Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

bradco's Achievements

Community Regular

Community Regular (8/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges



  1. My thoughts: -the praying was done in a separate room, and as much as I oppose religion, I respect a persons right to religious expression in private. I see no problem with this. -I agree with the assessment that the media is biased. The CBC would be all over the Conservatives if anyone was praying at their convention. That has less to do with what religions are involved and more to do with the colour on the banners at the convention, in my opinion. The CBC probably shouldnt be getting public funds....thats a whole other debate though. -Im not buying any arguement that we have anything to worry about long term. I dont see mass muslim prayers at any liberal convention down the road. I dont see the quran or sharia law determining Canadian public policy. -radical muslims blow up buildings with airplanes and radical christians do not?? I guess this is true, fair statement. Luckily for the radical christians they have control of the most technically advanced military on the planet....they dont need to resort to suicide attacks. Either way, I see all radical religion as a threat and not any one specifically. I dont buy this radical Christians respect "western values" and radical muslims dont, in my opinion neither respect or value current western society.
  2. Im usually against referendums, except for important things, and SSM is not an important issue at all. Only a select minority of Canadians who loathe the values of their country want to keep this on the agenda. That being said maybe we should just have the referendum and shut up the religious right once and for all. Make them realize that they are in fact the minority, although they whine about the liberal, leftist elite minority dictating beliefs to them and maintaining a secular society as opposed to an intolerant religious society they would prefer. Note: I dont want to brand all religious people as nuts, I know many who are not. A lot are able to adopt tolerance, a love for freedom and rights while still practising their religion and honoring their god. Unfortunatly too many, of all brands, are unable to do so.
  3. when did the notwithstanding clause begin to enable PM's to suspend elections???? Im pretty sure a genocidal maniac wouldnt get reelected in Canada. In fact, the use of the notwithstanding clause for anything remotely unjustified would be political suicide. Interesting enough the American president could commit genocide and not face charges at the International Criminal Court, seeing that they refuse to sign on.
  4. You don't have to change the traditional definition of marriage to avoid discriminating against people. If someone lives a different lifestyle it's none of my business, but they don't have to go to government and say: our sexual devience is now a legal norm. A person can choose to eat rubber tires, but they shouldn't have the right to change the legal definition of food in order to incorporate their own eccentricity into every day society. Likewise with marriage. blah blah blah who cares about the legal definition of marriage. I thought objections were based on religious grounds??? when did legal interpretations ever have anythigng to do with religion. The fact is churches still and always will have the right to decide if they want to marry homosexuals. Regardless of right wing hysteria, homosexuals and religous rights can coexist. either way, fact is the majority of Canadians support changing the legal definition so your little analogy is flawed. If the majority of Canadians vote to change the definiton of food to include tires its a go.
  5. Your memory fails you, it seems. Africa and Rhodesia were white colonies and enjoyed much support and cooperation from the West at first. What decided their fate is that as all colonies, they were unsustainable and were eventually abandoned. At this point we could safely unleash our moral superiority. And yes, do complain about Sudan and Darfur for all you want, but can you deliver a working solution? As far as the UNSC goes in regards to Rhodesia it did in fact condemn apartheid. After the unilateral declaration of independance made by the white settler minority led by Smith (I think it composed about 6% of the population) the Security Council eventually authorized the use of force by Britain to enforce oil sanctions against Rhodesia. The declaration of independance was mostly viewed as illegitimate because of the aparthied the rhodesian regime was installing.
  6. "The effects of the currency increase may not be felt right away and it shows that the increase in house value may not be real." Inflation was what 2.5% last year??? We are talking about a 200K increase in the value of the home. Unless he owns a VERY nice house the inflation caused increase in the value of his home is negligble. Not to mention most peoples wages are also rising about 2% a year. So the "real" price isnt influenced by the money supply change at all really. "My university prof once said that you can accurately predict real estate prices with population trends." well ya population trends would be a pretty good indicator of demand for housing. That demand is the determiner of house values. So I would imagine they correlate nicely.
  7. You are confusing two separate issue's. You ask:"How is it unethical if two consenting same sex adults do anything." What you are forgetting, it is government and not society, that gave Gays their LEGAL rights that if left up to society to establish Gays legal rights, morals would certainly play an important part in arriving to a decision for most people. The federal government doesn't care about morals. For argument sake, we have never had a referendum to establish if Canadians thinks Gays having sex or marrying each other is unethical, did we. If we did and society responded by majority saying , yes it is unethical for Gays to have sex or marry each other. How would you respond then? I don't have a monopoly on understanding what is ethical or principled but it seems you do. You are establishing what you think is correct pertaining to the words 'ethical' and 'principled' based on LAW only and conveniently forget how society as a whole feels about it and were never given the opportunity to be part of that decision. your referendum ballot question ought to be changed. 1.Is it unethical? and 2. Should it be allowed? are quite different.Someone can believe it to be unethical by their standards but still believe others have the right to choose their own ethics. Putting the obvious error in your question aside....if it went to referendum SSM would probably be affirmed and you would have to come to grips with the fact that Canadian society isnt as fundamentalist Christian as you wishfully believe.
  8. ceterius paribus, an increase in the money supply will cause inflation. As long as the inflation is at a low rate there is nothing to be worried about. Wages are rising along with inflation as well (as well as causing it). Real wages are higher now than they were ten years ago, and higher standards of living are enjoyed because of it. Relax a bit eh....your tendancy to go out of the way to find conspiracy theories is a little weird eh.
  9. In this case it is mostly all demand. LOL and i doubt the poster was talking about inflation.....If he was I wonder where helives since a 200K increase in the value of his house is pretty amazing inflation!!
  10. luring children with candy is wrong for any purpose. You do this today and you would probably end up in court.
  11. Parents are the MAIN adult figures of authority...of course children will learn from them and believe in their parents' belief. It is the parents natural right to pass down their belief and philosophy to their children. You believe what you believe...and you pass it on to your children. That is a parental responsiblity! What are you suggesting here? Let our children loose to roam the world to find their own way? It's not even safe to let them go to the mall by themselves! I hope this does not mean what I suspect it means. Another banning waiting to happen? Or is this just another "wishing will make it so." parental responsibility is to teach kids to look both ways before they cross the street etc...it isnt to brain wash them with your own religous beliefs. Parental responsibility is to teach their children to be able to think critically. By indoctrinating their children parents are ignoring their responsiblity. You shouldnt be forcing your children to believe all your own religious beliefs...thats not to say you cant provide them with your belief but dont force it upon them.
  12. Its not different. Id be the first to criticise any religous fanaticism. Attempting to paint liberals as proponents of radical Islam and terrorists is a typical right wing conservative fetish, trickery, that is dishonest and really becoming quite tiring. No liberal supports any terrorism. The thing is liberals dont focus that much on criticising Islamic terrorism simply because it is implied we are against it. I see nothng wrong with worrying more about the fate of our own society anyways. For the record, I dont criticise the girl. I feel sorry that she isnt being taught to think openly and critically. Theres nothing wrong with religious sales pitches in general, I dislike them but I accept the right of others to give them. When the Jehovahs Witneeses come to my door I always take their reading material and actually read it, out of interest. My problem is giving this sales pitch to children who are at an age where they are very impressionable and will believe anything from an adult figure of authourity (trust me I work with young children, its true). Its my belief we should all have the chance to decide for ourselves, when we are mentally capable of doing so, what religion (or no religion) is right for us. One of the priests flat out says its good to get em while theyre young and impressionable....I have issues with that
  13. Unbelievable? How about a camp that teaches kids about killing others by strapping bombs on themselves and committing suicide. All for the good of God. And you worry about Jesus kids? My worrying about radical Christian camps doesnt mean I dont worry about radical Islamic camps. It never ceases to amuse how we call radical Islamists the worst evil on the planet yet compare ourselves to them. We shouldnt be saying "o well we're not as bad as them". We should be striving to better our society. For the record the camp is unbelievable under what i would consider civilized and modernized norms. The camp leader pretty much says that "we" need to start getting as militant as the islamist radicals. To me that is basically forfeiting the war on terror. The camp has small children dancing around in army fatigues and war paint chanting and crying. Thats not unbelievable to you? The film shows a camp leader asking children whther they want to give their lifes for jesus and them screaming and saying yes, it shows a young girl talking about wanting to be a martyr. To me this all pretty unbelievable by my standard of what a civlized society should look like.
  14. The issue for me isnt with the adults positions vis-a-vis god and their religion. My issue with what this film reveals is how children are being used and manipulated. For example, in the movie you see a 5 year old kid talking about he decided to be "born again" because he found is life empty and void of meaning. Like come on, your 5 years old thats bs. Thats what his parents, his church etc has told him. No real 5 year old kids worry about their lives being void of meaning. I guess Im just thankful my parents didnt force any beliefs on me and provided alternative views, allowing me to decide what i thought was right and not "brain washing" me to their beliefs when I was young.
  15. "what they'll want to do if ever we are seriously threatened right on our doorstep. I guess to them, giving in is a really serious option!" I think this comment is utter nonsense typical of the right. If anyone is waiving the white flage to the terrorists its the conservatives, especially the Republican party. This isnt a war over territory it is a war over ways of life. How can anyone win that war if they are willing to abandon their own principles at the first sight of any troubles. We need liberals speaking up to keep the conservaitves from moving down the road that the terrorists want to see us take.
  • Create New...