Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Moonlight Graham

Burn a Qu'ran Day.

Recommended Posts

Yeah, Winnipeg is a real bastion of conservatism. So is Manitoba for that matter. NDP Premier with an NDP majority legislature. :rolleyes:

Ol' Tom Douglas would be proud.

Now, lets talk about our federal seats....9 of our 14 seats are Conservative including 3 in Winnipeg. As for our NDP government, it's no more socialist than you are.

Oh, and Winnipeg is also the home of Charles Adler.

Edited by Smallc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, lets talk about our federal seats....9 of our 14 seats are Conservative including 3 in Winnipeg. As for our NDP government, it's no more socialist than you are.

Oh, and Winnipeg is also the home of Charles Adler.

Shady bites it again....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for our NDP government, it's no more socialist than you are.

Says the proponent of government run car insurance. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis

Says the proponent of government run car insurance. :rolleyes:

What's wrong with government run car insurance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Says the proponent of government run car insurance. :rolleyes:

I didn't see any Manitoba PCs advocating for its removal. Every province has government run business in certain key centres....as do most countries.

Edited by Smallc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with government run car insurance?

I guess I'm just not as socialist as the Manitoba NDP. Thanks for making my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis

I guess I'm just not as socialist as the Manitoba NDP. Thanks for making my point.

I'm from B.C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kimmy already pointed out the harassment, so I'll just say that I find this rather funny, because I agree with kimmy 100%, and I don't know about her, but I'm no conservative. But I will add this: this post highlights another of y'alls favorite cries: 'oh, you're such a victim!' We best take whatever you dish out, which includes accusations of bigot and having our views completely rewritten by the likes of all you "PC do-gooders," or we have a "victim complex."

This post is a perfect example.

Nonsense.

When Kimmy calls people "PC do-gooders," she is dishing it out; or when she calls people (and only liberals; never conservatives) "crybabies," and then you agree with her, you are both dishing it out; and Shady is continually insulting people. That's his thing.

As for the labels of "bigotry"...weell, I agree wholeheartedly that it's overused and frequently unfair. But in fact, I have been repeatedly named "terrorist-supporter" ()usually, ironically, by outright supporters of unambiguous Western terror)..and also, on numerous occassion, "anti-semite," which in truth quite gwets under my skin.

Well, yesterday I came to the defense of Shady when someone was calling him a racist.

But no worries: I wouldn't expect the same treatment back from him. Or from you.

Edited by bloodyminded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pfft, yeah, that's what happens here...especially when you live on the prairies.... :lol:

:)

Yep...just as here in New Brunswick, as you can well imagine, the population is comprised entirely of "PC self-righteous do-gooders."

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does a "real" Muslim even mean? Using your logic, anytime somebody committed a negative action, they'd be denied as being part of that group.

Not when membership in that group requires adherence to certain principles. For example, I don't think anyone could rightfully call themselves a christian if they willfully hurt other people. I also think it would be fair if other christians didn't accept such a person into their club.

I'm sorry such a concept is a bit too profound for you though.

Thanks for chiming in. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Says the proponent of government run car insurance. :rolleyes:

I pay less than $100 a month "government-run" car insurance on my 2008 FJ Cruiser. I'm also getting a rebate of over $100 out of that.

Tell me again what's wrong with socialism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's a very accurate description of what happened. As accurate as your cries of "bigot!!!!"

Don't worry. I'm totally bigoted against religious people too. I think they're delusional and insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kimmy already pointed out the harassment, so I'll just say that I find this rather funny, because I agree with kimmy 100%, and I don't know about her, but I'm no conservative. But I will add this: this post highlights another of y'alls favorite cries: 'oh, you're such a victim!' We best take whatever you dish out, which includes accusations of bigot and having our views completely rewritten by the likes of all you "PC do-gooders," or we have a "victim complex."

This post is a perfect example.

As usually... AW whining about what a victim she is instead of posting about the topic at hand. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm just not as socialist as the Manitoba NDP. Thanks for making my point.

State Farm,The Dominion,and,Pilot thank you for your contribution....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pay less than $100 a month "government-run" car insurance on my 2008 FJ Cruiser. I'm also getting a rebate of over $100 out of that.

Tell me again what's wrong with socialism?

Because you have no choice!!!

:rolleyes:

Shady likes to line the pockets of the money grubbing insurance cabal...He thinks it's symbolic of "freedom"....

Edited by Jack Weber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman

Don't worry. I'm totally bigoted against religious people too. I think they're delusional and insane.

Once. Again.

I'm not bigoted against religious people. So think what you will, but it has nothing to do with me. My beliefs are exactly as I stated. Over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not when membership in that group requires adherence to certain principles. For example, I don't think anyone could rightfully call themselves a christian if they willfully hurt other people. I also think it would be fair if other christians didn't accept such a person into their club.

I'm sorry such a concept is a bit too profound for you though.

Thanks for chiming in. :)

Indeed. Clearly, no Muslim or Christian has ever taken a life in all of recorded history, since killing is expressly against the sacred literature. Likewise, no pro-lifer has ever shot an abortion doctor (since, obviously, that would be an anti-life thing to do.)

Clearly, every alleged Christian or Muslim who has taken a life must actually be a godless atheist. The homicides attributed to the pro-life movement are, clearly, the fault of pro-death people, and can not be blamed on the pro-life movement in the least. It's obvious, when you think about it.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman

Indeed. Clearly, no Muslim or Christian has ever taken a life in all of recorded history, since killing is expressly against the sacred literature.

It's true. For example, the Crusades were actually carried out by non-Christians only claiming to be Christians. Most people just aren't aware of that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis

Not when membership in that group requires adherence to certain principles. For example, I don't think anyone could rightfully call themselves a christian if they willfully hurt other people. I also think it would be fair if other christians didn't accept such a person into their club.

I'm sorry such a concept is a bit too profound for you though.

Thanks for chiming in. :)

That sounds a lot like the no true Scotsmen fallacy to me.

Edited by TrueMetis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds a lot like the no true Scotsmen fallacy to me.

Nice. That's much more precise (yet less funny) than what I was trying to say.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The homicides attributed to the pro-life movement are, clearly, the fault of pro-death people, and can not be blamed on the pro-life movement in the least. It's obvious, when you think about it.

So if there were a proposal for a christian church to be built near the site of an abortionist homicide, you would sympathize with the pro-choice people objecting and argue the church should not be built?

Me, I would say the pro-choice people shouldn't label all christians as abortionist murderers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if there were a proposal for a christian church to be built near the site of an abortionist homicide, you would sympathize with the pro-choice people objecting and argue the church should not be built?

Me, I would say the pro-choice people shouldn't label all christians as abortionist murderers.

If the site were chosen specifically because of the homicide, and if it were not just a church but also a monument celebrating the pro-life movement, then I would certainly think it was in questionable taste, to say the least.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the site were chosen specifically because of the homicide, and if it were not just a church but also a monument celebrating the pro-life movement, then I would certainly think it was in questionable taste, to say the least.

I didn't realize that the mosque is meant to be a monument celebrating the terrorist attack. Thanks for clarifying that. In that case, I think it's in questionable taste too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realize that the mosque is meant to be a monument celebrating the terrorist attack. Thanks for clarifying that. In that case, I think it's in questionable taste too.

Unfortunately, even Mr Rauf's intentions were the exact opposite of that, there are those on this planet who will indeed see it as a celebration of the WTC attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realize that the mosque is meant to be a monument celebrating the terrorist attack. Thanks for clarifying that. In that case, I think it's in questionable taste too.

It's (as its supporters continuously point out) not *just* a mosque. It's "Muslim outreach", it's "dawah", it's an invitation to non-Muslims to come acquaint themselves with Islam. (I think that's a completely accurate representation of the claims of the founders and their supporters.)

Now, if some pro-life organization deliberately purchased the site of some pro-life massacre, and built their pro-life outreach center on the site, with lofty claims that they wanted to build bridges with pro-choice people and share understanding of the pro-life point of view, we both know they'd be pilloried for the move. And we both know that their claims that they weren't trying to capitalize on the notoriety of the massacre would be met with skepticism, and we both know that they'd be accused of insensitivity and cynicism and of attempting to exploit the massacre for political reasons.

So I think that the analogy you've chosen here does little to help your point of view, and helps make my case for me. Sorry. Next.

-k

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...