Previous  1  2

Work is nourishment for the soul and charity is a vile poison that has destroyed many good men. won't becomes can't and can't becomes won't.

See a man that is overweight, 40 years of age, who has never worked a day in his life yet holds no other defect.

Save that man and invest optimistically in a future where he finds his own way and leverage the wealth of our children in hope.

Purge that man and cut our losses and our nation will be forever burdened with shame.

Salvage that man and you'll not only save this country but your social politics shall be stamped across the face of this nation for it's duration.

   

The lack of a stimulus plan from the governing Conservatives in their most recent fiscal update is what the Liberal, NDP and Bloc Quebecois say brought them together to take down the Conservative government at the earliest possible moment, and form a ruling coalition. The Liberals would lead the coalition, with the NDP holding a quarter of the cabinet posts. It would depend on the Bloc Quebecois for support.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story. ... z0vFBmVPy6

   

The left does NOT "cuddle up to radical islamists" but we will definitely not sit back and watch people be treated unfairly in our country simply because they're Muslim. We also don't automatically assume every Muslim is a radical extremist.

If anything I think conservative Christians have more in common with radical islamists than liberals do... way more.

Intolerance toward anyone who doesn't share your religious beliefs. Check.
Against equal rights for homosexuals. Check.
The belief that greater punishment deters crime. Check.
Pro-Capital punishment. Check.
The belief that public policy should be influenced by religious scripture. Check.
Disdain for nudity or anything sexual (pornography, strip clubs, etc.). Check.

   

Yer right, they just rescue them from prisons and bring them back to Canada. Sorry bout the misunderstanding

   

You are correct. So you would have gotten a stimulus package either way. If the Conservatives hadn't done it then the coalition of idiots would have pulled the plug on the government and done it themselves. Unless you think they were lying?

   

The Conservatives exist, supposedly, to be CONSERVATIVE in their use of taxpayer money. They should have let the government fall. If they'd come on the airwaves and said "This is the bullshit the Coalition wants. We're willing to let the government fall. If you want to give billions of your dollars to corporations and banks, vote the coalition. If not, vote CPC." I'd have voted for him if he'd used that MA in economics he has and stood against the stimulus. Hell, he'd probably have won a majority. But no. Stevie had to hold on to the PM's job at any cost. Fuck the CPC for now.

   

Ahhhh you fuck em Lemmy, I'm too tired

   

Right, and then we'd have people like you complaining that the government is forcing elections all the time. Nothing makes you guys happy.

   

"You guys"? Who's that? Those that call "bullshit" when we see it? Those of us that aren't blind partisan hacks? About elections, we don't want them "all the time", but at the right time. When Stephane, Gilles and Jack brought the gun and the bailout, Harper should have told them to jam it in their asses. Don't you agree? If you're blaming the bailout fiasco on the opposition then you MUST agree that it was wrong. If it was wrong, why didn't Harper stand up against it? If Harper'd shown an ounce of courage and leadership, he'd have all of us on the right of the CPC on his side instead of against him. He's a cowardly douchebag. And like I said, "Fuck the CPC for now" because of it.

   

So by saying fuck the CPC you agree with the stimulus package? Because the other parties wanted it, so what exactly to you support?

   

really cannot believe the ignorance of this statement. do you actually know any christians? or do you just believe what you hear about them on television and the internet?

#1 absolutely NO comparison can be made concerning tolerance towards other religions between christians and muslims. all over the christian world, mosques are built and people are, in the west at least, allowed to practice their own religion. there isnt a violent christian uproar against this. in muslim countries however, iraq for example..their numbers are decimated and cleansed from the country.

#2 what christian says they are against equal rights for homosexuals? none of the christians i have met in my life want homosexuals as second class citizens..without the same rights as others. but there is the issue of marriage...btu since marriage has ALWAYS been a religious institution, and the epitome of "standard normal society" which liberals are always rebelling against...why join this institution? why not just get the government out of the way, and let people form whatever relationships they want? this seems a better solution

#3 greater punishment deters crime? this idea permeates all groups and cultures, has nothing to do with being christian. christian believe in forgiveness and rehabilitation.

#4 never heard jesus endorse capital punishment. you will have to prove this. especially since this law was overturned in most countries while their populations were all overwhelmingly christian, this argument holds no ground. dostoyevsky was a devout christian and half of his works are about ending the death penalty.

#5 ubiquitous nudity is different than sexuality. i can understand people being against certain things, and especially when considering young children...some level of public decency should be upheld. would you like to watch people having hardcore sex in the park where yoour children are playing?

ill finish off by saying i am NOT a christian. but your christian bashing is unjustifiable and seems to be entirely based on media stereotypes. you should try going to a church (a normal one) and actually talkin to the people before you make such broad statements. its the equivalent of my saying all blacks are less intelligent than whites and commit much more crime etc.

   

That was quite some footwork...you must have played some third-base in your day. My "fuck you" to the CPC has nothing to do with the stimulus package, per se. It has everything to do with Conservatives failing to act as conservatives.

   

I don't know. There's one part of me that wants that party principle to remain the same and fairly static and another part of me doesn't want our government to fall into complete partisanship. The amount of bills we pass today is paltry today in comparison to other governments, and that has been steadily declining at a good pace since the original government of Canada until now. Less than half the bills proposed get passed now, whereas it was in the 90s for a long time, and a lot of the problems with getting bills passed may be in part due to a lack of negotiation from all sides and oddly driven partisanship amongst the parties AND their supporters.

I'm sure that it helped back then that Canada are much more politically united in some regards but the parties seemed more inclined to negotiate a bill. The people had said they did not want another election, and I'm not sure Harper would be too happy going against the voter's wishes -- there was more than enough polls, lobby groups and mail lists demanding that there be no more elections. If that meant relenting to pressures from the other side, and negotiating out a deal with the Conservatives taking the conservative view and the Liberals taking their view, then they have met my expectations. Going straight out no has caused numerous problems between the parties in the past, and not just with Harper, but with Martin and Cretien (there was no shortage of discussion about that at the time of those governments either).

I for one am a big supporter of more negotiation in parliament. Yes, this means both parties would have to relent to some stuff which is more Liberal for one side and more Conservative for the other, but in the end we at least get some of what we wanted done. In the end, if a bill cannot be negotiated in line with any party line enough for it to get though parliament, then I say, fine, drop it, you're sticking to your party platform. However, no negotiations at all makes me edgy.

While no doubt Harper got the added bonus of remaining PM (and no doubt you can draw a lot of parallels between the problems in the previous Liberal government and this one, from promises falling by the wayside to people crossing the floor) there is still a legitimate stance here, imo. Is it better for Harper to stick stringently by the party platform at all times, or have people vote AGAIN when public opinion on another vote was at an all time low? What is more important to the people -- that a stimulus occurs, reduced as it was from what I remember (feel free to correct me!) or that a vote occurs, spending more money (yes, not as much as a stimulus plan), taking more people's time, having similar results, and having more faith lost in the government's ability to do anything? In the end, if we kept the Conservatives eventually they'd have to relent to keep parliament running.

I'm sure some people would vote different, and it would likely be along the lines of whether we do stimulus spending or not, but I have no doubt that the parties are very strongly geographically aligned and fairly entrenched -- seeing a wild change after only a short time in government is highly unlikely, even if this was a leading issue for Canadians. The west and rural areas would remain Conservative, the Three Cities Liberal, Quebec Bloq, the North NDP, and other various changes would likely not dramatically shift the voting power within parliament itself on that issue, whether it be an NDP, Bloq, or Liberal seat.

From actually having negotiation from the Conservatives, voter feelings on further votes, their likely outcomes and a momentary lapse of partisanship, I wasn't thrilled with what happened with that event but it's not going to be a center of contention for me just because of the situation at the time when things seemed so strongly static and apathetic to trying for any change in ridings in general. My question would be if the negotiations were stringent enough for my satisfaction, and if there was a time limit on how long the other parties would let is go on considering they felt it was a crisis which could have impacted the success or breadth of those negotiations? My thoughts anyways, but I'd be interested in hearing otherwise, most definitely.

   

I am not a left-winger myself but I have to admit that document made me laugh. I feel the urge to put dumbass responses on it and promptly mail it to the liberal party.

   

Previous  1  2