Page interrupts throne speech
Previous 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 21 Next
Curtman @ Sat Jun 04, 2011 7:26 pm
Gunnair Gunnair:
Nor have you posted evidence. The evidence you submit is one facet of a many sided diamond, which does not a genocide make.
They didn't take children from families and force them to give up their culture?
Gunnair @ Sat Jun 04, 2011 7:27 pm
Curtman Curtman:
Gunnair Gunnair:
Nor have you posted evidence. The evidence you submit is one facet of a many sided diamond, which does not a genocide make.
They didn't take children from families and force them to give up their culture?
They did. Does not constitute genocide though. Next.
Gunnair @ Sat Jun 04, 2011 7:32 pm
$1:
Jesse Kline: DePape doesn’t understand what the Arabs are fighting for
Winston Churchill is often attributed as saying that, if you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart and if you’re not a conservative when you’re 40, you have no brain. So it’s hard to fault young Brigette DePape — the Senate page who was ejected from Friday’s speech from the throne after holding up a “Stop Harper” sign — for being idealistic.
DePape called for a “Canadian version of an Arab Spring.” That’s right, we should all take to the streets and demand free and fair elections — you know, like the one we had on May 2. Now you’d think that a college student would know that we enjoy the freedom and system of government that thousands of Arabs are fighting, and dying, to achieve. But she somehow thinks that our first-past-the-post system invalidates the entire democratic process. I suppose we should expect contradictions like this from someone who professes to support democracy, but took a job in the unelected Senate.
.“Harper’s agenda is disastrous for this country and for my generation,” reads a press release issued shortly after the incident. “We have to stop him from wasting billions on fighter jets, military bases, and corporate tax cuts while cutting social programs and destroying the climate. Most people in this country know what we need are green jobs, better medicare, and a healthy environment for future generations.”
Her press release claims that the Harper government is wasting money on the military. Now there’s certainly a case to be made that a country like the United States is spending way too much on its military and that these unnecessary wars and expenditures are costing lives and bankrupting the country. But the left has done a terrible job of importing this argument into Canada. We need to maintain a military force that is sufficient enough to protect our borders and fulfil our international obligations.
Ms. DePape is also against corporate tax cuts. Corporations don’t pay taxes, people do. When corporations have to pay more taxes, they offset the cost in one of two ways: Either by raising the price of the goods and service they sell (you know, the stuff we buy), or by reducing expenses. And reducing expenses is usually accomplished by moving jobs to jurisdictions that are more competitive.
But I don’t want to misrepresent her, as she’s not against jobs altogether. She wants everybody to have a “green job.” Do you think she knows what a green job is? It’s a code word for jobs that are created, and supported, by the government, rather than the market. Private jobs are created when companies provide goods and services that people actually want. The government steps in to create jobs when companies are producing things that people don’t want.
DePape’s future is one where our military cannot defend our borders, there are fewer jobs, and a massive debt to pay off. Her idea of democracy discounts any result that is contrary to her viewpoint. Does she think that’s what Arabs are fighting and dying for?
Winston Churchill is often attributed as saying that, if you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart and if you’re not a conservative when you’re 40, you have no brain. So it’s hard to fault young Brigette DePape — the Senate page who was ejected from Friday’s speech from the throne after holding up a “Stop Harper” sign — for being idealistic.
DePape called for a “Canadian version of an Arab Spring.” That’s right, we should all take to the streets and demand free and fair elections — you know, like the one we had on May 2. Now you’d think that a college student would know that we enjoy the freedom and system of government that thousands of Arabs are fighting, and dying, to achieve. But she somehow thinks that our first-past-the-post system invalidates the entire democratic process. I suppose we should expect contradictions like this from someone who professes to support democracy, but took a job in the unelected Senate.
.“Harper’s agenda is disastrous for this country and for my generation,” reads a press release issued shortly after the incident. “We have to stop him from wasting billions on fighter jets, military bases, and corporate tax cuts while cutting social programs and destroying the climate. Most people in this country know what we need are green jobs, better medicare, and a healthy environment for future generations.”
Her press release claims that the Harper government is wasting money on the military. Now there’s certainly a case to be made that a country like the United States is spending way too much on its military and that these unnecessary wars and expenditures are costing lives and bankrupting the country. But the left has done a terrible job of importing this argument into Canada. We need to maintain a military force that is sufficient enough to protect our borders and fulfil our international obligations.
Ms. DePape is also against corporate tax cuts. Corporations don’t pay taxes, people do. When corporations have to pay more taxes, they offset the cost in one of two ways: Either by raising the price of the goods and service they sell (you know, the stuff we buy), or by reducing expenses. And reducing expenses is usually accomplished by moving jobs to jurisdictions that are more competitive.
But I don’t want to misrepresent her, as she’s not against jobs altogether. She wants everybody to have a “green job.” Do you think she knows what a green job is? It’s a code word for jobs that are created, and supported, by the government, rather than the market. Private jobs are created when companies provide goods and services that people actually want. The government steps in to create jobs when companies are producing things that people don’t want.
DePape’s future is one where our military cannot defend our borders, there are fewer jobs, and a massive debt to pay off. Her idea of democracy discounts any result that is contrary to her viewpoint. Does she think that’s what Arabs are fighting and dying for?
$1:
I suppose we should expect contradictions like this from someone who professes to support democracy, but took a job in the unelected Senate.
Curtman @ Sat Jun 04, 2011 7:34 pm
Gunnair Gunnair:
Curtman Curtman:
Gunnair Gunnair:
Nor have you posted evidence. The evidence you submit is one facet of a many sided diamond, which does not a genocide make.
They didn't take children from families and force them to give up their culture?
They did. Does not constitute genocide though. Next.
I'm going by your definition. But I still say this is waaaaaaay off topic.
Taseko @ Sat Jun 04, 2011 7:38 pm
Gunnair Gunnair:
[
They did. Does not constitute genocide though. Next.
They did. Does not constitute genocide though. Next.
http://www.hmb.utoronto.ca/HMB303H/Case ... hComm.html
Article II (a): Killing members of the group intended to be destroyed
That aboriginal people were deliberately killed in the residential schools is confirmed by eyewitness testimonies, government records and statements of Indian agents and tribal elders. It is also strongly suggested by the bare fact that the mortality level in residential schools averaged 40%, or more than 50,000 native children across Canada. (see Bibliography, The Report of Dr. Peter Bryce to Department of Indian Affairs Superintendent Duncan Campbell Scott, April, 1909).
The fact, as well, that this death rate stayed constant across the years, and within the schools and facilities of every denomination which ran them—Roman Catholic, United, Presbyterian or Anglican—suggests that common conditions and policies were behind these deaths. For every second child to die in the residential school system eliminates the possibility that these deaths were merely accidental, or the actions of a few depraved individuals acting alone without protection.
As the Genocide Convention and the Nuremburg Principles make clear, creating the conditions that will kill off even one sector of a group of people is not only tantamount to genocide, but is considered to be intentional killing, since an entire institutional system is at work to destroy that group. The continuance of such a system does not require intent per se, since its killing-off of the targeted group quickly becomes automatic and routine, like a machine that has been switched on. This crucial point was made at the Nuremburg Trials, and it certainly pertains to the regime responsible for the Canadian residential school system.
Yet not only was this system inherently murderous, but it operated under the legal and structural conditions which encouraged, aided and abetted murder, and which were designed to conceal these crimes.
The residential schools were structured like concentration camps, on a hierarchical military basis under the absolute control of a Principal appointed jointly by church and state, and who was usually a clergyman. This Principal was even given legal guardianship rights over all students during the early 1930’s by the federal government, at least in west coast residential schools. This action by the government was highly unusual, considering that native people were by law the legal wards of the state, and had been so since the commencement of the Indian Act. And yet such absolute power of the school Principal over the lives of aboriginal students was a requirement of any system whose killing of aboriginals had to be disguised and later denied
The mass murder of Jews under Hitler was masked under the disguise of war, since, according to a top Nazi official, “the Jewish question will have to be resolved only during the war, since it must be settled without having the entire world erupt in protest.” (Franz Radenmacher, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, March 24, 1942)
In the same way, what Indian Affairs Superintendent Duncan Scott referred to as “The Final Solution of our Indian Problem” in 1910—the legal eradication of aboriginals and their culture—had to occur under a mask of legitimacy; namely, the so-called “educating and civilizing” of a “lesser people.” Surprisingly few Canadians, including critics of the residential school system, have been able to penetrate this fog of apparent “benevolent concern” that hid a murderous system.
The residential schools were constructed behind this deception in such a way that the deaths and atrocities that constitute genocide could be hidden and eventually explained. In the Canadian context, this meant a policy of gradual but deliberate extermination under a protective legal umbrella, administered by “legitimate and trusted” institutions: the mainline churches.
fifeboy @ Sat Jun 04, 2011 7:39 pm
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
I'm not addressing the bimbo reference,
Well, glad to hear it, I can now say you have one outstanding quality.
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
i'm addressing the fact that she hasn't got a clue when comparing what happened in the Middle East and what she wants to happen in Canada,
Like I said, it was probably just a talking point, but you always know best.ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
she likely neo hippy epithets for the police too.
You know this for a fact? Neo hippy epithets for the police. ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
And no i don't think it was an original comment by her, the dumb fuck, who has likely always led a sheltered and privileged existence, was trying to draw an analogy...
Nice you think so highly of her. All she is is a Canadian Merit Scholar. Read more here:http://www.loranaward.ca/ Yep, a real dummy, or perhaps she just does not agree with you. 
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
she's a Theatre major for christsakes, she's got the intellectual depth of a piece of paper.
Steve thought the same thing in 2008. Didn't work for him then. I notice he didn't bring it up in 2011 
Besides, she isn't a Theater major, she is $1:
Brigette DePape, 2007 Loran scholar
Originally from Winnipeg, Brigette is a first-year international development and globalization student. Brigette has performed and written plays for the Winnipeg Fringe Festival, was a member of her high school basketball team and president of its social justice committee. At uOttawa she is balancing studies in arts and theatre. Her mentor is Sharon Carstairs, Senator representing the Province of Manitoba.
from the University of Ottawahttp://www.media.uottawa.ca/mediaroom/news-details_1387.html
Originally from Winnipeg, Brigette is a first-year international development and globalization student. Brigette has performed and written plays for the Winnipeg Fringe Festival, was a member of her high school basketball team and president of its social justice committee. At uOttawa she is balancing studies in arts and theatre. Her mentor is Sharon Carstairs, Senator representing the Province of Manitoba.
fifeboy @ Sat Jun 04, 2011 7:44 pm
Gunnair Gunnair:
I've met many people with degrees that were idiots. Often a degree simply means they were a persistent idiot with deep pockets.
Gunnair @ Sat Jun 04, 2011 7:45 pm
Taseko Taseko:
Gunnair Gunnair:
[
They did. Does not constitute genocide though. Next.
They did. Does not constitute genocide though. Next.
http://www.hmb.utoronto.ca/HMB303H/Case ... hComm.html
Article II (a): Killing members of the group intended to be destroyed
That aboriginal people were deliberately killed in the residential schools is confirmed by eyewitness testimonies, government records and statements of Indian agents and tribal elders. It is also strongly suggested by the bare fact that the mortality level in residential schools averaged 40%, or more than 50,000 native children across Canada. (see Bibliography, The Report of Dr. Peter Bryce to Department of Indian Affairs Superintendent Duncan Campbell Scott, April, 1909).
The fact, as well, that this death rate stayed constant across the years, and within the schools and facilities of every denomination which ran them—Roman Catholic, United, Presbyterian or Anglican—suggests that common conditions and policies were behind these deaths. For every second child to die in the residential school system eliminates the possibility that these deaths were merely accidental, or the actions of a few depraved individuals acting alone without protection.
As the Genocide Convention and the Nuremburg Principles make clear, creating the conditions that will kill off even one sector of a group of people is not only tantamount to genocide, but is considered to be intentional killing, since an entire institutional system is at work to destroy that group. The continuance of such a system does not require intent per se, since its killing-off of the targeted group quickly becomes automatic and routine, like a machine that has been switched on. This crucial point was made at the Nuremburg Trials, and it certainly pertains to the regime responsible for the Canadian residential school system.
Yet not only was this system inherently murderous, but it operated under the legal and structural conditions which encouraged, aided and abetted murder, and which were designed to conceal these crimes.
The residential schools were structured like concentration camps, on a hierarchical military basis under the absolute control of a Principal appointed jointly by church and state, and who was usually a clergyman. This Principal was even given legal guardianship rights over all students during the early 1930’s by the federal government, at least in west coast residential schools. This action by the government was highly unusual, considering that native people were by law the legal wards of the state, and had been so since the commencement of the Indian Act. And yet such absolute power of the school Principal over the lives of aboriginal students was a requirement of any system whose killing of aboriginals had to be disguised and later denied
The mass murder of Jews under Hitler was masked under the disguise of war, since, according to a top Nazi official, “the Jewish question will have to be resolved only during the war, since it must be settled without having the entire world erupt in protest.” (Franz Radenmacher, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, March 24, 1942)
In the same way, what Indian Affairs Superintendent Duncan Scott referred to as “The Final Solution of our Indian Problem” in 1910—the legal eradication of aboriginals and their culture—had to occur under a mask of legitimacy; namely, the so-called “educating and civilizing” of a “lesser people.” Surprisingly few Canadians, including critics of the residential school system, have been able to penetrate this fog of apparent “benevolent concern” that hid a murderous system.
The residential schools were constructed behind this deception in such a way that the deaths and atrocities that constitute genocide could be hidden and eventually explained. In the Canadian context, this meant a policy of gradual but deliberate extermination under a protective legal umbrella, administered by “legitimate and trusted” institutions: the mainline churches.
A... blog?
Gunnair @ Sat Jun 04, 2011 7:46 pm
Curtman Curtman:
Gunnair Gunnair:
Curtman Curtman:
They didn't take children from families and force them to give up their culture?
They did. Does not constitute genocide though. Next.
I'm going by your definition. But I still say this is waaaaaaay off topic.
Yes, you've cherry picked one of the facets of genocide. Like taking a tire and calling it a car.
ShepherdsDog @ Sat Jun 04, 2011 7:49 pm
Gunnair Gunnair:
Taseko Taseko:
Gunnair Gunnair:
[
They did. Does not constitute genocide though. Next.
They did. Does not constitute genocide though. Next.
http://www.hmb.utoronto.ca/HMB303H/Case ... hComm.html
Article II (a): Killing members of the group intended to be destroyed
That aboriginal people were deliberately killed in the residential schools is confirmed by eyewitness testimonies, government records and statements of Indian agents and tribal elders. It is also strongly suggested by the bare fact that the mortality level in residential schools averaged 40%, or more than 50,000 native children across Canada. (see Bibliography, The Report of Dr. Peter Bryce to Department of Indian Affairs Superintendent Duncan Campbell Scott, April, 1909).
The fact, as well, that this death rate stayed constant across the years, and within the schools and facilities of every denomination which ran them—Roman Catholic, United, Presbyterian or Anglican—suggests that common conditions and policies were behind these deaths. For every second child to die in the residential school system eliminates the possibility that these deaths were merely accidental, or the actions of a few depraved individuals acting alone without protection.
As the Genocide Convention and the Nuremburg Principles make clear, creating the conditions that will kill off even one sector of a group of people is not only tantamount to genocide, but is considered to be intentional killing, since an entire institutional system is at work to destroy that group. The continuance of such a system does not require intent per se, since its killing-off of the targeted group quickly becomes automatic and routine, like a machine that has been switched on. This crucial point was made at the Nuremburg Trials, and it certainly pertains to the regime responsible for the Canadian residential school system.
Yet not only was this system inherently murderous, but it operated under the legal and structural conditions which encouraged, aided and abetted murder, and which were designed to conceal these crimes.
The residential schools were structured like concentration camps, on a hierarchical military basis under the absolute control of a Principal appointed jointly by church and state, and who was usually a clergyman. This Principal was even given legal guardianship rights over all students during the early 1930’s by the federal government, at least in west coast residential schools. This action by the government was highly unusual, considering that native people were by law the legal wards of the state, and had been so since the commencement of the Indian Act. And yet such absolute power of the school Principal over the lives of aboriginal students was a requirement of any system whose killing of aboriginals had to be disguised and later denied
The mass murder of Jews under Hitler was masked under the disguise of war, since, according to a top Nazi official, “the Jewish question will have to be resolved only during the war, since it must be settled without having the entire world erupt in protest.” (Franz Radenmacher, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, March 24, 1942)
In the same way, what Indian Affairs Superintendent Duncan Scott referred to as “The Final Solution of our Indian Problem” in 1910—the legal eradication of aboriginals and their culture—had to occur under a mask of legitimacy; namely, the so-called “educating and civilizing” of a “lesser people.” Surprisingly few Canadians, including critics of the residential school system, have been able to penetrate this fog of apparent “benevolent concern” that hid a murderous system.
The residential schools were constructed behind this deception in such a way that the deaths and atrocities that constitute genocide could be hidden and eventually explained. In the Canadian context, this meant a policy of gradual but deliberate extermination under a protective legal umbrella, administered by “legitimate and trusted” institutions: the mainline churches.
A... blog?
Seriously......You expected more from him?
Gunnair @ Sat Jun 04, 2011 7:55 pm
No. Maybe a Youtube rant is next.
Curtman @ Sat Jun 04, 2011 7:56 pm
Gunnair Gunnair:
Yes, you've cherry picked one of the facets of genocide. Like taking a tire and calling it a car.
Alright, we'll keep going then.
$1:
"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Cherry pick ANY of them?
Curtman @ Sat Jun 04, 2011 8:00 pm
For the newbs... This is the part where the regulars sabotage an otherwise worthwhile conversation, and force it to the Popcorn Playhouse.
commanderkai @ Sat Jun 04, 2011 8:01 pm
Curtman Curtman:
commanderkai commanderkai:
Once again, separation of church and state does not ban religious individuals from having political power, but rather prevents the State and Church from being involved in the other's affairs.
Let's rewind to page 1...
Our new speaker of the house.
$1:
[The Bill] is abhorrent to me, to other Catholics and to every member of every faith community … I will, therefore, be voting against this bill … I am proud to be able to do so.
I have faith. And I think he's a douchebag.
Uh huh. So his constituents elected him to represent their interests, correct? The whole point of being a MP is to make said judgments. Now, if, as a Catholic, or a Muslim, or a Jedi, or whoever else, made a decision to vote against a bill, what's the issue?
Oh right, there is none, because, once again, being religious does not exclude you from politics. When you're elected as an MP, you can decide to vote for, or against an issue due to your morals. If your constituents don't like your vote, they don't have to elect you again.
People with religious faith, whatever it might be, have every right to be involved with politics, in order to to be represented, much like how any other group, be it based on ethnicity, or political orientation, or social status, has every right to be involved in politics. The separation of church and state deals with the government not supporting one religious institution over another.
Curtman @ Sat Jun 04, 2011 8:03 pm
commanderkai commanderkai:
Once again, separation of church and state does not ban religious individuals from having political power, but rather prevents the State and Church from being involved in the other's affairs.
What business is it of his if two dudes get married? Why should the church or state get involved in their affairs?
Previous 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 21 Next