Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Kenney Pulls Gay Rights from Citizenship Guide


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The T-34 was inferior to pretty much every model of German tank but the T-34 prevailed due to numbers...

...and this was not possible without American assistance for steel production and other war materials.

, and the Russians have it with T-72s and T-90s.

Not anymore....they lack the standoff range as demonstrated in Iraq.

The Russians also have a full 4,000 more nuclear warheads.

....but lack accuracy for hardened targets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ahaha too bad gates cut the funding for it. That Obama, endangering national security yet again!

Yeah, it actually is kinda too bad. It was rather cool. It actually started working recently apparently lol....anyway...back to socialism...err...taxes...err...what was this thread about?

Link to post
Share on other sites

...and this was not possible without American assistance for steel production and other war materials.

Good point

Not anymore....they lack the standoff range as demonstrated in Iraq.

Well, Russia and the US ever came to blows, it would be interesting to see how the tanks operate considering the people driving it will actually be able to read directions

....but lack accuracy for hardened targets.

In a full scale nuclear exchange, accuracy doesn't really matter much. Both sides are going to wipe the world out. My only point was to say that the USSR actually produced more weapons than the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on your definition of propser. I'd argue there's a balance between the creation of wealth and standard of living. There's an interesting book called the European Dream which postulates an idea to only count "positive GDP." Should prisons, police officers, dumping and other economic activities count towards the GPD? I'd argue that no, they shouldn't be. Even using today's standard of calculating wealth, the EU has a larger GDP than the US. Taking things that could be taken away from the GDP that affects standard of living and the EU's advantage in terms of GDP becomes staggering.

Would you like to remove other government spending from that as well... We do know the EU likes to let the tax dollars flow, ask Greece!

Only an uneducated conservative would call Quebec a socialist paradise. More and more, you demonstrate that like most other conervatives, you've no idea what the term actually means and just use it as a tool to beat people whom you don't like.

There you go, implying that because you went to university you have better mental abilities than everyone else, you can come down from that ivory tower anytime... As for Quebec, I would call it is a socialist paradise, we have large gov't all over the place, high taxes, and a mountain of debt. How is it not a socialist paradise? It's not Venezuela, but its getting close.

There's a difference between someone's declared ideology whether written or oral and their actual actions. As I've mentioned, Reagan, Thatcher, Bush, Bush 2, Mulroney and Harper are all proof of that.

What proof would that be? Lower taxes and policies that encouraged economic growth?

He's a failure simply due to the fact that he never really accomplished anything other than to lead America's economy to a huge recession in the late 80s and 90s. He ramped up defence spending and raised taxes (spin it the way you want, he raised taxes. It's like Lisa's "temporary refund adjustment"). Things may have gotten better during his time as president but is it really a coincidence that things got worse after he left? He took the country out of stagflation by getting people to build weapons building no sustainable structure for future growth and as soon as the cold war really ended (and even before then due to the state of spending) sent the US into an immediate recession.

Last time I checked, Clinton did not jack back the tax rate to pre-Reaganesque levels. The world was in recession because of the Gulf war, a spike in oil prices, and the utter collapse of Eastern Europe. Not because of Reagan's massive tax slash and taxes as a whole were slashed, that's a given.

I never said socialism is a good way to develop an economy. It's a terrible way. My point is merely that in developed nation there has to be a balanced approach to the way we deal with things to raise living standards. It involves things like open markets and free trade and at the same time poverty and education.

The point of debate is where that balance occurs, do we take the Alberta balance, or the Quebec balance?

Also, if we want to be historically accurate, the fact that the USSR lost the arms race is another myth. To this day, Russia has more nuclear weapons stockpiled, more ICBMs and more tanks. The only way NATO could've stopped a Soviet invasion of western Europe was to use nuclear weapons.

Tin foil anyone?

Desert Storm is touted as a simulation b/w with the USSR and USA. Iraq with their oil dollars bought the "best" equipment the USSR had, and as Dogonporch would say "used a similar command and control structure" as the USSR. The result of that was a thrashing of proportions equivalent to Alexander the Great at Gaugemela. Nato would have done just fine.

Yeah, cleaning up those brutal recessions, deficits left by reaganomics in the US sure was "riding easy street." Yikes. What a dumb statement. Furthermore, you essentially just said that mulroney had to fight debt, by incurring more debt. I think it was probably more to do with the fact that mulroney was a moron had more than anything

And what's the deficit Obama is racking up, or Greece another bastion of leftist thought? Had Reagan not bankrupted the USSR, he wouldn't have had to spend on military expenditures. Had the USSR not existed, Reagan's tax policy would have made the US far more powerful than it was today. As for Mulroney and fighting the debt, Argus has gone into this ad naseum about that scenario, and a forum search will provide an interesting read on that subject. As for Mulroney being a moron, NAFTA anyone???

I'm not entitled to your money, but if you want the services that is provided by the government, then you're entitled to pay for them. If you don't like it, move to Somalia.

The thing is I want less services and more of my own money in my pocket. As for me not liking it, I have every right to not like it as you have a right to love it. There is a large proportion of Canadians who don't like being gouged at tax time, should we all get booted out to Somalia. Funny thing is, some people do end up leaving the country because of our tax laws, and that makes our society poorer because of it.

Furthermore, if you think that "broke poli-sci" profs make anything under $150,000 a year not including book royalties, you need to go back to school.

My link

I sure hope those guys are writing a lot of books :lol:

If you would have said commerce prof's I would have believed you, but since political science gets the short end of the funding stick, I have to call shenanigans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you like to remove other government spending from that as well... We do know the EU likes to let the tax dollars flow, ask Greece!

Greece is in trouble, but Greece's policy isn't the only reason why. Two words. Goldman Sachs. Enough said.

There you go, implying that because you went to university you have better mental abilities than everyone else, you can come down from that ivory tower anytime... As for Quebec, I would call it is a socialist paradise, we have large gov't all over the place, high taxes, and a mountain of debt. How is it not a socialist paradise? It's not Venezuela, but its getting close.

I don't have greater mental abilities, I just know what socialism actually is. The fact that you keep calling Quebec venezuela proves my point. Sorry, you've got no idea what it means. Stop using the term until you actually go look it up.

What proof would that be? Lower taxes and policies that encouraged economic growth?

Ahahah if by fostering economic growth you mean reckless tax cuts that create structural deficits while keeping government spending the same level or boosting it adding mountains of debt, reckless deregulation that caused the morgatge crisis, the prosecution of two wars which has only served to fule global hatred of the west...the list goes on and on. It isn't a good record.

Last time I checked, Clinton did not jack back the tax rate to pre-Reaganesque levels. The world was in recession because of the Gulf war, a spike in oil prices, and the utter collapse of Eastern Europe. Not because of Reagan's massive tax slash and taxes as a whole were slashed, that's a given.
The point of debate is where that balance occurs, do we take the Alberta balance, or the Quebec balance?

There is no balance or pragmatism in Alberta or in the US conservative movement. My argument is that we shouldn't be looking at one ideology over the other. We can bring the both together. Whatever you may say, the government is better in some areas and the private sector is better at the majority of the rest. The last time I checked, even people in Quebec weren't calling for the complete takeover by government of the economy while Conservatives routinely call for the complete privitization of everything based on the degraded and bankrupt ideology that the private sector does everything better. As I mentioned before, pure capitalism is like pure communism. May work on paper, but doesn't in real life.

Desert Storm is touted as a simulation b/w with the USSR and USA. Iraq with their oil dollars bought the "best" equipment the USSR had, and as Dogonporch would say "used a similar command and control structure" as the USSR. The result of that was a thrashing of proportions equivalent to Alexander the Great at Gaugemela. Nato would have done just fine.

So NATO's plan is to invade Russia and hope for half the red army to surrender? What kind of fairy tale world are we living in?

And what's the deficit Obama is racking up, or Greece another bastion of leftist thought? Had Reagan not bankrupted the USSR, he wouldn't have had to spend on military expenditures. Had the USSR not existed, Reagan's tax policy would have made the US far more powerful than it was today. As for Mulroney and fighting the debt, Argus has gone into this ad naseum about that scenario, and a forum search will provide an interesting read on that subject. As for Mulroney being a moron, NAFTA anyone???

I'll give credit where credit is due. He should be applauded for NAFTA. The problem is everything else he did.

The thing is I want less services and more of my own money in my pocket. As for me not liking it, I have every right to not like it as you have a right to love it. There is a large proportion of Canadians who don't like being gouged at tax time, should we all get booted out to Somalia. Funny thing is, some people do end up leaving the country because of our tax laws, and that makes our society poorer because of it.

You do have that right, but honestly, take a look around. You pay according to the society you live in. We pay on average more than the states, but then again, we have far less crime, have a health care system that works better than theirs and a plethora of other social services that are provided much more efficiently here than in the US. It's a premium. If you'd like to pay less tax but live in a slum, by all means, move to the US. I'd rather pay the premium of living here in a community where the people don't mind helping each other out than in a place where the dollar is god. And don't act as though you can go to the US and strike such a bargain and make so much money by buying services like healthcare at cheaper because naturally the private market provides things cheaper than here. You'll pay twice as much for the same level as care there as you do here. What you save by leaving here you'll have to spend more there. As for a large proportion of Canadians not liking our current tax structure, it's mostly people who have no idea where there taxes go who complain. Yes, some people do leave, but the people coming in outweigh the people that do go. The brain drain of the 90s has for all intents and purposes have been halted and talented people are now coming in.

My link

I sure hope those guys are writing a lot of books :lol:

If you would have said commerce prof's I would have believed you, but since political science gets the short end of the funding stick, I have to call shenanigans.

I challenge you to find the Canadian version of that document. Too many small liberal arts colleges that skew the numbers. I went to U of T and the numbers for my profs were staggering. Then again, our profs were actually good ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

..... You pay according to the society you live in. We pay on average more than the states, but then again, we have far less crime, have a health care system that works better than theirs and a plethora of other social services that are provided much more efficiently here than in the US. It's a premium. If you'd like to pay less tax but live in a slum, by all means, move to the US....

Yep....no "slums" to be found in Canada....it's all milk and honey....even Davis Inlet! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep....no "slums" to be found in Canada....it's all milk and honey....even Davis Inlet! ;)

I'm through the worst places in Toronto all the time. They're pretty bad, you can't deny it. They're nothing compared to half of Washington Detroit, the entirety of DC, areas of New York and Philadelphia. Sorry, no comparison.

Edited by nicky10013
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm through the worst places in Toronto all the time. They're pretty bad, you can't deny it. They're nothing compared to half of Washington Detroit, the entirety of DC, areas of New York and Philadelphia. Sorry, no comparison.

The "entirety of DC"...well ain't that special. Still, I wonder why more Canadians choose to leave their slumless paradise for such despair in America....maybe "slums" are more fun than arrogant "white-bread" perfection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The "entirety of DC"...well ain't that special. Still, I wonder why more Canadians choose to leave their slumless paradise for such despair in America....maybe "slums" are more fun than arrogant "white-bread" perfection.

It was a typo, and as I said, the immigration rate to the US has slowed to the tiniest of trickles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a typo, and as I said, the immigration rate to the US has slowed to the tiniest of trickles.

What was a typo? No slums in Canada but the entire US federal district is a slum? The trickle you speak of has "slowed" to about 24,000 per year....and that includes doctors and nurses.

Meanwhile...back at Davis Inlet....they hope for potable water today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I however know for a fact that it isn't a choice unless you specifically choose to hide what you feel inside for fear of being rejected from society.

Exactly. But, somehow, the generally accepted thinking is that only homosexual feelings are hidden for fear of being rejected from straight society; it's apparently impossible that any self-proclaimed gay person could ever feel the need to hide heterosexual feelings for fear of being rejected from gay society. Hence, outside of devoutly religious circles, conversion from straigt to gay is supposed to be a triumph of freedom from oppression; gay to straight is fake and wrong. For religious nuts, it's the exact opposite. Well, uh, sorry, but that all seems a little too simple and conveniently one-sided to me.

All gay people say it isn't a choice who you're attracted to and yes, people can have reflex urges for both sexes. They're called bi-sexuals. How is it that you, apparently a straight man can tell a gay person what's going through his head by condescendingly say that he's only waiting "for the answer he wants to hear." From my experience with my gay friends, he already knows what the answer is and you can't possibly because you aren't gay. It's far easier to not like someone for the choices they make rather than not liking them because they're born that way.

Again, your thinking is too regimented; humans cannot be divided so neatly into blocks as you try to do above, and as scientists have done with their lame and often debunked efforts to prove there's some kind of gay gene, thereby ruining the impartiality of their tests from the outset (since when was the heresay of a corpse scientific evidence?).

Of course, people have a tendency to do just that - divide themselves into easily identifiable groups; they feel safe in these communes, accepted. But it takes a certain amount of effort to build and maintain the required beliefs; hearing contrary theory or having your ideologies questioned can be perceived as a threat to your comfort. Hence, when one does offer alternate theories (not the answer that was wanted) or asks probing questions, the reaction is often defensive and presumptuous: "You hate us for the choices we made. You don't know what you're talking about because you're not one of us." Translation: We focused only on the parts of your opinion that irk us, therefore assume you're not on our side, so back off, foreign threat.

Unlike you, I have heard people who identify as gay say it was a choice for them. Some are quite famous; I'm surprised you didn't know. I don't hate them for their decisions; frankly, their honesty only drew more respect from me. I've also seen women openly slide from one sexual label to another and back again; heard guys - more than a few - who identify as straight say privately that they've done some not-so-straight things, or want to; gay people who've discreetly expressed heterosexual proclivities; and dozens of similar scenarios. Same thing for all: honesty draws my admiration (though the hypocrisy with which some are treated vis-a-vis others does not). "I was born this way" seems to run smack against all that complexity, and most notably the demonstrated ability for people's desires to constantly shift. I do believe the claimant believes the claim to be true; but, I personally can't reconcile the statement with the evidence, and so have a very hard time buying it as true, from anyone, gay or straight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe kenny could of added "you're an immigrant" like you have rights in Canada, instead of removing the gay remark.

Also maybe the comment kenny wanted added went more like "fags get out" rather than we are inclusive.

Maybe not putting anything in was just a compromise solution.

Edited by groupeii
Link to post
Share on other sites

What was a typo? No slums in Canada but the entire US federal district is a slum?

Meanwhile...back at Davis Inlet....they hope for potable water today.

you could do much better than presume to showcase your American prowess off the backs of an isolated remote community of, what... 500 persons in Davis Inlet? Certainly, Canada has slums, but if we're going to start pulling them out and measuring... well, you've won - hands down. Sorry, if anyone inadvertently gave cause that presumed to usurp your American claim to the best damned slums that American money can buy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you could do much better than presume to showcase your American prowess off the backs of an isolated remote community of, what... 500 persons in Davis Inlet? Certainly, Canada has slums, but if we're going to start pulling them out and measuring... well, you've won - hands down.

I guess you haven't traveled the world much....which really explains a lot. Even American slums have potable water.

Sorry, if anyone inadvertently gave cause that presumed to usurp your American claim to the best damned slums that American money can buy.

Yes...the District of Columbia is very expensive, even for the Canadian lobbyists who live there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. But, somehow, the generally accepted thinking is that only homosexual feelings are hidden for fear of being rejected from straight society; it's apparently impossible that any self-proclaimed gay person could ever feel the need to hide heterosexual feelings for fear of being rejected from gay society. Hence, outside of devoutly religious circles, conversion from straigt to gay is supposed to be a triumph of freedom from oppression; gay to straight is fake and wrong. For religious nuts, it's the exact opposite. Well, uh, sorry, but that all seems a little too simple and conveniently one-sided to me.

The Gay community is far more accepting of bi-sexuals than the straight community is of gay people. Last I checked, the gay community doesn't have schools which promise to turn bi's or straights gay.

Again, your thinking is too regimented; humans cannot be divided so neatly into blocks as you try to do above, and as scientists have done with their lame and often debunked efforts to prove there's some kind of gay gene, thereby ruining the impartiality of their tests from the outset (since when was the heresay of a corpse scientific evidence?).

Of course, people have a tendency to do just that - divide themselves into easily identifiable groups; they feel safe in these communes, accepted. But it takes a certain amount of effort to build and maintain the required beliefs; hearing contrary theory or having your ideologies questioned can be perceived as a threat to your comfort. Hence, when one does offer alternate theories (not the answer that was wanted) or asks probing questions, the reaction is often defensive and presumptuous: "You hate us for the choices we made. You don't know what you're talking about because you're not one of us." Translation: We focused only on the parts of your opinion that irk us, therefore assume you're not on our side, so back off, foreign threat.

Unlike you, I have heard people who identify as gay say it was a choice for them. Some are quite famous; I'm surprised you didn't know. I don't hate them for their decisions; frankly, their honesty only drew more respect from me. I've also seen women openly slide from one sexual label to another and back again; heard guys - more than a few - who identify as straight say privately that they've done some not-so-straight things, or want to; gay people who've discreetly expressed heterosexual proclivities; and dozens of similar scenarios. Same thing for all: honesty draws my admiration (though the hypocrisy with which some are treated vis-a-vis others does not). "I was born this way" seems to run smack against all that complexity, and most notably the demonstrated ability for people's desires to constantly shift. I do believe the claimant believes the claim to be true; but, I personally can't reconcile the statement with the evidence, and so have a very hard time buying it as true, from anyone, gay or straight.

There is no "gay" gene. It's just the way people's brains develope and no, it hasn't been debunked. Sorry. I'm also not trying to lump people into indentifiable groups, it's just the way it is. People can be varying degrees of anything which I've already said but you've so conveniently ignored. It's biological and the human brain is far more complex than you give credit for and far more complex of an answer to sexuality than "I've seen gay guys do straight stuff so it has to be a choice." You seem to only be able to grasp that biologically, people would have to fit into one category or another like your gender. Not so and all the evidence which you claim as your own which apparently you've never read speaks to that.

People are defensive about it because the vast amount of people who claim it's a choice are people who scream from the rooftop about the immorality of being gay. What they'd also say in defense is more along the line of "You hate us for how we were born." Not for the choices they've made.

You seem to make a statement about evidence, but from everything I've seen, there's only evidence of sexual preference being biological and not a choice. Who are these famous people that have "made the choice to be gay?" I've heard people about who chose to come out, but chosing to come out and chosing to be gay are entirely different things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess you haven't traveled the world much....which really explains a lot. Even American slums have potable water.

Yes...the District of Columbia is very expensive, even for the Canadian lobbyists who live there.

actually I've traveled the world extensively, work and pleasure based travel - I've also been in most of the largest U.S. cities. Like I said, we in Canada should certainly defer to your claims on the biggest and best slums. As for actual water quality, let's hope no more levies break - hey?

NYT: Millions in U.S. Drink Dirty Water, Records Show

More than 20 percent of the nation’s water treatment systems have violated key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act over the last five years, according to a New York Times analysis of federal data.

That law requires communities to deliver safe tap water to local residents. But since 2004, the water provided to more than 49 million people has contained illegal concentrations of chemicals like arsenic or radioactive substances like uranium, as well as dangerous bacteria often found in sewage.

we should also defer to your sound positioning on drinking water related infrastructure:

American Society of Civil Engineers: 2009 Infrastructure Fact Sheet - Drinking Water - Grade 'D'... is that a passing grade? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

actually I've traveled the world extensively, work and pleasure based travel - I've also been in most of the largest U.S. cities. Like I said, we in Canada should certainly defer to your claims on the biggest and best slums. As for actual water quality, let's hope no more levies break - hey?

I doubt that you have traveled much at all...or surely you would have remembered the Walkerton, Ontariaririo waterworks fiasco:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkerton_Tragedy

Seems that things are not so perfect in paradise after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that you have traveled much at all...or surely you would have remembered the Walkerton, Ontariaririo waterworks fiasco:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkerton_Tragedy

Seems that things are not so perfect in paradise after all.

Who called it paradise. All I said was that Canadian slums are far better than American ones and you come up with this stuff about water quality to deflect. And all of DC was meant to be all of Detroit. Even you shouldn't be able to argue that one. And half of DC is accurate. If you walk down the wrong street in DC it can be a scary experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who called it paradise. All I said was that Canadian slums are far better than American ones and you come up with this stuff about water quality to deflect. And all of DC was meant to be all of Detroit. Even you shouldn't be able to argue that one. And half of DC is accurate. If you walk down the wrong street in DC it can be a scary experience.

You clearly posted "entirety of DC"....so takes your lumps. The walking experience is no more risky than in Winnipeg, Saskatoon, or Regina. You started this slum fest....not I.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who called it paradise. All I said was that Canadian slums are far better than American ones and you come up with this stuff about water quality to deflect. And all of DC was meant to be all of Detroit. Even you shouldn't be able to argue that one. And half of DC is accurate. If you walk down the wrong street in DC it can be a scary experience.

Walking down any street in an area where the majority of the tennants are poor minorities can be a scary experience for a variety of reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...