of an evolving party, not a devolving party.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but did not the Reform party have an article in
> its constitution which required the membership to renew it otehrwise the
> party would automatically dissolve? Do you call that evolution or
> devolution? What was the reasoning for this clause and why does it no
> longer matter?
Since it never came to pass, they did not dissolve. The whole point of that clause was so that the party
didn't linger in the political wilderness for decades if it did not catch on with the greater public, but
that's not a problem.
> >Prop up the PCs if you want.
>
> I have no intertest in propping up the PCs or anyone else. What I find
> curious is that Deformers are seeking to plunder the Conservative
> membership and at the same time they expect the Conservatives to abandon
> their principles and political philosophy.
I don't think that is it at all. I want PCs to come to the Alliance and to influence it with their
viewpoints. I would never expect anyone to give up their beliefs in joining a party. But the simple fact is
that CA and the PCs share more in common than they disagree about.
> I would surmise that any member
> of the Conservative party who has remained a memeber to date, is probably
> pretty committed to the ideology promoted by the Conservative party. I have
> great difficulty with the idea that they will suddenly change their minds
> and start agreeing with a Western regional party which proposes changes and
> philosophy which is not entirely consistent with what the Cosnervatives
> stood for until now.
> >Others will move on. I am loyal to no party. I vote for the party which I
> >think is the best for Canada. I am loyal to Canada first, party second.
>
> ... said he, while the band quietly played The Maple Leaf Forever in the
> background ...
???
> >> Being a card carrying Liberal myself, I wish you God's speed and all the
> >> success in your selfdestructive pursuit.
> >
> >I wish Jean Chretien God speed in destroying the Liberal majority that most anyone else could secure
easily.
>
> Well, geez, Idunno ... after almost completing a second term in office, the
> Liberal government under Chretien is still polling better than 50%
> popularity amongst the voters. That is highly unusual for a party in
> office.
It was the same before the last election, and they ended up with 38%. Also, the PCs in 1987 had 23% support,
then went on to win 21 months later with 46% of the vote. It's all about what you stand for, and right now,
Chretien stands for nothing. His only reasoning for why he should run again is that it is "his life". Not
good enough for me, thanks.
> In fact, if one were to apply the traditional Reform reasoning to this
> little and otherwise quite meaningless factoid, I think it fullfils the
> Reform populist demand for 50%+1 majority, and consequently the Reformers
> or Alliancesists or whatever they call themselves this week, should just
> shut the hell up and accept the democratic choice of the nation. Or do you
> perhaps feel that you know better what is good for this country than more
> than half of its voters?
It's so typical of Liberals to want to silence any opposition (Karl: "should just shut the hell up"). Like
how the parliamentary secretary for HRDC claimed the opposition was bringing about a new era of McCarthyism
into Canada. Shya, right.
Of that poll, 25% of the respondents were undecided. It is a meaningless poll. The respondents more than
likely wanted to get rid of the caller and just said Liberal to get them off their case. But when people
think carefully and make their decision during an election campaign, you can be sure the Libs won't get over
50% of the vote.
> Come on, Keith, show us how firmly you really believe in this 50%+1
> populist nonsense ..... when it goes against what you want?
I don't believe in 50+1% to break up the country. I've said this on many occasions before. On this I
disagree with the statements of the party.
> --
> Greetings from Lotusland
Neil Tupper
"Karl Pollak" <ka...@dontspam.org> wrote
>
> The CA is clearly a regional party, the Conservative party is a national
> to become a national party as is Manning's dream, it would have to abandon
> a substantial part of its platform, because that part is unsaleable
> anywhere East of Kenora or the Lakehead.
>
Not to mention its Christian fundamentalist baggage that it carries around, and
given that Day as of now is the favourite among CA members if you believe the
polls, that could be even more of a problem.
Neil
Steven C. Britton
> Not to mention its Christian fundamentalist baggage that it carries
around, and
> given that Day as of now is the favourite among CA members if you believe
the
> polls, that could be even more of a problem.
What a bigoted comment. One's religious beliefs should not disqualify one
or their party from holding elected office.
So much for tolerance and respect.
--
"Jesus was way cool... he could have played guitar better than Hendrix"
-- King Missile
Steven C. Britton
Calgary
"The voices of all Canadians should be heard in the national unity
debate...not just those of Quebec politicians."
Federal Tories:
Steven C. Britton
>
> However, bigotted religious views might cause people to vote against
> him.
Yeah... leftists are like that.
Steven C. Britton
> Concern about how an individual's highly public religious beliefs will
> impact on the rest of us should he come to power is hardly bigotry.
There's no need for concern, because Day's personal beliefs, while they
guide his thinking, will not be rammed down anyone else's throats. He talks
about them frankly and openly because they are a part of him, but believing
something and forcing it on others are two entirely different things.
Moral decisions are up to the pubic in a binding national referendum.
Steven C. Britton
>
> Left, centre and right wingers all tend to vote against religious
> bigots.
Then Stock's got nothing to worry about.
Of course, we'll all be voting against the Liberals, Tories, and NDP for
that very reason...
Steven C. Britton
>
> And he wants to get rid medicare. Which is saying a lot for
> the social views of the Reform Party.
If that were true, I might have considered voting for him.
In truth (as opposed to the Untruth version), Keith Martin is advocating a
parallel, private system which receives zero government funding, while
PRESERVING the current public system.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> Neil Tupper wrote:
>> Not to mention its Christian fundamentalist baggage that it carries
> around, and
>> given that Day as of now is the favourite among CA members if you believe
> the
>> polls, that could be even more of a problem.
> What a bigoted comment. One's religious beliefs should not disqualify one
> or their party from holding elected office.
> So much for tolerance and respect.
Nobody ever said that people with religious beliefs would disqualify anyone.
However, bigotted religious views might cause people to vote against
him.
--
Best regards,
Stephen Jenuth
(jen...@homacjen.ab.ca)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
M.I. Wakefield
impact on the rest of us should he come to power is hardly bigotry.
From what little attention I've paid the CA leadership race so far, Keith
Martin seems to be the only one who's moderate enough socially that I'd even
consider voting for them at the next election.
Steven C. Britton <s...@scb-group.com> wrote in message
news:39209...@news.cadvision.com...
> Neil Tupper wrote:
>
> > Not to mention its Christian fundamentalist baggage that it carries
> around, and
> > given that Day as of now is the favourite among CA members if you
believe
> the
> > polls, that could be even more of a problem.
>
> What a bigoted comment. One's religious beliefs should not disqualify one
> or their party from holding elected office.
>
> So much for tolerance and respect.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> Stephen Untruth wrote:
>>
>> However, bigotted religious views might cause people to vote against
>> him.
> Yeah... leftists are like that.
Left, centre and right wingers all tend to vote against religious
bigots.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> From what little attention I've paid the CA leadership race so far, Keith
> Martin seems to be the only one who's moderate enough socially that I'd even
> consider voting for them at the next election.
And he wants to get rid medicare. Which is saying a lot for
the social views of the Reform Party.
--
Blake MacKenzie
"M.I. Wakefield" <bed...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:za1U4.69579$r37.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Concern about how an individual's highly public religious beliefs will
> impact on the rest of us should he come to power is hardly bigotry.
Just like the Environmentalists New Age/Socialist beliefs have impacted us.
Just like Neo-Feminism and their mother goddess beliefs have effected us.
Just like the Secular Humanists tell us we are not allowed to practice
Christianity when a Christian takes office but an Atheist is ok. What's good
for the goose is good for the gander.
>
> From what little attention I've paid the CA leadership race so far, Keith
> Martin seems to be the only one who's moderate enough socially that I'd
even
> consider voting for them at the next election.
>
We have had in the last 18 years 2 Catholic Prime Ministers and both are
from Quebec. Maybe Upper and Lower Canada should be considered bigoted
towards having a Protestant Western Leader. This attack on Stockwell Day has
nothing to do with his religious beliefs and has everything to do with the
Liberals fear about having a smart articulate person who knows how to save
taxpayers money and doesn't play the patronage game. Chretien head to head
against Stockwell Day wouldn't have a chance but regional biases and the
"have not" patronage trough vote in the East will be the only deciding
factor.
--
Blake MacKenzie
William A. Orton, "If you keep your mind sufficiently open, people will
throw a lot of rubbish into it."
Blake MacKenzie
"Steven C. Britton" <s...@scb-group.com> wrote in message
news:3920b...@news.cadvision.com...
> In truth (as opposed to the Untruth version), Keith Martin is advocating a
> parallel, private system which receives zero government funding, while
> PRESERVING the current public system.
> "Jesus was way cool... he could have played guitar better than Hendrix"
>
> -- King Missile
>
> Steven C. Britton
> Calgary
>
Dr. Keith Martin's views on supporting Gun Control have pretty much lost my
support for him. But I admire the fact he is able to think for himself in
the CA, not like the other totalitarian Federal Parties who chastise MP's
for thinking for themselves and standing up for their constituencies.
Blake MacKenzie
news:hi2U4.43456$g62.6...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> Left, centre and right wingers all tend to vote against religious
> bigots.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stephen Jenuth
> (jen...@homacjen.ab.ca)
>
> Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
What utter nonsense. The Catholic control of the PM's office should be proof
enough who votes for whom in Canada...Quebec. It has nothing to do with
Left-Right-Centre and has everything to do with
West-Ontario-Quebec-Maritimes. Canada's political voting sphere is all made
up of regional biases. The anti-religious BS is nothing more than a smoke
screen to hide the regional biases of having the possibility of a Western
Leader emerging as Canada's next PM. I would argue, Canada has never had a
party to unite the ideological lines. If this was ever to happen we might
actually get stability in a political party in Canada for once. Till then,
stay tuned for more Cash hand-outs to Quebec, Ontario, and Maritime
constituencies to keep the Eastern Liberal electorate loyal.
Neil Tupper
> Neil Tupper wrote:
>
> > Not to mention its Christian fundamentalist baggage that it carries
> around, and
> > given that Day as of now is the favourite among CA members if you believe
> the
> > polls, that could be even more of a problem.
>
> What a bigoted comment. One's religious beliefs should not disqualify one
> or their party from holding elected office.
>
Now who's being politically correct? Nowhere did I suggest that one's religious
beliefs should disqualify them from office, but to suggest that a candidate's
religious beliefs are of no relevance to a voter is naive to say the least. I
would want to know if a candidate was a Scientologist , a Moonie or any other
religious cult. Similarly, as I have posted elsewhere, how can one trust an
elected official to make rational decisions on health. safety and environmental
issues if they don't accept the science behind Carbon 14 dating?
Neil
Steven C. Britton
>
> Now who's being politically correct? Nowhere did I suggest that one's
religious
> beliefs should disqualify them from office, but to suggest that a
candidate's
> religious beliefs are of no relevance to a voter is naive to say the
least. I
> would want to know if a candidate was a Scientologist , a Moonie or any
other
> religious cult. Similarly, as I have posted elsewhere, how can one trust
an
> elected official to make rational decisions on health. safety and
environmental
> issues if they don't accept the science behind Carbon 14 dating?
Who cares? Do you really care if Stock, Manning, Long, or (Keith) Martin
believe the world was created in 6 days or 6 billion years?
On the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter.
--
"Jesus was way cool... he could have played guitar better than Hendrix"
-- King Missile
Steven C. Britton
Calgary
"The voices of all Canadians should be heard in the national unity
John Ross
Neil Tupper <ne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:V0fU4.16494$au2.1...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
>
> "Steven C. Britton" <s...@scb-group.com> wrote in message
> news:39209...@news.cadvision.com...
> > Neil Tupper wrote:
> >
> > > Not to mention its Christian fundamentalist baggage that it carries
> > around, and
> > > given that Day as of now is the favourite among CA members if you
believe
> > the
> > > polls, that could be even more of a problem.
> >
> > What a bigoted comment. One's religious beliefs should not disqualify
one
> > or their party from holding elected office.
> >
>
religious
> beliefs should disqualify them from office, but to suggest that a
candidate's
> religious beliefs are of no relevance to a voter is naive to say the
least. I
> would want to know if a candidate was a Scientologist , a Moonie or any
other
> religious cult.
Since when is Christianity a religious cult?
>Similarly, as I have posted elsewhere, how can one trust an
> elected official to make rational decisions on health. safety and
environmental
> issues if they don't accept the science behind Carbon 14 dating?
>
So you can't trust a Christian to make a rational decision. Exactly who can
you trust?
Neil Tupper
"Steven C. Britton" <s...@scb-group.com>
>
> Who cares? Do you really care if Stock, Manning, Long, or (Keith) Martin
> believe the world was created in 6 days or 6 billion years?
>
> On the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter.
>
Both Day and Manning believe literally in the Bible and that the world is only a
few thousand years old. In order to believe that, must disregard basic laws of
physics and chemistry which underpin the concept of carbon 14 dating. Any
politician who would disregard basic laws of physics and chemistry, in my
opinion, is dangerous to developed western culture and society, which depends on
such science to guide government in formulating laws and regulations regarding
health, safety and environmental issues. I certainly care and think it does
matter.
Neil
Steven C. Britton
>
> Both Day and Manning believe literally in the Bible and that the world is
only a
> few thousand years old. In order to believe that, must disregard basic
laws of
> physics and chemistry which underpin the concept of carbon 14 dating. Any
> politician who would disregard basic laws of physics and chemistry, in my
> opinion, is dangerous to developed western culture and society, which
depends on
> such science to guide government in formulating laws and regulations
regarding
> health, safety and environmental issues.
Disgarding C-14 dating does not preclude one's acceptance of science.
After all, it's awfully easy for God to create a world where the C-14 dating
would give the results we've all seen. Since C-14 dating uses the half life
of the stuff, and bases its calculations on the level of radioactivity and
amount of the substance present, it's very simple for God to create it there
with the evidence pointing to an age much older than the Bible says so.
Personally, I'm not a literalist, and I believe wholeheartedly in the theory
of evolution. That does not mean that I am intolerant and disrespectful of
Day's and Manning's beliefs -- unlike some people I could name.
I really think you're grasping at straws on this one, trying to rationalize
your intolerance of Christianity.
Neil Tupper
"John Ross" <j...@jr.jr1> wrote
>
> Since when is Christianity a religious cult?
>
I didn't call Christianity a cult, but neither is it a homogenous philsophy.
Some branches of Christianity I do regard as cults, and that would include the
brand of fiery fundamentalism which believes that a 7 day process, 5 or 6
thousand years ago created the Earth and all its life.
> >[Neil Tupper]Similarly, as I have posted elsewhere, how can one trust an
> > elected official to make rational decisions on health. safety and
> environmental
> > issues if they don't accept the science behind Carbon 14 dating?
> >
>
> So you can't trust a Christian to make a rational decision. Exactly who can
> you trust?
>
Obviously, you have misread my post. I was referring specifically to
fundamentalists.Most Christians thankfully, can reconcile their religious
beliefs with basic science.
Neil
Neil Tupper
>
> After all, it's awfully easy for God to create a world where the C-14 dating
> would give the results we've all seen. Since C-14 dating uses the half life
> of the stuff, and bases its calculations on the level of radioactivity and
> amount of the substance present, it's very simple for God to create it there
> with the evidence pointing to an age much older than the Bible says so.
>
A mischievous God? This is a recipe for disregarding *all* scientific knowledge.
That's a pretty weak argument.
Neil
Steven C. Britton
> >
> > After all, it's awfully easy for God to create a world where the C-14
dating
> > would give the results we've all seen. Since C-14 dating uses the half
life
> > of the stuff, and bases its calculations on the level of radioactivity
and
> > amount of the substance present, it's very simple for God to create it
there
> > with the evidence pointing to an age much older than the Bible says so.
>
> A mischievous God? This is a recipe for disregarding *all* scientific
knowledge.
> That's a pretty weak argument.
Since God is infinite in scope, omniscient and omnipotent, one must also
expect God to have an infinite sense of humour and creativity -- but of
course, we're trying to define God in human terms, and that is completely
and utterly impossible.
Ron Wise
> Both Day and Manning believe literally in the Bible and that the world is
only a
> few thousand years old.
Are you sure about Manning? I believe he is an evangelical Christian and
not a Fundamentalist. Huge difference between the two belief systems. Of
course it's hard to say with regards to Manning since he rarely(ever?)
speaks of his religous beliefs unless asked.
Ron
Paige Smyth
"John Ross" <j...@jr.jr1> wrote in message
news:1OfU4.148$9P3....@198.235.216.4...
>
> Neil Tupper <ne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:V0fU4.16494$au2.1...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> >
> > "Steven C. Britton" <s...@scb-group.com> wrote in message
> > news:39209...@news.cadvision.com...
> > > Neil Tupper wrote:
> > >
> > > > Not to mention its Christian fundamentalist baggage that it carries
> > > around, and
> > > > given that Day as of now is the favourite among CA members if you
> believe
> > > the
> > > > polls, that could be even more of a problem.
> > >
> > > What a bigoted comment. One's religious beliefs should not disqualify
> one
> > > or their party from holding elected office.
> > >
> >
> > Now who's being politically correct? Nowhere did I suggest that one's
> religious
> > beliefs should disqualify them from office, but to suggest that a
> candidate's
> > religious beliefs are of no relevance to a voter is naive to say the
> least. I
> > would want to know if a candidate was a Scientologist , a Moonie or any
> other
> > religious cult.
>
>
>
> >Similarly, as I have posted elsewhere, how can one trust an
> > elected official to make rational decisions on health. safety and
> environmental
> > issues if they don't accept the science behind Carbon 14 dating?
> >
> So you can't trust a Christian to make a rational decision. Exactly who
can
> you trust?
>
self-doubt about the subject at hand. An expressed absolute certainty is a
sure sign of wilful ignorance.
--
Quote of the week
"You'll never get a red neck if you keep your head where the sun don't
shine"
- Anonymous Usenet
Poster
Neil Tupper
"Ron Wise" <wi...@home.removecom> wrote
>
> Are you sure about Manning? I believe he is an evangelical Christian and
> not a Fundamentalist. Huge difference between the two belief systems. Of
> course it's hard to say with regards to Manning since he rarely(ever?)
> speaks of his religous beliefs unless asked.
>
There very well may be differences between fundamentalism and evangelism, but I
would be very reluctant to describe them as "huge", and certainly not to the
issue at hand. My examination of evangelism on the web reveals that they have a
literalist view of the bible generally and of Genesis specifically
Neil
Rick Sutcliffe
Wakefield <bed...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Concern about how an individual's highly public religious beliefs will
> impact on the rest of us should he come to power is hardly bigotry.
>
It is when it is only directed at the adherents of one religion, and no
one else's views are scrutinized.
Rick
--
Rick Sutcliffe Professor Math/Cmpt Trinity Western University
<<Not an official spokesperson>> Books at: <http://www.arjay.bc.ca>
Rick Sutcliffe
<ne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Now who's being politically correct? Nowhere did I suggest that one's
> religious
> beliefs should disqualify them from office, but to suggest that a candidate's
> religious beliefs are of no relevance to a voter is naive to say the least. I
> would want to know if a candidate was a Scientologist , a Moonie or any other
> religious cult. Similarly, as I have posted elsewhere, how can one trust an
> elected official to make rational decisions on health. safety and
> environmental
> issues if they don't accept the science behind Carbon 14 dating?
>
Just out of curiosity, what does Carbon 14 have to do with those issues?
Rick Sutcliffe
<ne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Both Day and Manning believe literally in the Bible and that the world is
> only a
> few thousand years old. In order to believe that, must disregard basic laws of
> physics and chemistry which underpin the concept of carbon 14 dating. Any
> politician who would disregard basic laws of physics and chemistry, in my
> opinion, is dangerous to developed western culture and society, which depends
> on
> such science to guide government in formulating laws and regulations regarding
> health, safety and environmental issues. I certainly care and think it does
> matter.
>
Since carbon-14 has a half-life of just over 5 millenia, it cannot be
used to date anything much older than ten times that, max. As the earth
is alleged to be of the order of several billion years old, what could
carbon-14 have to do with it? (Oh, I'll save you an answer. You perhaps
meant to talk about one of the other radioactive dating techniques.)
Now, to repeat another question, what do radioactive dating techniques
have to do with the issues you mention?
Rick Sutcliffe
<ne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> Obviously, you have misread my post. I was referring specifically to
> fundamentalists.Most Christians thankfully, can reconcile their religious
> beliefs with basic science.
>
>
BTW, what's a fundamentalist? Historically, it was one who held to
certain doctrines. Can you list them? Today it's some kind of clownish
stereotype--one I've never met, despite having been among Christian
circles a long time. Enough of straw men. If they were firey they would
have long since burned away.
Rick Sutcliffe
<tlc...@rapidnet.net> wrote:
> >
> I personally can't trust anyone who is unable to entertain a modicum of
> self-doubt about the subject at hand. An expressed absolute certainty is a
> sure sign of wilful ignorance.
> --
Are you absolutely certain of that?
Rick Sutcliffe
<ne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
>
> There very well may be differences between fundamentalism and evangelism, but
> I
> would be very reluctant to describe them as "huge", and certainly not to the
> issue at hand. My examination of evangelism on the web reveals that they have
> a
> literalist view of the bible generally and of Genesis specifically
>
Er, that's probably evangelicalism you mean. Nice to be able to say the
name of what you condemn. Helps to get people to believe you know what
you're talking about.
Randy
News, more than 200 people packed a room designed to hold half that number.
(Sshh, don't tell the fire marshall)
Standing at the rear were three young people probably no older than twenty, a
girl and two guys. She wore a McLenin t-shirt (Lenin's face over McDonald
arches) while the two young men featured black T's with "Commie" in red on one,
and "Big Brother Is Watching You" on the other. They were quiet and appeared
polite through out the meeting.
The young woman got in the last question of the evening, asking Mr.Day where he
stood on abortion, homosexuality, women's rights, native rights and capital
punishment. I thought Mr.Day handled it brilliantly, stating that in a Canadian
Alliance gov't under Stockwell Day, his personal opinion would be subject to the
decision of the people - that such matters should be decided throughout the
people and their elected representatives, preferably through referenda.
I hurried out to speak with these kids, who having made their point were quickly
on their way. All of us were pleasant, but I felt their views needed to be
challenged. I asked what they thought of his answer, and the young woman replied
"I wanted to hear his opinion on these issues." I replied that if he is a man of
his word and thus far there is no indication he isn't, his personal opinion is of
no consequence. He clearly stated that the people should decide these ethical
and moral issues. Given the nature of their t-shirts, I asked if that was not
the answer they would want to hear. She was clearly uncomfortable, and retreated
to saying that he didn't answer her question, and I again asked if she did not
think the citizens of Canada 'collectively' should decide on such matters.
I appreciate that young, malleable minds are susceptible to the claptrap that is
fed to them, but I sure would like to see a little more critical thinking going
on in our schools. And this is one of the reasons I believe the B.C. Teacher's
Federation must be pushed out of the ideological programming they so arrogantly
assume our children require, and go back to teaching solely the materials of the
B.C. curriculum.
hifl...@ecn.ab.ca
: x-no-archive: yes
: hifl...@ecn.ab.ca () wrote:
: >The "United Alternative" is not a change, it is a leap backward into the
: >past. Complete with child labor laws, and debtor's prisons. Unfettered
: >capitalism is what these cretons advocate.
: >No doubt about it. Just look at how the right wing crazies have fucked up
: >the country with massive public debts in both the United States and
: >Canada, and then try to blame this on the "left". And look at the snake
: >oil economics these stone age politicians sell, such as "supply side
: >economics".
: Dear hiflight Joe, it would appear that you are doing nothing more than
: clicking your keyboard for the sheer thrill of seeing a letter pop up on
: the monitor every time you press a key.
: First you claim the Alliance is planning to bring back exploitation of
: child and "debtor's prisons" (no less) without any examples of their
: policies which would accomplish such a Great Leap Backwards, then you blame
: them for the gross overspending of public money, which they spent
: (surprise, surprise) on social services we could not afford in the first
: place.
The right wing crazies and their overspending, greedy and criminal
behavior has been well documented in the Mulroney Goverment. What is less
well known is what has taken place in such Provincial right wing strong
holds as Alberta and Ontario. In ALberta, fully 34 billion of the public
debt incurred under the conservatives, was recent and after the Social
Credit Goverment had a debt free status in the 1960s thanks mostly to oil
revenues.
Of that 34 billion, fully 28 billion was incurred from corporate welfare
for Tory friends in the forms of loans and laon guarentees. And that does
not even look at the 12 billion taken and misused in the Heritage Slush
Fund.
: So which way do you really want it, Joe? How high were you when you wrote
: it?
What do I want? I would like to give the Earth a guarentee that NEVER
AGAIN would it see extreme right or left wing ideologies take over and
hurt people. No more Communists, EVER, and No more Capitalists, EVER
AGAIN. But that is not an easy thing to accomplish, either in Eastern
Europe or in America where both cretons persist in a stone age form.
Joe Green
: --
: Greetings from Lotusland
hifl...@ecn.ab.ca
: <hifl...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message news:391f...@ecn.ab.ca...
: > neb (nebekmel...@altavista.com.invalid) wrote:
: > : poor JOE he has not learned a thing in the last 25 years ,he
: > : still has no real plan ,and Politically JOE is the most
: > : boring man not yet in the senate
: >
: > Joe is not alone. Progressive Conservative Ralph Klein also has no plan.
: > Just look at the mess in health care. Utter chaos.
: Hmmm...Actually Alberta has the best run Healthcare in the country. For
: proof of this just go back 6 months to the flu outbreaks and every major
: province was overwhelmed except Alberta. This point didn't get much media
: air time, I wonder why? If you want to witness utter chaos in healthcare
: check out BC.
Fuck off and stop saying stupid things. Try telling that to the families
who have lost love ones for lack of medical attention in this Province.
The Courts say Ralph is personally responsible and will have to answer.
Maybe he should also be charged like any other common criminal.
: Ron
Joe Green
James McColm
that you don't believe it.
Jim
"Steven C. Britton" wrote:
>
> Neil Tupper wrote:
> >
> > Both Day and Manning believe literally in the Bible and that the world is
> only a
> > few thousand years old. In order to believe that, must disregard basic
> laws of
> > physics and chemistry which underpin the concept of carbon 14 dating. Any
> > politician who would disregard basic laws of physics and chemistry, in my
> > opinion, is dangerous to developed western culture and society, which
> depends on
> > such science to guide government in formulating laws and regulations
> regarding
> > health, safety and environmental issues.
>
> Disgarding C-14 dating does not preclude one's acceptance of science.
>
> After all, it's awfully easy for God to create a world where the C-14 dating
> would give the results we've all seen. Since C-14 dating uses the half life
> of the stuff, and bases its calculations on the level of radioactivity and
> amount of the substance present, it's very simple for God to create it there
> with the evidence pointing to an age much older than the Bible says so.
>
> Personally, I'm not a literalist, and I believe wholeheartedly in the theory
> of evolution. That does not mean that I am intolerant and disrespectful of
> Day's and Manning's beliefs -- unlike some people I could name.
>
> I really think you're grasping at straws on this one, trying to rationalize
> your intolerance of Christianity.
James McColm
the Catholic/Protestent card. Grief.
Jim
Blake MacKenzie wrote:
>
> "M.I. Wakefield" <bed...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:za1U4.69579$r37.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > Concern about how an individual's highly public religious beliefs will
> > impact on the rest of us should he come to power is hardly bigotry.
>
> Just like the Environmentalists New Age/Socialist beliefs have impacted us.
> Just like Neo-Feminism and their mother goddess beliefs have effected us.
> Just like the Secular Humanists tell us we are not allowed to practice
> Christianity when a Christian takes office but an Atheist is ok. What's good
> for the goose is good for the gander.
>
> >
> > From what little attention I've paid the CA leadership race so far, Keith
> > Martin seems to be the only one who's moderate enough socially that I'd
> even
> > consider voting for them at the next election.
> >
>
> We have had in the last 18 years 2 Catholic Prime Ministers and both are
> from Quebec. Maybe Upper and Lower Canada should be considered bigoted
> towards having a Protestant Western Leader. This attack on Stockwell Day has
> nothing to do with his religious beliefs and has everything to do with the
> Liberals fear about having a smart articulate person who knows how to save
> taxpayers money and doesn't play the patronage game. Chretien head to head
> against Stockwell Day wouldn't have a chance but regional biases and the
> "have not" patronage trough vote in the East will be the only deciding
> factor.
>
Blake MacKenzie
"Rick Sutcliffe" <rs...@twu.ca> wrote in message
news:160520001517184676%rs...@twu.ca...
>
> >
> > Both Day and Manning believe literally in the Bible and that the world
is
> > only a
> > few thousand years old. In order to believe that, must disregard basic
laws of
> > physics and chemistry which underpin the concept of carbon 14 dating.
Any
> > politician who would disregard basic laws of physics and chemistry, in
my
> > opinion, is dangerous to developed western culture and society, which
depends
> > on
> > such science to guide government in formulating laws and regulations
regarding
does
> > matter.
> >
> Since carbon-14 has a half-life of just over 5 millenia, it cannot be
> used to date anything much older than ten times that, max. As the earth
> is alleged to be of the order of several billion years old, what could
> carbon-14 have to do with it? (Oh, I'll save you an answer. You perhaps
> meant to talk about one of the other radioactive dating techniques.)
>
> Now, to repeat another question, what do radioactive dating techniques
> have to do with the issues you mention?
>
>
>
> --
> Rick Sutcliffe Professor Math/Cmpt Trinity Western University
> <<Not an official spokesperson>> Books at: <http://www.arjay.bc.ca>
Careful Rick. You might force Neil to make a statement based on faith since
one has to look into the origins of the universe to get a true look at the
history of the earth. Time to take Neil on trip into Cosmology. Man it takes
alot of "faith" to answer that question. : )
Question for Neil: If a great pressure was on the land, would this cause the
land to assume a greater geological age process in a more rapid short time
period? i.e.: such as coal can be created in laboratories under heavy
pressure in a short span of time.
Neil Tupper
"Rick Sutcliffe" <rs...@twu.ca> wrote
>Neil Tupper wrote:
>
> >
> > Both Day and Manning believe literally in the Bible and that the world is
> > only a
> > few thousand years old. In order to believe that, must disregard basic laws
of
> > physics and chemistry which underpin the concept of carbon 14 dating. Any
> > politician who would disregard basic laws of physics and chemistry, in my
> > opinion, is dangerous to developed western culture and society, which
depends
> > on
> > such science to guide government in formulating laws and regulations
regarding
> > health, safety and environmental issues. I certainly care and think it does
> > matter.
> >
> Since carbon-14 has a half-life of just over 5 millenia, it cannot be
> used to date anything much older than ten times that, max. As the earth
> is alleged to be of the order of several billion years old, what could
> carbon-14 have to do with it? (Oh, I'll save you an answer. You perhaps
> meant to talk about one of the other radioactive dating techniques.)
>
Sorry you're having difficulty following the argument, Rick. Clearly, you've
anticipated a different answer that you so graciously were willing to save me.
The issue was the belief that some people hold, that the Earth is only a few
thousand years old. Among the many radiometric systems, I used Carbon-14 simply
because it is refined enough to measure well beyond a few millenia and is
probably the most generally well known system
> Now, to repeat another question, what do radioactive dating techniques
> have to do with the issues you mention?
>
Again, I will assume that you have jumped into the middle of a thread. I was
referring to the fact that people who would date the Earth as so young, by
necessity have to deny the science behind Carbon -14 decay in particular, or as
you kindly pointed out, radiometric systems in general.
Neil
Neil Tupper
"Rick Sutcliffe" wrote in message
>Neil Tupper wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> > There very well may be differences between fundamentalism and evangelism,
but
> > I
> > would be very reluctant to describe them as "huge", and certainly not to the
> > issue at hand. My examination of evangelism on the web reveals that they
have
> > a
> > literalist view of the bible generally and of Genesis specifically
> >
> Er, that's probably evangelicalism you mean. Nice to be able to say the
> name of what you condemn. Helps to get people to believe you know what
> you're talking about.
>
No, actually, it was evangelism, and I'm using the term in the admittedly loose
sense that it is used on the web. But then again, you are undoubtedly more
knowledgable on the nuances of the words than I, so perhaps you could describe
the particlular form of evangelicalism to which you thought I was referring.
Neil
Liz McLean
> "John Ross" <j...@jr.jr1> wrote
> >
> > Since when is Christianity a religious cult?
> >
>
philsophy.
> Some branches of Christianity I do regard as cults, and that would include
the
> brand of fiery fundamentalism which believes that a 7 day process, 5 or 6
> thousand years ago created the Earth and all its life.
Actually, using the definition that fundamentalist Christians use to define
"cult" (extra-scriptural source of authority, built around a charismatic
leader with special powers, whose words supersede scripture etc)
Christianity is a Jewish cult
Liz McLean
"Ron Wise" <wi...@home.removecom> wrote in message
news:QmhU4.44603$g62.6...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
>
> > Both Day and Manning believe literally in the Bible and that the world
is
>> only a few thousand years old.
>
> not a Fundamentalist. Huge difference between the two belief systems. Of
> course it's hard to say with regards to Manning since he rarely(ever?)
> speaks of his religous beliefs unless asked.
Actually, the 2 terms used to be used interchangably, and many
"evangelicals" prouldy proclaimed themselves fundamentalists, the
evengelical leadership began to influence the flock to reject the term
fundamentalist because they believe it has negative connotations (read
Muslim fundamentalist). What do you see as the "huge difference" between
the 2 belief systems. BTW, I just got an email from my former pastor (PhD.
Ordained by Assemblies of God, and a licensed minister with the Pentacostal
Assemblies of Canada) as a 4th generation pastor, and used to the old
jargon, he refers to himself either way.
mi...@mike-warren.com
Paige> I personally can't trust anyone who is unable to entertain
Paige> a modicum of self-doubt about the subject at hand. An
Paige> expressed absolute certainty is a sure sign of wilful
Paige> ignorance.
Nicely put; that almost exactly sums up the fundamental difference
between religion and science.
--
mike warren . mi...@mike-warren.com gpg key id
http://www.mike-warren.com 0x579911BD
Neil Tupper
> In article <8ahU4.16859$au2.1...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>, Neil Tupper
> <ne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > Obviously, you have misread my post. I was referring specifically to
> > fundamentalists.Most Christians thankfully, can reconcile their religious
> > beliefs with basic science.
> >
> >
> BTW, what's a fundamentalist? Historically, it was one who held to
> certain doctrines. Can you list them? Today it's some kind of clownish
> stereotype--one I've never met, despite having been among Christian
> circles a long time. Enough of straw men. If they were firey they would
> have long since burned away.
>
Not being a student of theology, I'll cheerfully admit that I am not familiar
with the philosophical structures of Christianity and I will gratefully accept
whatever term you think is accurate, that describes that part of the Christian
religion which has a literal belief in Genesis. There must be a word . . .
Neil
John Angus
> x-no-archive: yes
> Well Steve, if Chretien had to step down in ignominy and left a legacy of
> fiscal irresponsibility, patronage and corruption the way Mulroney did, I
> would expect a severe blood letting and general house cleaning in the ranks
> of the Liberal Party. I can assure you that I'd be one of the first in
> there with a pitch fork.
The present Liberal government is easily as corrupt as Mulroney's
Conservatives (which in turn were not nearly as corrupt as Trudeau's
Liberals). It's just that they've got thievery, graft and patronage down to
a fine art so it's not noticed as much. They never talk to the press, and they
ignore any and all calls for investigations or resignations. When
they occasionally due let an investigation run they quickly shut
it down if it starts getting near Liberals.
JA
Ron Wise
news:q5oU4.55255$55.11...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
Well of course people are free to describe themselves anyway they want. What
we have to avoid is arguments based on semantics. In other words if you
said that Manning and Stockwell were "Fundamentalist" that word must have
some meaning. In our culture it appears to have a negative connotation with
many people. Evengelical, however does not seem to carry this same negative
connotation. It seems obvious that these discriptions in general usage have
very different meanings. If your asking me to attempt to define the meaning
of Fundamentalist by the general public it would be someone who is
hardline,dogmatic,insuluar and intolerant of other regions. It would be a
huge leap to apply any of these points to Manning. Keep in mind my
definition of Fundamentalist is an attempt to define it terms of the general
viewpoint. If some particular minister uses the word differently isn't
relevent. You could have 300 ministers and have 600 definitions :-).
I suppose it comes down to how you meant to use the word, in the general
sense of the word or something more specific i.e. Fundamentalist=Christian.
Ron
Steven C. Britton
>
> You are right, Steven, they should not and do not disqualify anyone.
> However, if the politician insists on translating his personal religious
> beliefs into public policy, voters anywhere in Canada except Quebec and
> Alberta will reject him and his party.
That is complete crap. You're basically telling me that someone who
believes the sanctity of life, the love, forgiveness, and tolerance of
others is something that will be fundamentally rejected by voters outside of
Quebec and Alberta.
You are flat out wrong, Karl.
> You want to talk about tolerance? Why don't we start with the statement
> that Canada is allegedly a Christian country and should be governed by
> Christian principles? Does that sound tolerant to you?
Yes.
Canada _was_ founded on Christian values; and one of those Christian values
you hate so much is the tolerance and respect of people with other beliefs
and opinions. That is one of the fundamental tenets of Christianity.
It is the _intolerant_ people who reject that notion, Karl. People like
you.
Steven C. Britton
> Let's take abortion. Poll after poll, year after year, shows that about
two
> thirds of Canadians suport the woman's right to chose and do not want any
> government intervention. So what exactly does Reform hope to achieve by a
> referendum? Are they going to keep having a referendum on the question
> like the Quebec separatists, every ten years until one day they get the
> results they want and then call it quits?
The Reform party, when it existed, believed in citizen's initiatives. If
enough signatures were collected on a petition, a referendum on the issue
would be held at the time of the next federal election. If people wanted a
referendum on abortion at the time of every election, then they would be
free to demand one.
> Do you or I have the right to tell a woman that she has to be
> pregnant whether she wants to be or not, because it offends "our sense of
> morality" ??
The woman makes that choice by having unprotected sex.
> Do you or I have the right to tell a homosexual he cannot
> work for our company because we don't like the way he lives and it offends
> "our morality" ??
Different issue, and under the premise of private property rights, the
answer would be yes, however an employer choosing to act that way wouldn't
last in business for very long.
However, the vast majority of people are reasonable, and understand that
people should be hired based on merit alone, and fired based upon
performance alone.
> My moral code states that I have no right to interfere in another person's
> life and that I have an obligation not to allow any other person or
> government to interfere with my life.
Then why do you support a fundamentally interventionalist and tyrannical
government? Every time the government tells me that I must think
homosexuality is normal, must have this taught in schools funded by my tax
dollars, and that I must hire people of a certain ethnic origin in the name
of "tolerance and equality", it is interfering in my private affairs.
Paige Smyth
> > self-doubt about the subject at hand. An expressed absolute certainty
is a
> > sure sign of wilful ignorance.
> > --
> Are you absolutely certain of that?
>
>
> --
> Rick Sutcliffe Professor Math/Cmpt Trinity Western University
> <<Not an official spokesperson>> Books at: <http://www.arjay.bc.ca>
Keith Baldwin
> How magnanimous of you, I am deeply touched and humbled by your generosity.
You should be.
> >What? The Canadian Alliance will be running candidates in every province. Only in Quebec may they not
have a
> >full slate.
>
> Read again, Your Pompousness, I said CREDIBLE candidates.
Every Reform candidate is a credible candidate.
> That's fine. We'll see. If they don't, they will pay for it.
I suspect the PCs will pay for it.
> >People voted Reform because the PCs no longer spoke for them. It's the same now.
>
> People parked their votes with Reform. Don't mistakke it for support or
> acceptance.
You think it's one thing, I think it's another. I guess we'll all find out after the next election.
> >The Canadian Alliance has mellowed some of its policy. They haven't abandoned anything. It is sellable in
> >Ontario.
>
> Yes, I noticed it in the last election when Presto! canmpaigned in Ontario.
> He had mellowed his speeches so much that the Triple EEE Senate was not
> even mentioned in them.
CA wants an elected, effective, and MORE equitable Senate. The equal part has been taken out. I would like
to see a Senate with equal rep by regions (Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Prairies, B.C.) with the North getting
half or less of what each region gets.
> None of which are policies that had attracted Westerners to Reform. They
> went to Reform to gain more political power in the Confederation for the
> West. And that is definitely not sellable in Ontario.
Well, a 2.5 E Senate will still sell in Western Canada. And I think you underestimate Ontarians ability to
compromise for the good of national unity. All the main policies will sell with normal everyday people, no
matter which province.
> >I don't think that is it at all. I want PCs to come to the Alliance and to influence it with their
> >viewpoints. I would never expect anyone to give up their beliefs in joining a party.
>
> But the Reform view of the Confederation and its demand for
> decentralization is contrary to the to-date policies of the Conservative
> party of maintaining a strong central government. So either the CA will
> have to abandon the idea of devolution of power to the provinces and
> regions or the Conservatives will have to buy into it. Something's gotta
> give.
Of course there will have to be compromises. This is politics after all.
> >But the simple fact is
> >that CA and the PCs share more in common than they disagree about.
>
> Yes, all they share is their desperate thirst for power.
If anyone is desperate for power, and will do ANYTHING for it, it is the Liberals.
> On the contrary, it is the stated policy of the populist Reformers and
> again, a major attraction of Reform in the West that "majority rules and
> the rest of them can go to hell". All I did was to apply the Deformed
> dictum to the current poll results. I guess you don't like your own
> policies when they are being applied to you, but would love to apply them
> to others?
It was a public opinion poll, on a hypothetical election, not on any issue in general. So I should shut up
because a poll came out with 52% support for Liberals? Give me a break!
> >Of that poll, 25% of the respondents were undecided. It is a meaningless poll.
>
> How does that compare to a general election with less than 75% voter
> participation? Are elections also meaningless?
Point taken.
> >The respondents more than likely wanted to get rid of the caller and just said
> >Liberal to get them off their case.
>
> Is that what your crystal ball is telling you?
No, that is what an angel of God has dictated to me. :-)
> >But when people think carefully and make their decision during an
> >election campaign, you can be sure the Libs won't get over 50% of the vote.
>
> Voters think carefully? Surely you jest? It is generally accepted that
> Mulroney won his 1984 election on the strength of a 5 second clip "You,
> Sir, had a choice", it is also equally accepted that Gordon Wilson
> catapulted his BC Liberal party in 1991 from obscurity into the Official
> Opposition by a similar clip "And this, folks, is why nothing ever gets
> doen in Victoria". And you try to tell me that voters think carefully
> before they cast their ballots?
Not all, of course, but I think the majority do. Some people like to vote for whomever they think looks good
to win in a campaign. Maybe this makes them feel like they're on the "winning" side the next morning or
something. Again, these are all my personal opinions, from personal observations. I haven't started any
mathematical proofs to prove these.
> >> Come on, Keith, show us how firmly you really believe in this 50%+1
> >> populist nonsense ..... when it goes against what you want?
What was it I wanted?
> We're
> talking about the 50%+1 rule generally. It is one of the cornerstones of
> the Deform populist ideology. Specifically, I was applying that rule to
> this, as you say, meaningless poll.
The poll, as stated above, is not on any one issue. And the poll does not represent a "final" counting, as an
election or referendum would. Hence, the debate is still open, and I can and shall add my voice. After the
election, should the Liberals win a 3rd majority, you will not see me whining or causing a fuss. I will
accept that Canadians did not vote for CA policy. Simple as dat.
> If you buy into the Reform idea of government by referendum and by polls,
By polls? Where is this written? If anything, the Liberals govern by polls.
> you don't have the luxury of calling polls which you don't like or which do
> not favour your particular point of view, meaningless.
You're taking this too far. This poll that we are discussing IS meaningless. It shows that the CA went up 7%
in support. Do I give it a lot of weight? No I don't. It could be back to 10% next poll. Polls in between
elections mean nothing. That's just saying it like it is.
> Myself, I have stated here many times that public opinion polls are for the
> idiots that want to believe them. But it gives me particular merriment to
> yank your chain with this one ...
And yank it you do. Well, we agree that these public opinion polls are meaningless fluff. They're something
to talk about for a couple of days to pass the time, but not worth the paper they're written on really. Much
like tabloids. My mom loves 'em. I have no idea why, but I'm sure it's the same reason why I look at these
polls.
hifl...@ecn.ab.ca
Organization: Edmonton Community Network
Distribution:
Blake MacKenzie (dusty...@nospam.home.com) wrote:
: "M.I. Wakefield" <bed...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
: news:za1U4.69579$r37.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
: > Concern about how an individual's highly public religious beliefs will
: > impact on the rest of us should he come to power is hardly bigotry.
: Just like the Environmentalists New Age/Socialist beliefs have impacted us.
: Just like Neo-Feminism and their mother goddess beliefs have effected us.
: Just like the Secular Humanists tell us we are not allowed to practice
: Christianity when a Christian takes office but an Atheist is ok. What's good
: for the goose is good for the gander.
Are we talking about the same Stockwell Day who sold chickens from his
fathers Ford pickup and smoked dope in school? I like to get my facts
straight. You regard this man as being "articulate"?
: >
: > From what little attention I've paid the CA leadership race so far, Keith
: > Martin seems to be the only one who's moderate enough socially that I'd
: even
: > consider voting for them at the next election.
: >
: We have had in the last 18 years 2 Catholic Prime Ministers and both are
: from Quebec. Maybe Upper and Lower Canada should be considered bigoted
: towards having a Protestant Western Leader. This attack on Stockwell Day has
: nothing to do with his religious beliefs and has everything to do with the
: Liberals fear about having a smart articulate person who knows how to save
: taxpayers money and doesn't play the patronage game. Chretien head to head
: against Stockwell Day wouldn't have a chance but regional biases and the
: "have not" patronage trough vote in the East will be the only deciding
: factor.
Well Blake for starters, we live in a democracy where you have to win
majorities in order to govern. If Canadians in that part of the country do
not like your neo-con policies they will not support you. Just like if a
majority in Alberta do not support the NDP and its policies, they will not
vote for you.
In a democracy, a majority has the right to pick those who iwll write the
rules that will govern all of us. Now what part of the word "democracy"
does the neo-con conservative movement not understand?
Joe Green
: -- : Blake MacKenzie
mi...@mike-warren.com
joe> In a democracy, a majority has the right to pick those who
joe> iwll write the rules that will govern all of us. Now what
joe> part of the word "democracy" does the neo-con conservative
joe> movement not understand?
Apparently the bit about ``with respect to minority rights''? It would
appear that the CA has deluded themselves into thinking they're *the*
party which should govern; luckily for Canada, few Canadians share this
view.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> Are we talking about the same Stockwell Day who sold chickens from his
> fathers Ford pickup and smoked dope in school? I like to get my facts
> straight. You regard this man as being "articulate"?
He also claims to have been standing outside his fathers' home throwing
snowballs at the house when he was just under 1 year of age. He was apparently
quite a fast developing young lad.
--
Best regards,
Stephen Jenuth
(jen...@homacjen.ab.ca)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Paige Smyth
<jen...@homacjen.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:7vEU4.47699$g62.6...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
Liberal leader / former NPA leader / current NDP cabinet minister Flip
Wilson! Amazing how political ambition enhances ones personal memory.
--
Quote of the week
"You'll never get a red neck if you keep your head where the sun don't
shine"
- Anonymous Usenet
Poster
hifl...@ecn.ab.ca
<39219...@news.cadvision.com> <pmk3is0sio54vseop...@4ax.com>
Distribution:
nohow (no...@nowhere.com) wrote:
: On Tue, 16 May 2000 13:12:48 -0600, "Steven C. Britton"
: <s...@scb-group.com> wrote:
: >Neil Tupper wrote:
: >>
: >> Both Day and Manning believe literally in the Bible and that the world is
: >only a
: >> few thousand years old. In order to believe that, must disregard basic
: >laws of
: >> physics and chemistry which underpin the concept of carbon 14 dating. Any
: >> politician who would disregard basic laws of physics and chemistry, in my
: >> opinion, is dangerous to developed western culture and society, which
: >depends on
: >> such science to guide government in formulating laws and regulations
: >regarding
: >> health, safety and environmental issues.
: >
: >Disgarding C-14 dating does not preclude one's acceptance of science.
: >
: >After all, it's awfully easy for God to create a world where the C-14 dating
: >would give the results we've all seen. Since C-14 dating uses the half life
: >of the stuff, and bases its calculations on the level of radioactivity and
: >amount of the substance present, it's very simple for God to create it there
: >with the evidence pointing to an age much older than the Bible says so.
: The bible doesn't say any age. Someone's interpretation does.
A scientist won the Nobel Prise for working out the science of Radio
Carbon Dating. It was a brilliant piece of science.
With respect to science and Christianity, The Catholic Church as the
earliest and largest bloc of Christian believers has published Papal
Encyclicals stating that a proper understanding of Theology and of Science
cannot result in a fundamental contradiction between the two (See Pius
Xll).
This Pope has accepted "evolution" as a scientifically established truth.
There is a large volume of scientific work that underpins this work, and
the "creationists" while perhaps raising some very interesting scientific
questions and anomolies, ought to contemplate both the Theology of
Creation, as well as the scientific fundamentals that their view rests
upon.
The "written word of God" over the past two thousand years, has seen at
least three major translations before it has reached us in the modern
English Language, which five hundred years ago, did not exist.
What has this all got to do with Stockwell Day and Preston Manning? Well
simply this. It is one thing to read the Bible and try to follow its
advice in one's own personal life. It is another matter entirely to try to
impose these views carte blanche on the country with all of its cultural
and religious diversity.
I wish that both of them would better understand history and understand
the Doctrine of Separation of Church and State. Then they should chose to
either be lay politicians or become ordained ministers. Catholic priests
are told bluntly by churst authorities to stay out of direct politics. The
Protestant sects should do the same thing.
We just don't need an Ian Paisley (from Norther Ireland) here in Canada
preaching and spewing his brand of ignorance, stupidity and hate.
When Candian select political leaders, we expect them to deal with the
problems facing all our citizens, not just the Baptists or the
Pentacostals. And for Preston that means meeting Canadians in their
Churches, Synagogs, and other places of worship. That is what we expect of
Canadian Politicans. Perhaps even an Objectivist gathering, or even a
Scientology Church meeting. In other words we not only expect, we demand
that our politicans reflect back to us our multi-cultural character as a
Nation.
That is why a "legislated" approach to moral issues like abortion will not
succeed. Morality must come from within an individual. Even Objectivists
who have such difficulty loving their fellow men.
Joe Green
Don Wagner
John Carrick <crs...@inforamp.net> wrote in message
news:392b3163....@news.psi.ca...
> On Tue, 16 May 2000 11:13:19 GMT, "Blake MacKenzie"
> <dusty...@nospam.home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"M.I. Wakefield" <bed...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >news:za1U4.69579$r37.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >> Concern about how an individual's highly public religious beliefs will
> >> impact on the rest of us should he come to power is hardly bigotry.
> >
> >Just like the Environmentalists New Age/Socialist beliefs have impacted
us.
> >Just like Neo-Feminism and their mother goddess beliefs have effected us.
> >Just like the Secular Humanists tell us we are not allowed to practice
> >Christianity when a Christian takes office but an Atheist is ok. What's
good
> >for the goose is good for the gander.
>
> using it as a conjunction. You need to say, Just *as*...."
He doesn't "need" to say anything. He "should" say something.
Did you not understand it? You should seek help.
>
> [2] This is the year 2000, not the year 200. Anyone who still
> adheres to Christian fundamentalist beliefs is childlike.
>
> I don't want a childlike Prime Minister.
>
> I'd be delighted to have a Humanist P.M., on the other hand. You see,
> I'm partial to people who treat each other humanely.
So why do you not lead by example?
>
> >> From what little attention I've paid the CA leadership race so far,
Keith
> >> Martin seems to be the only one who's moderate enough socially that I'd
> >>even consider voting for them at the next election.
>
> >We have had in the last 18 years 2 Catholic Prime Ministers and both are
> >from Quebec. Maybe Upper and Lower Canada should be considered bigoted
> >towards having a Protestant Western Leader.
>
> What's next? Are you going to call Liberal voters "papists"? Where
> do you get your material from - Ian Paisley? (He is a virulently
> anti-Catholic leader in Northern Ireland.)
Yes, and he's as closed minded and hopelessly out of date as you.
>
> >This attack on Stockwell Day has nothing to do with his religious
beliefs,
> > and has everything to do with the Liberals fear about having a smart
articulate
> > person who knows how to save taxpayers money and doesn't play the
patronage
> > game.
>
> What bloody nonsense! Fundamentalist Christians disqualify themselves
> from serious consideration for public office by being blind to the
> real world. Middle Age thinking belongs in the Middle Ages.
Now we agree. This goes for all the superstitions.
Don Wagner
Don Wagner
Liz McLean <lizmcle...@home.com.REMOVE> wrote in message
> > >"M.I. Wakefield" <bed...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
will
> > >> impact on the rest of us should he come to power is hardly bigotry.
> > >
> > >Just like the Environmentalists New Age/Socialist beliefs have impacted
> us.
> > >Just like Neo-Feminism and their mother goddess beliefs have effected
us.
> > >Just like the Secular Humanists tell us we are not allowed to practice
> > >Christianity when a Christian takes office but an Atheist is ok. What's
> good
> > >for the goose is good for the gander.
>
> > >We have had in the last 18 years 2 Catholic Prime Ministers and both
are
> > >from Quebec. Maybe Upper and Lower Canada should be considered bigoted
> > >towards having a Protestant Western Leader.
> >
> > What's next? Are you going to call Liberal voters "papists"? Where
> > do you get your material from - Ian Paisley? (He is a virulently
> > anti-Catholic leader in Northern Ireland.)
>
> that the most fanatic are always those who have reformed or converted from
> something else whether it be religion, politics, or even reformed smokers.
Let's face it. A religious dipshit is a religious dipshit no matter what
superstition he/she embraces at any moment.
Don Wagner
Don Wagner
>
> "Blake MacKenzie" <dusty...@nospam.home.com> wrote
> .
> >
> > This attack on Stockwell Day has
the
> > Liberals fear about having a smart articulate person who knows how to
save
> > taxpayers money and doesn't play the patronage game.
> >
legitimate
> as the concerns that would be raised over any candidate whose personal
> philosophy would ignore commonly accepted scientific knowledge. That
certainly
> doesn't disqualify them from running for public office, but their beliefs
are
> certainly germane to political debate. Wouldn't it, for example, be in the
> public interest to know that a candidate believed that the Earth is flat?
Quite true, and I'm serious.
On a lighter note, we in BC have elected a government that believes that
money grows on trees.
Don Wagner
John Carrick
<dusty...@nospam.home.com> wrote:
>
>"M.I. Wakefield" <bed...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:za1U4.69579$r37.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> Concern about how an individual's highly public religious beliefs will
>> impact on the rest of us should he come to power is hardly bigotry.
>
>Just like the Environmentalists New Age/Socialist beliefs have impacted us.
>Just like Neo-Feminism and their mother goddess beliefs have effected us.
>Just like the Secular Humanists tell us we are not allowed to practice
>Christianity when a Christian takes office but an Atheist is ok. What's good
>for the goose is good for the gander.
[1]The word "like" is always a preposition. Would you, please, stop
using it as a conjunction. You need to say, Just *as*...."
[2] This is the year 2000, not the year 200. Anyone who still
adheres to Christian fundamentalist beliefs is childlike.
I don't want a childlike Prime Minister.
I'd be delighted to have a Humanist P.M., on the other hand. You see,
I'm partial to people who treat each other humanely.
>> From what little attention I've paid the CA leadership race so far, Keith
>> Martin seems to be the only one who's moderate enough socially that I'd
>>even consider voting for them at the next election.
>We have had in the last 18 years 2 Catholic Prime Ministers and both are
>from Quebec. Maybe Upper and Lower Canada should be considered bigoted
>towards having a Protestant Western Leader.
What's next? Are you going to call Liberal voters "papists"? Where
do you get your material from - Ian Paisley? (He is a virulently
anti-Catholic leader in Northern Ireland.)
>This attack on Stockwell Day has nothing to do with his religious beliefs,
> and has everything to do with the Liberals fear about having a smart articulate
> person who knows how to save taxpayers money and doesn't play the patronage
> game.
What bloody nonsense! Fundamentalist Christians disqualify themselves
from serious consideration for public office by being blind to the
real world. Middle Age thinking belongs in the Middle Ages.
> Chretien head to head against Stockwell Day wouldn't have a chance but regional
> biases and the "have not" patronage trough vote in the East will be the only deciding
>factor.
Listen, you dope, The City of Toronto and its environs alone have
well over ten per cent of the population of this country. Ontario is
the home of one Canadian in three. Is this the result of some sort of
(small "l") liberal conspiracy?
Why would you expect that a few population challenged western
provinces would be able to choose the national government? If it is
so important to you to have voted for the party in power, change
parties.
Neil Tupper
> Liberals fear about having a smart articulate person who knows how to save
> taxpayers money and doesn't play the patronage game.
>
as the concerns that would be raised over any candidate whose personal
philosophy would ignore commonly accepted scientific knowledge. That certainly
doesn't disqualify them from running for public office, but their beliefs are
certainly germane to political debate. Wouldn't it, for example, be in the
public interest to know that a candidate believed that the Earth is flat?
Neil
Neil Tupper
> --
>
Do you realize how orwellian this sounds? I would have thought that anyone who
professes to champion the cause of individualism, would leave moral decisions up
to the individual, and legal decisions up to the majority.
Neil
Liz McLean
> >"M.I. Wakefield" <bed...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >> Concern about how an individual's highly public religious beliefs will
> >> impact on the rest of us should he come to power is hardly bigotry.
> >
> >Just like the Environmentalists New Age/Socialist beliefs have impacted
us.
> >Just like Neo-Feminism and their mother goddess beliefs have effected us.
> >Just like the Secular Humanists tell us we are not allowed to practice
> >Christianity when a Christian takes office but an Atheist is ok. What's
good
> >for the goose is good for the gander.
<snip>
> >We have had in the last 18 years 2 Catholic Prime Ministers and both are
> >from Quebec. Maybe Upper and Lower Canada should be considered bigoted
> >towards having a Protestant Western Leader.
>
> What's next? Are you going to call Liberal voters "papists"? Where
> do you get your material from - Ian Paisley? (He is a virulently
> anti-Catholic leader in Northern Ireland.)
Did you know that Paisley was born and raised a Roman Catholic? It seem
that the most fanatic are always those who have reformed or converted from
something else whether it be religion, politics, or even reformed smokers.
>
> >This attack on Stockwell Day has nothing to do with his religious
beliefs,
> > and has everything to do with the Liberals fear about having a smart
articulate
> > person who knows how to save taxpayers money and doesn't play the
patronage
> > game.
Doesn't play the patronage game huh? I am eagerly awaiting your post with
the list of Liberals and New Democrats the the Alberta Conservative
government has appointed to the judicial benches and the agencies, boards
and commissions of the province.
Mike Warren
Karl> "Steven C. Britton" <s...@scb-group.com> wrote:
[note: lost attribution for original statement]
>>> Do you or I have the right to tell a woman that she has to be
>>> pregnant whether she wants to be or not, because it offends
>>> "our sense of morality" ??
>> The woman makes that choice by having unprotected sex.
Karl> Steven, I don't think you are cluing in on this issue at
Karl> all. From my "tyrannical, interventionist Liberal" point of
Karl> view, it makes no difference at what point or how the woman
Karl> makes her choices. They are HER CHOICES to make, and in a
Karl> free society, she must be free to make as many and as stupid
Karl> choices as she wants to.
Although I don't *really* want to wade into a abortion debate, I will
anyway ;)
It is important, I think, to compromise somewhat between the concerns
of pro- and anti- abortionists. A good compromise is deciding on a
cut-off in the 3 to 4 month range after which it can reasonably be
assumed that the woman knows she is pregnant and has had time to act
if she doesn't want to be.
If the woman chooses to make her decision through inaction, I don't
think she should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy at 8
months. However, I also don't think it's reasonable to assume that all
birth control is 100% effective or that accidents will never occur, as
Steven seems to.
--
mike warren . use...@mike-warren.com gpg key id
http://www.mike-warren.com 0x579911BD
Rick Sutcliffe
<ne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry you're having difficulty following the argument, Rick. Clearly, you've
> anticipated a different answer that you so graciously were willing to save me.
> The issue was the belief that some people hold, that the Earth is only a few
> thousand years old. Among the many radiometric systems, I used Carbon-14
> simply
> because it is refined enough to measure well beyond a few millenia and is
> probably the most generally well known system
>
Not having difficulty at all. It just seems irrelevant.
> > Now, to repeat another question, what do radioactive dating techniques
> > have to do with the issues you mention?
> >
>
> Again, I will assume that you have jumped into the middle of a thread. I was
> referring to the fact that people who would date the Earth as so young, by
> necessity have to deny the science behind Carbon -14 decay in particular, or as
> you kindly pointed out, radiometric systems in general.
>
All radioactive dating works by comparing the ratio of "original"
material with "daughter" material or some other ratio of isotopes
(simplification warning here). The big assumption is what the ratio was
at "the beginning". No one knows. (There are other assumptions as
well.) Recent work on volcanic eruptions shows the issue is far more
complex than originally assumed, with so-called "daughter" products
apparently being present in fresh flows.
Conclusion: No science has to be denied to come up with a different age
for the earth; one merely starts with different assumptions about the
parameters.
Personally, I am more worried about people who deny economic realities
being in politics than I am about the religious views of politicians,
or the lack thereof--especially since, if democracy were actually
practiced, policies would be determined by the people--risky, but
better than most systems.
Rick Sutcliffe
<ne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > Er, that's probably evangelicalism you mean. Nice to be able to say the
> > name of what you condemn. Helps to get people to believe you know what
> > you're talking about.
> >
>
> No, actually, it was evangelism, and I'm using the term in the admittedly
> loose
> sense that it is used on the web. But then again, you are undoubtedly more
> knowledgable on the nuances of the words than I, so perhaps you could describe
> the particlular form of evangelicalism to which you thought I was referring.
>
Fundamentalism was a term originally coined to refer to those who held
to the truth of a particular set of Christian doctrines. Like many such
terms it is no longer recognizable, expecially in the media.
Evangelicals, loosely speaking, are those Christians who believe in the
necessity of preaching the gospel of personal salvation (as opposed,
say, to an institutional variety.) There is certainly an overlap
between the two groups, but they are not identical.
"Evangelism" is the process or act of preaching the gospel. This term
does not refer to groups of people.
Rick Sutcliffe
<mi...@mike-warren.com> wrote:
> >>>>> "Paige" == Paige Smyth <tlc...@rapidnet.net> writes:
>
> Paige> I personally can't trust anyone who is unable to entertain
> Paige> a modicum of self-doubt about the subject at hand. An
> Paige> expressed absolute certainty is a sure sign of wilful
> Paige> ignorance.
>
> Nicely put; that almost exactly sums up the fundamental difference
> between religion and science.
Hmmm. Which is which?
Rick Sutcliffe
<ka...@dontspam.org> wrote:
>
> You want to talk about tolerance? Why don't we start with the statement
> that Canada is allegedly a Christian country and should be governed by
> Christian principles? Does that sound tolerant to you?
What about the belief that Christians ought not to be in government,
lest they somehow (as if it were possible) "force" their beliefs on the
rest?
Rick Sutcliffe
<ka...@dontspam.org> wrote:
>
> My moral code states that I have no right to interfere in another person's
> life and that I have an obligation not to allow any other person or
> government to interfere with my life. I don't know what your moral code
> says on that point, but my moral code beats your moral code every single
> time. For no other reason that it is mine.
I'm curious. What's the difference between everyone having their own
personal moral code and there not being any moral code at all?
Rick Sutcliffe
>
> What has this all got to do with Stockwell Day and Preston Manning? Well
> simply this. It is one thing to read the Bible and try to follow its
> advice in one's own personal life. It is another matter entirely to try to
> impose these views carte blanche on the country with all of its cultural
> and religious diversity.
>
And, what evidence do you offer that such is their purpose?
> I wish that both of them would better understand history and understand
> the Doctrine of Separation of Church and State. Then they should chose to
> either be lay politicians or become ordained ministers. Catholic priests
> are told bluntly by churst authorities to stay out of direct politics. The
> Protestant sects should do the same thing.
>
> We just don't need an Ian Paisley (from Norther Ireland) here in Canada
> preaching and spewing his brand of ignorance, stupidity and hate.
>
And, would you care to cite instances of hate-mongering from Preston
Manning?
> When Candian select political leaders, we expect them to deal with the
> problems facing all our citizens, not just the Baptists or the
> Pentacostals. And for Preston that means meeting Canadians in their
> Churches, Synagogs, and other places of worship. That is what we expect of
> Canadian Politicans. Perhaps even an Objectivist gathering, or even a
> Scientology Church meeting. In other words we not only expect, we demand
> that our politicans reflect back to us our multi-cultural character as a
> Nation.
>
We demand other things of them too--some standard of morality. However,
we also say there is no such thing. Hmmm.
> That is why a "legislated" approach to moral issues like abortion will not
> succeed. Morality must come from within an individual. Even Objectivists
> who have such difficulty loving their fellow men.
>
All law is an attempt to impose a moral standard. Take business law,
for instance. Without it, you get ruthless behaviour, as profit becomes
the only goal. With it, there is some regulation. Why regulate? Because
society (this one at least) has a moral principle that some things are
better than profit. And, we impose that principle on everyone!.
Shocking.
Rick Sutcliffe
<ka...@dontspam.org> wrote:
> If you don't want abortions, don't have one. Just don't try to tell other
> people how to live their lives. Trust me on this one, it does not make your
> own life any more interesting. Just relax and get used to the frightening
> idea that other people want to live their lives differently than you would
> like them to and there is dick all you can do about it.
If you don't want murders or bank robberies, just don't do it. Don't
tell anyone else not to.
Rick Sutcliffe
<crs...@inforamp.net> wrote:
> Why would you expect that a few population challenged western
> provinces would be able to choose the national government? If it is
> so important to you to have voted for the party in power, change
> parties.
The problem is that if the eastern majority continues to act, not just
as a majority but as if they were all of Canada, and ignore the West as
if it weren't part of Canada, eventually they'll get their wish.
Rick Sutcliffe
<ne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> There is a legitimate concern over Day's beliefs, which are just as
> legitimate
> as the concerns that would be raised over any candidate whose personal
> philosophy would ignore commonly accepted scientific knowledge. That
> certainly
> doesn't disqualify them from running for public office, but their beliefs are
> certainly germane to political debate. Wouldn't it, for example, be in the
> public interest to know that a candidate believed that the Earth is flat?
>
Mildly so, but I for one would want to know what difference it made in
running the country. Seems to me we've had such bad national an
provincial governments for so long that a flat-earther would be an
improvement.
Steven C. Britton
>
> >The Reform party, when it existed, believed in citizen's initiatives.
>
Right
> or wrong, whatever the majority decides, goes.
I suggest you take your head out of the blender first next time, Karl.
> OK, they will repeat it every election until they get their desired
> results, at which point of course the opposing portion of the population
> will start getting their contrary proposition on the ballot until it
> finally receives the vote it desires and then we will repeat the same
> lunatic process ad absurdum.
If that's what the public wants, then yes. Eventually, people will stop
signing the petitions. The public doesn't like neverendums, Karl.
> >The woman makes that choice by having unprotected sex.
>
> Steven, I don't think you are cluing in on this issue at all. From my
> "tyrannical, interventionist Liberal" point of view, it makes no
difference
> at what point or how the woman makes her choices. They are HER CHOICES to
> make, and in a free society, she must be free to make as many and as
stupid
> choices as she wants to.
Nobody has the right to take the life of an innocent. That includes unborn
children. The fact that you subscribe to the murder of innocent people is
disturbing.
> If you don't want abortions, don't have one. Just don't try to tell other
> people how to live their lives. Trust me on this one, it does not make
your
> own life any more interesting. Just relax and get used to the frightening
> idea that other people want to live their lives differently than you would
> like them to and there is dick all you can do about it.
I am perfectly okay with the fact that other people want to live _their_
lives different from me. That does not give them the right to commit
murder. Nobody has that right.
Of course, unless you spread your legs, give a stupid guy a warm, wet place
to put it, and then suffer the consequence of your choice... then it's okay
to kill someone, because you have free will.
> >> Do you or I have the right to tell a homosexual he cannot
> >> work for our company because we don't like the way he lives and it
offends
> >> "our morality" ??
> >
> >Different issue, and under the premise of private property rights, the
> >answer would be yes, however an employer choosing to act that way
wouldn't
> >last in business for very long.
>
> Fine, so next time it will be OK for employers to reject a candidate for a
> job on the grounds that red headed people's hair would clash with the
> office decor...
It's their private business, Karl.
> ... or that pet owners smell or because people who drive
> automobile are clearly irresponsible because they do not love Mother Earth
> enough? Hello?
You're just being stupid now.
> Hey, I know! Why don't we make a rule that you can deny to serve people
> who live in common law in restaurants on the grounds that they live
> immorally?
I can choose to invite or ban whoever I want from my place of business, for
whatever reason I choose.
> That should be a good one for the next CA policy convention.
> Let's have a referendum on that, shall we?
You reallly should take your head out of the blender first, Karl. It does
far less damage to your brain that way.
> Laws are not made for the vast majority of people who are reasonable.
They
> are there to discourage the unreasonable ones from doing unreasonable
> things that offend against other people.
Laws that legislate morality are useless, Karl.
> >Every time the government tells me that I must think
> >homosexuality is normal,
>
> Nobody is telling you what you must believe, nor for that matter that
> homosexuality is normal. If some 10% of the population is homosexual, then
> it clearly is not normal. But normalcy has nothing to do with anything.
> You do not need to be "normal" in order to be human.
>
> Mentally sick people are not normal, but that does not mean that they do
> not have rights like everybody else. Physically disabled people are not
> normal, but they have normal rights like everybody else. Hell, hockey
> player sure as heck don't behave like normal people, but allegedly normal
> people pay pretty big money to watch them do it. :-)
Of course they have rights: Life, speech, and property.
Those are the ONLY rights anybody has.
Steven C. Britton
> It is important, I think, to compromise somewhat between the concerns
> of pro- and anti- abortionists. A good compromise is deciding on a
> cut-off in the 3 to 4 month range after which it can reasonably be
> assumed that the woman knows she is pregnant and has had time to act
> if she doesn't want to be.
The only definition we can make on life, Mike, is that it begins at
conception. I say that because we really can't define the precise moment
where a bunch of cells becomes a human being.
> If the woman chooses to make her decision through inaction, I don't
> think she should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy at 8
> months. However, I also don't think it's reasonable to assume that all
> birth control is 100% effective or that accidents will never occur, as
> Steven seems to.
I'm not assuming birth control is 100% effective. In fact, I've said the
precise opposite many times. The point is that inside the proper context,
failure of birth control (usually due to pilot error, I might add) is more
of a surprise than a disaster. Outside of the proper context, failure of
birth control is a disaster; one which all-too-often results in death.
The only sure-thing in birth control is to not have sex until one is in a
context where one can care for the children, and, if in the disasterous
event that someone does something stupid, adoption is the next best option.
Too many women are too cowardly not to do that, though. They'd rather just
"make it go away".
Steven C. Britton
>
> I'm curious. What's the difference between everyone having their own
> personal moral code and there not being any moral code at all?
None. That's why Karl's ideology is so dangerous.
John Angus
> "Keith Baldwin" <kbaNl...@PatAtcManada.net> wrote:
>>CA wants an elected, effective, and MORE equitable Senate. The equal part has been taken out.
>
> Well. there you go. Or rather, there goes at least 10% of the Reform
> membership ...
Nonsense. The primary motivating factor driving people into the
arms of the CA is the utter corruption and incompetence of both
the Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties. And there's
no sign of that changing.
>>If anyone is desperate for power, and will do ANYTHING for it, it is
the Liberals.
>
> Desperate? I don't think so. We're the Natural Governing Party, do
You have been because every election you have been getting virtually
every seat in Quebec. With that under your belts it didn't matter
that the Tories virtually always got far more seats from the rest
of Canada. But now the BQ has robbed you of that comfortable edge
and only the fact that the tories have fallen apart and Ontario
doesn't trust the new and unfamiliar Reform party, esp due to the "rumored"
extremism, has kept you in power.
There are damn few people aside from your own party members who
have _any_ enthusism for the Liberals in Ontario these days.
Most of them vote Liberal simply because of the alternatives.
Give them a good alternative and you'll drop like a rock.
> whatever you like, sooner or later you will vote for us again. You have
> to, there is no other credible choice.
Don't be silly. The tories ARE the Liberals marching under a different
banner. There's no difference between them and you. Even the graft
and corruption is the same. But no one much sees the point in tossing
out the crooks and bums in office now to replace them with another
set of identical crooks and bums.
JA
Randy
Karl Pollak wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> Randy <ben...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > ... All of us were pleasant, but I felt their views needed to be
> >challenged. I asked what they thought of his answer, and the young woman replied
> >"I wanted to hear his opinion on these issues." I replied that if he is a man of
> >his word and thus far there is no indication he isn't, his personal opinion is of
> >no consequence. He clearly stated that the people should decide these ethical
> >and moral issues. Given the nature of their t-shirts, I asked if that was not
> >the answer they would want to hear. She was clearly uncomfortable, and retreated
> >to saying that he didn't answer her question, and I again asked if she did not
> >think the citizens of Canada 'collectively' should decide on such matters.
> >
> >I appreciate that young, malleable minds are susceptible to the claptrap that is
>
> Actually Randy, I would say that that girl was far from being malleable. In
> fact, she was right on. Day did not answer the question, he dodged it,
> precisely because it is a minefield for any politician.
> I don't think it was a matter of 'dodging' at all. He has made his personal views
> known and quite public all along - and certainly everyone in that room (and likely
> including our little 'Agente Provacateur') knew his personal beliefs.
>
> Let's take abortion. Poll after poll, year after year, shows that about two
> thirds of Canadians suport the woman's right to chose and do not want any
> government intervention.
While personally against abortion myself, I wouldn't deny a woman's 'right to choose'
- but doesn't the fact that the gov't provides the service and pays for it with my tax
dollars constitute 'government intervention'?
> So what exactly does Reform hope to achieve by a
> referendum?
I would suggest they hope to achieve a fair and accurate assessment of the will of the
people involving difficult ethical issues which we as a society must face and reach a
consensus upon..
> Are they going to keep having a referendum on the question
> like the Quebec separatists, every ten years until one day they get the
> results they want and then call it quits?
Why would you imply that this is the case? Until otherwise demonstrated, can we not
accept the word of anyone in political life? If they say one thing and do another, we
will follow the time honoured tradition of throwing them out of office.
>
>
> Pretty much the same goes for equal rights for homosexuals, the death
> penalty and other favourite hobby horses of the Reform populists.
>
> It's all nice to declare such issues to be "moral issues", but are they
> really? Do you or I have the right to tell a woman that she has to be
> pregnant whether she wants to be or not, because it offends "our sense of
> morality" ?
Such a silly statement from you Karl. I generally have a great deal of respect for
your posts, but you haven't thought terribly deeply about the above statement. We
don't have a 'right' to tell a woman to become pregnant, but if she doesn't wish to be
pregnant she can quite easily avoid doing so. OTOH, if she becomes pregnant
(primarily through carelessness - having seen a new study in the National Post
indicating fewer than 30% demand condom use on a regular basis) why doe's her/his lack
of responsibility become our fiscal responsibility. Pregnancy prevention is not a
health issue, but one of 'lifestyle choice'. If you wish to make (or not) those
choices, then you pay for it.
> ? Do you or I have the right to tell a homosexual he cannot
> work for our company because we don't like the way he lives and it offends
> "our morality" ??
You're drawing an awfully long bow on this one too. When has Day or anyone else in
the CA suggested they should be denied employment opportunities. Certainly I would
only be interested in whether they are a good, honest and hard working employee - the
same standard I would use for anyone else.
>
> Are they really "moral issues" or are they fundamental issues of freedom to
> make decisions about one's life and equally fundamental issue of equal
> rights for all?
>
Sorry I'm not a fan of 'moral relativism'. No society on earth (to my knowledge) has
ever embraced or existed under an absolute absence of moral consensus. Each has
different degrees of 'right and wrong' - with decisions such as the Robin Sharpe child
porn case, we just appear to be chipping away at our own.
Currently, we have many groups promoting 'right to death' issues and many other
difficult questions that must be weighed, debated and then initiated as public policy.
>
> My moral code states that I have no right to interfere in another person's
> life and that I have an obligation not to allow any other person or
> government to interfere with my life.
Come on, Karl. We 'interfere' in other people's lives everyday. Whether it is
suicide prevention, or arrest for drug use - there are lots of examples. And I'd love
to know how you've avoided having the gov't (esp. this one!) interfere with your
life. Count me in.
> I don't know what your moral code
> says on that point, but my moral code beats your moral code every single
> time. For no other reason that it is mine.
>
> While there is some basic logic in your last statement, I wouldn't want to live in a
> world of sociopaths and psychopaths, each imbuing the world with their particular
> 'moral code'.
>
> Greetings from Lotusland
hifl...@ecn.ab.ca
<160520001517184676%rs...@twu.ca> <0FnU4.18273$au2.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com> <180520000824289637%rs...@twu.ca>
Distribution:
Rick Sutcliffe (rs...@twu.ca) wrote:
: In article <0FnU4.18273$au2.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>, Neil Tupper
: <ne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >
: > Sorry you're having difficulty following the argument, Rick. Clearly, you've
: > anticipated a different answer that you so graciously were willing to save me.
: > The issue was the belief that some people hold, that the Earth is only a few
: > thousand years old. Among the many radiometric systems, I used Carbon-14
: > simply
: > because it is refined enough to measure well beyond a few millenia and is
: > probably the most generally well known system
: >
: Not having difficulty at all. It just seems irrelevant.
: > > Now, to repeat another question, what do radioactive dating techniques
: > > have to do with the issues you mention?
: > >
: >
: > Again, I will assume that you have jumped into the middle of a thread. I was
: > referring to the fact that people who would date the Earth as so young, by
: > necessity have to deny the science behind Carbon -14 decay in particular, or as
: > you kindly pointed out, radiometric systems in general.
: >
: All radioactive dating works by comparing the ratio of "original"
: material with "daughter" material or some other ratio of isotopes
: (simplification warning here). The big assumption is what the ratio was
: at "the beginning". No one knows. (There are other assumptions as
: well.) Recent work on volcanic eruptions shows the issue is far more
: complex than originally assumed, with so-called "daughter" products
: apparently being present in fresh flows.
: Conclusion: No science has to be denied to come up with a different age
: for the earth; one merely starts with different assumptions about the
: parameters.
: Personally, I am more worried about people who deny economic realities
: being in politics than I am about the religious views of politicians,
: or the lack thereof--especially since, if democracy were actually
: practiced, policies would be determined by the people--risky, but
: better than most systems.
What "economic realities"? Economics is a "dismal science" and it should
really put put along sie "political science" which the better universities
have now completely removed from "science" and replaced with "political
studies". Economics should be called "economic studies" because there is
no significant "science" in what economiists do. Its a blatent attempt to
cash in on the legitimacy of science in an area filled with superstition
and alchemy. The "Law of Supply and Demand" is a good example.
Where is the "scarcity" in the copy of a computer program? Or in the copy
of a piece of music? There can be endless and nearly effortless
reporduction of these perfect copies. So where is the science of economics
here?
Just more mumbo-jumbo to let high school dropouts cash in with inferior
software and noise that passes for musical sounds.
Joe Green
Rich, real mathematics professors love their subject. Its a necessary
condition to being a great teacher. The only significant work going on in
mathematical economics is by a group of statistical physicists who have
PROVEN that "bubbles" can explain certain market behavior. Their view in
turn throws out all of the established "classical economics" that neo-cons
base their current ideology on.
As a teacher, you should straighten them out.
Joe Green
: Rick
hifl...@ecn.ab.ca
: In article <3920d89f....@news.bluecrow.com>, Karl Pollak
: <ka...@dontspam.org> wrote:
: >
: > You want to talk about tolerance? Why don't we start with the statement
: > that Canada is allegedly a Christian country and should be governed by
: > Christian principles? Does that sound tolerant to you?
: What about the belief that Christians ought not to be in government,
: lest they somehow (as if it were possible) "force" their beliefs on the
: rest?
You are mixing this up. Christians should particpate in Government and run
for office. What Christian clergymen ought NOT do is run for office. They
should remain true to their calling as clergy.
Catholics insist that priests NOT serve in office. Although there have
been some priest who ran for office, and won, its a bad idea to their
ministry. This has happened not only in Canada, but elsewhere as well.
Keith Baldwin
Karl Pollak <ka...@dontspam.org> wrote in message
> >CA wants an elected, effective, and MORE equitable Senate. The equal part has been taken out.
>
> Well. there you go. Or rather, there goes at least 10% of the Reform
> membership ...
My ass. Who else would those people vote for? Give it up!
> >Well, a 2.5 E Senate will still sell in Western Canada. And I think you
> >underestimate Ontarians ability to compromise for the good of national unity.
>
> I am not concerned about Ontario being able to compromise. You should be
> worried about the West being WILLING to compromise. If Reform sells out to
> Ontario in order to get a better chance at being a strong Official
> Opposition, thsoe Reformers who until now have been shouting "Th West wants
> in" will change their tune and start screeming "The West wants OUT of the
> Confederation"
Exaggeration.
> >Of course there will have to be compromises. This is politics after all.
>
> You simply have no idea how much such a statement enrages people in the
> West. We're sick and tired of Ontario and Quebec making compromises for
> us. It is getting to the point where many Westerners are saying, either we
> get a full partnership in the Confederation, or we're outta here. Give it
> another 10 - 15 years and you can kiss your compromised Canada good bye.
I'll take my chances.
> Remember from the 70s "Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark" ?? That
> sentiment has not altogether gone away.
I believe Westerners are bigger than you give them credit for.
> >> >But the simple fact is
> >> >that CA and the PCs share more in common than they disagree about.
> >>
> >> Yes, all they share is their desperate thirst for power.
> >
> >If anyone is desperate for power, and will do ANYTHING for it, it is the Liberals.
>
> Desperate? I don't think so. We're the Natural Governing Party, do
> whatever you like, sooner or later you will vote for us again. You have
> to, there is no other credible choice.
Liberals are desperate for power. You see how they morph to gain power. Jean Chretien's Liberals basically
carried on the same policies of the outgoing Mulroney government, except for Jean's stupid stunt of scrapping
that helicopter deal and costing us money, just to buy them again later. Wouldn't you once like to have
people vote FOR you, instead of AGAINST the other guy? All the Liberal front-benchers are idiot amateurs,
save a select few. They fell into power, rather than earned it.
> >It was a public opinion poll, on a hypothetical election, not on any issue in general. So I should shut up
> >because a poll came out with 52% support for Liberals? Give me a break!
>
> No, you have to shut up if you subscruibe to the Reform core notion of
> government by polls and referenda. The people have spoken. And they gave
> the Liberals better than 50%+1 approval. So under the Reform dictum "Let
> the Majority rule", everybody else can go to hell.
It is an in-between poll. It is meaningless. I can carry on as I like. Your logic above is non-existant.
> >> >Of that poll, 25% of the respondents were undecided. It is a meaningless poll.
> >>
> >> How does that compare to a general election with less than 75% voter
> >> participation? Are elections also meaningless?
> >
> >Point taken.
>
> Thank you.
>
> >The poll, as stated above, is not on any one issue. And the poll does not
> >represent a "final" counting, as an election or referendum would. Hence, the
> >debate is still open, and I can and shall add my voice.
>
> Geez Keith, you are sounding more and more like Bouchrad's pekiste. We lost
> a referendum? No problem, this one didn't count, we'll have another one
> next month.
Last I heard, CA didn't contest the latest public opinion poll. They didn't campaign to improve their score.
Again, your dimness is apparent.
> If the voters vote the way we want them to, it counts, if they
> don't, it's menaingless and we'll have another poll next year....
You're grasping at anything. How sad. And I thought you were somewhat reasonable.
> >After the election, should the Liberals win a 3rd majority, you will not
> >see me whining or causing a fuss. I will
> >accept that Canadians did not vote for CA policy. Simple as dat.
>
> Come off it. You should be carefull about making such promises. I have the
> nasty habit of saving posts like that then rubbing the author's nose in
> them a few years later. :-))
Well, take me up on it. I will not bitch or whine if my party loses. What would be the point?
> >> If you buy into the Reform idea of government by referendum and by polls,
> >
> >By polls? Where is this written? If anything, the Liberals govern by polls.
>
> The Reform policy that, again, is one of the major attractions here, is
> that MPs should take a poll of their constituents on any given issue and
> then vote in the House according to that poll, as opposed to making their
> own judgment or voting along the party lines.
>
> Another compromise in the making, perhaps?
Perhaps. For you, compromise would mean that CA loses its appeal. I disagree.
> >You're taking this too far. This poll that we are discussing IS meaningless. It shows that the CA went up
7%
> >in support. Do I give it a lot of weight? No I don't. It could be back to 10% next poll. Polls in
between
> >elections mean nothing. That's just saying it like it is.
>
> Keith, I think you are missing the point. As far as I'm concerned all
> polls are meaningless. But that is not what I'm talking about. I am
> talking about the idiotic Reform policy of government by polls. Eitehr you
> accpet that policy, or Reformers will have to abandon it. You cannot have
> it both ways. In other words my friend, this CA turkey ain't gonna fly.
Well, if members from across Canada, or even in one province, got a petition going and signed up a lot of
people, and then sent this to Ottawa, I would suspect that the federal government would take notice. So then,
it is the people directing government, which is what direct democracy is about.
> You take one core policy after another and Reformers are diametrically
> different from the Tories. In fact, until Borther Presto! got on his
> deluded kick of raiding the Conservative Party for members, he was calling
> them with disgust in his voice "those mainstream parties". Now he is
> trying to convince them that they are all after the same thing after all
> .. Well, I have some sad news for you. Once the local Deformers here
> finally clue in to what is really going on and get over their euphoria of
> having gained a few points in the polls, they will start walking.
Well I could just argue back "I don't think so" but that's pointless. We'll just have to see, won't we?
> That will happen as soon as they will realize that that there ain't no free
> lunch, even in Reformland and that all those new ex-Tory members will cost
> them something. And fit will really hit the shan when they realize that
> the price of their marriage with the Ontario Tories are their policies.
> Those will have to go because they were designed to be Western policies and
> they do not sell in Ontario. In fact, Ontario cannot even understand what
> they really mean. Nor does it care to.
Again, CA got a million votes in Ontario last election. They will get more next time. CA's message of more
accountable government sells in Ontario. (Oh yes it does Karl).
> What Presto! has done is exactly what he has been preaching against for
> some 10 years now, namely having to change your policies to suit Central
> Canada if you want to get to power. His entire claim to fame to date has
> been that the West should not have to do that and that Central Canada (or
> as David Kilgour calls it, Inner Canada) should pay far more attention to
> the West (Kilgour's Outer Canada).
People are not static beings (perhaps you are). So, maybe Preston's had a change of heart. If anything, his
gamble in resigning his leadership shows how committed he is to doing what is best for the party.
Mike Warren
Rick> In article <m34s7xq...@localhost.localdomain>,
Rick> <mi...@mike-warren.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> "Paige" == Paige Smyth <tlc...@rapidnet.net> writes:
Paige> I personally can't trust anyone who is unable to entertain
Paige> a modicum of self-doubt about the subject at hand. An
Paige> expressed absolute certainty is a sure sign of wilful
Paige> ignorance.
>> Nicely put; that almost exactly sums up the fundamental
>> difference between religion and science.
Rick> Hmmm. Which is which?
That science says, ``here are some facts, what [potentially wrong]
theory describes them?'' whereas religion says, ``here is the Truth;
believe it or go away''.
hifl...@ecn.ab.ca
Distribution:
Rick Sutcliffe (rs...@twu.ca) wrote:
: In article <3923...@ecn.ab.ca>, <hifl...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
: >
: > What has this all got to do with Stockwell Day and Preston Manning? Well
: > simply this. It is one thing to read the Bible and try to follow its
: > advice in one's own personal life. It is another matter entirely to try to
: > impose these views carte blanche on the country with all of its cultural
: > and religious diversity.
: >
: And, what evidence do you offer that such is their purpose?
Just look at the fanaticism with which Day is harming the sick in Alberta,
against direct injunctions by Christ to care for the poor. Christ was THE
great healer of all time. He did not even submit a bill to King Herod's
Court!!!!
And as for Manning, well look at his treachery. He ran on a populist
platform, and then sold out to Conrad Black and the Bay Street
Capitalists. Just like his old man.
: > I wish that both of them would better understand history and understand
: > the Doctrine of Separation of Church and State. Then they should chose to
: > either be lay politicians or become ordained ministers. Catholic priests
: > are told bluntly by churst authorities to stay out of direct politics. The
: > Protestant sects should do the same thing.
: >
: > We just don't need an Ian Paisley (from Norther Ireland) here in Canada
: > preaching and spewing his brand of ignorance, stupidity and hate.
: >
: And, would you care to cite instances of hate-mongering from Preston
: Manning?
:
The hatred that Manning directed against the Province of Quebec and its
representatives in the last election. Remember? Or would you rather
forget.
: > When Candian select political leaders, we expect them to deal with the
: > problems facing all our citizens, not just the Baptists or the
: > Pentacostals. And for Preston that means meeting Canadians in their
: > Churches, Synagogs, and other places of worship. That is what we expect of
: > Canadian Politicans. Perhaps even an Objectivist gathering, or even a
: > Scientology Church meeting. In other words we not only expect, we demand
: > that our politicans reflect back to us our multi-cultural character as a
: > Nation.
: >
: We demand other things of them too--some standard of morality. However,
: we also say there is no such thing. Hmmm.
:
Well we are more inclinded to overlook their personal short comings then
we should. Just look at the Reform Justice Critic jack Ramsey, a convicted
criminal. Or how about Jack Shields from the Mulroney Conservatives? We
expect and demand that all Canadian polticians understand and accept the
founding principles of this country. Among those things that means a
French Fact, and a Multi-cultural identity.
: > That is why a "legislated" approach to moral issues like abortion will not
: > succeed. Morality must come from within an individual. Even Objectivists
: > who have such difficulty loving their fellow men.
: >
: All law is an attempt to impose a moral standard. Take business law,
: for instance. Without it, you get ruthless behaviour, as profit becomes
: the only goal. With it, there is some regulation. Why regulate? Because
: society (this one at least) has a moral principle that some things are
: better than profit. And, we impose that principle on everyone!.
: Shocking.
You are right that "profit" does not occupy the highest priority among
Candian people. Our constitutional setup and from before that, insists
that our highest priority as a people is "Peace, Order and Good
Government". Now get with the program.
Mike Warren
Rick> In article <39238ae1....@news.bluecrow.com>, Karl
Rick> Pollak <ka...@dontspam.org> wrote:
>> If you don't want abortions, don't have one. Just don't try to
>> tell other people how to live their lives. Trust me on this
>> one, it does not make your own life any more interesting. Just
>> relax and get used to the frightening idea that other people
>> want to live their lives differently than you would like them
>> to and there is dick all you can do about it.
Rick> If you don't want murders or bank robberies, just don't do
Rick> it. Don't tell anyone else not to.
Likening abortion to murder is a huge stretch at best; a fetus is a
parasite and aborting it is more akin to cutting off the life support
of someone. Forcing women to give up nine months (or more) of their
lives to give birth to a child they never planned to have and don't
want does not make for a healthy society.
Mike Warren
Steven> Karl Pollak wrote:
>> That's bullshit, Steven. What Reform really believes in is mob
>> rule.
Steven> Right
>> or wrong, whatever the majority decides, goes.
Steven> I suggest you take your head out of the blender first next
Steven> time, Karl.
Perhaps you should look at the definition of democracy again: ``the
will of the majority, *with respect for minority rights*.'' You are
missing the last bit, I believe. Reform seems to believe in a tyranny
of the majority.
Steven> I am perfectly okay with the fact that other people want
Steven> to live _their_ lives different from me. That does not
Steven> give them the right to commit murder. Nobody has that
Steven> right.
Steven> Of course, unless you spread your legs, give a stupid guy
Steven> a warm, wet place to put it, and then suffer the
Steven> consequence of your choice... then it's okay to kill
Steven> someone, because you have free will.
Steven, I encourage you to check the statistics on birth control; it
is not perfect and accidents will happen. Unwanted pregnancies do
occur. Is it better to have a child grow up unwanted and unloved?
>> Hey, I know! Why don't we make a rule that you can deny to
>> serve people who live in common law in restaurants on the
>> grounds that they live immorally?
Steven> I can choose to invite or ban whoever I want from my place
Steven> of business, for whatever reason I choose.
No you can't. Luckily there are anti-discrimination laws. Even if I
wanted to, I couldn't open up Mike's Honkey No-Blacks-Allowed Beef
Roast Restaurant.
Mike Warren
Steven> Mike Warren wrote:
>> It is important, I think, to compromise somewhat between the
>> concerns of pro- and anti- abortionists. A good compromise is
>> deciding on a cut-off in the 3 to 4 month range after which it
>> can reasonably be assumed that the woman knows she is pregnant
>> and has had time to act if she doesn't want to be.
Steven> The only definition we can make on life, Mike, is that it
Steven> begins at conception. I say that because we really can't
Steven> define the precise moment where a bunch of cells becomes a
Steven> human being.
If our country and laws are founded on one word, that word is
``reasonable''. I do not think this is a reasonable expectation. No
matter how careful you are, no matter how married you may be, no
matter how many rapists you convict, there will be an unwanted
pregnancy. Forcing a woman to give up nine months of her life and go
through excruciating (I've heard) pain simply because you think it is
immoral for her not to cut off life support to her fetus is
unreasonable.
If you are volunteering to keep said fetus alive, go right ahead.
>> If the woman chooses to make her decision through inaction, I
>> don't think she should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy at 8
>> months. However, I also don't think it's reasonable to assume
>> that all birth control is 100% effective or that accidents will
>> never occur, as Steven seems to.
Steven> I'm not assuming birth control is 100% effective. In
Steven> fact, I've said the precise opposite many times. The
Steven> point is that inside the proper context, failure of birth
Steven> control (usually due to pilot error, I might add) is more
Steven> of a surprise than a disaster. Outside of the proper
Steven> context, failure of birth control is a disaster; one which
Steven> all-too-often results in death.
Steven> The only sure-thing in birth control is to not have sex
Steven> until one is in a context where one can care for the
Steven> children, and, if in the disasterous event that someone
Steven> does something stupid, adoption is the next best option.
Steven> Too many women are too cowardly not to do that, though.
Steven> They'd rather just "make it go away".
Again, turning to the word ``reasonable'', I don't think it is a
reasonable expectation for people to subscribe to your moral beliefs
and not have sex until they are married. Sex shouldn't be something
scary and unknown.
Mike Warren
John> Karl Pollak (ka...@dontspam.org) writes:
>> "Keith Baldwin" <kbaNl...@PatAtcManada.net> wrote:
>>> CA wants an elected, effective, and MORE equitable Senate.
>>> The equal part has been taken out.
Why not just take out the senate altogether?
>> Well. there you go. Or rather, there goes at least 10% of the
>> Reform membership ...
John> Nonsense. The primary motivating factor driving people into
John> the arms of the CA is the utter corruption and incompetence
John> of both the Liberal and Progressive Conservative
John> parties. And there's no sign of that changing.
``Utter corruption and incompetence''? Could these words not also
describe members of the CA? How about former PC members who are now
CA? Have they been cleansed of their sins under the benevolent hand of
Manning?
John> There are damn few people aside from your own party members
John> who have _any_ enthusism for the Liberals in Ontario these
John> days. Most of them vote Liberal simply because of the
John> alternatives. Give them a good alternative and you'll drop
John> like a rock.
Since they're not ``dropping like a rock'' toward CA, according to
Angus Reid...
Mike Warren
Randy> Karl Pollak wrote:
>> Let's take abortion. Poll after poll, year after year, shows
>> that about two thirds of Canadians suport the woman's right to
>> chose and do not want any government intervention.
Randy> While personally against abortion myself, I wouldn't deny a
Randy> woman's 'right to choose' - but doesn't the fact that the
Randy> gov't provides the service and pays for it with my tax
Randy> dollars constitute 'government intervention'?
No; we have decided that health care is an essential public service.
>> Pretty much the same goes for equal rights for homosexuals, the
>> death penalty and other favourite hobby horses of the Reform
>> populists.
>> It's all nice to declare such issues to be "moral issues", but
>> are they really? Do you or I have the right to tell a woman
>> that she has to be pregnant whether she wants to be or not,
>> because it offends "our sense of morality" ?
Randy> Such a silly statement from you Karl. I generally have a
Randy> great deal of respect for your posts, but you haven't
Randy> thought terribly deeply about the above statement. We
Randy> don't have a 'right' to tell a woman to become pregnant,
Randy> but if she doesn't wish to be pregnant she can quite easily
Randy> avoid doing so. OTOH, if she becomes pregnant (primarily
Randy> through carelessness - having seen a new study in the
Randy> National Post indicating fewer than 30% demand condom use
Randy> on a regular basis) why doe's her/his lack of
Condom use is not the same as birth control use; of the 70% who don't
``demand condom use'', how many were using birth control pills?
Randy> responsibility become our fiscal responsibility. Pregnancy
Randy> prevention is not a health issue, but one of 'lifestyle
Randy> choice'. If you wish to make (or not) those choices, then
Randy> you pay for it.
Ahh, yes, ``lifestyle choice''.
An important factor in deciding whether an issue is something the
government should even *think* about regulating is: does this action
harm society as a whole? Does the fact that we allow women to have
abortions up to 4 months (?) of pregnancy negatively affect society as
a whole? Would disallowing this have a negative effect?
Since the CA is quite fond of financial arguments, try this: it is far,
far cheaper to pay for an abortion than to pay for the care and
upbringing of an unwanted child, who is reasonably likely to be
adopted or become a ward of the state.
>> Are they really "moral issues" or are they fundamental issues
>> of freedom to make decisions about one's life and equally
>> fundamental issue of equal rights for all?
Randy> Sorry I'm not a fan of 'moral relativism'. No society on
Randy> earth (to my knowledge) has ever embraced or existed under
Randy> an absolute absence of moral consensus. Each has different
Randy> degrees of 'right and wrong' - with decisions such as the
Randy> Robin Sharpe child porn case, we just appear to be chipping
Randy> away at our own. Currently, we have many groups promoting
Randy> 'right to death' issues and many other difficult questions
Randy> that must be weighed, debated and then initiated as public
Randy> policy.
Again, I would encourage you to think if allowing people to commit
suicide is a harm to society as a whole. As to child pornography, I do
think that allowing people to posses it is a harm to society as a
whole, as it encourages its production.
Not all of these things must be debated or initiated as public policy;
again, ``where's the harm''?
>> My moral code states that I have no right to interfere in
>> another person's life and that I have an obligation not to
>> allow any other person or government to interfere with my life.
Randy> Come on, Karl. We 'interfere' in other people's lives
Randy> everyday. Whether it is suicide prevention, or arrest for
Randy> drug use - there are lots of examples. And I'd love to
I would argue that these interventions shouldn't take place; if I
happen to use drugs like caffeine, alcohol or THC on my own time, this
doesn't negatively affect society as a whole. Others may argue
differently; it may be that increased drug use by members of society
does have a negative effect on that society, but I haven't seen
evidence of this.
We all have vastly different morals, and imposing them on each other
is only productive if not imposing them has demonstrable negative
effects on society. (Note that some imagined ``moral decline'' is not
a negative effect.)
John Ross
Mike Warren <use...@mike-warren.com> wrote in message
news:m366sbe...@localhost.localdomain...
>
> Likening abortion to murder is a huge stretch at best;
The definition of murder is the deliberate killing of an innocent human
being. You could argue that a fetus is not a human being, the question is
then, when does a fetus become a human being?
> a fetus is a
> parasite and aborting it is more akin to cutting off the life support
> of someone.
If the person on life support does not want to be cut off what do you call
that?
>Forcing women to give up nine months (or more) of their
> lives to give birth to a child they never planned to have and don't
> want does not make for a healthy society.
>
It doesn't make for the mental health of the woman involved e.g. in the
case of rape. However, if the child is simply unwanted there are hundreds
and hundreds of couples who would be extremely happy to take the baby.
Steven C. Britton
>
> No matter how careful you are,
Then don't unless you're prepared for the eventuality.
> no matter how married you may be,
That's not an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy; that's a surprise.
> no matter how many rapists you convict,
I haven't said anything about rapists.
> Forcing a woman to give up nine months of her life and go through
excruciating (I've heard)
> pain simply because you think it is immoral for her not to cut off life
support to her fetus is
> unreasonable.
It most certainly is _not_ unreasonable, Mike. What is unreasonable is to
expect that a coward -- er -- woman who has had sex willingly, fully aware
that it can lead to pregnancy and gotten pregnant, has a right to terminate
the life that she helped create.
> Steven> Too many women are too cowardly not to do that, though.
> Steven> They'd rather just "make it go away".
>
> Again, turning to the word ``reasonable'', I don't think it is a
> reasonable expectation for people to subscribe to your moral beliefs
> and not have sex until they are married. Sex shouldn't be something
> scary and unknown.
You are wrong. It is just that plain and simple.