Jan 24, 06
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
this was the rest of the paragraph:: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
btw: i thought we were finished this? 
|
|
Jan 24, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Not to say that I don't side moreso with you but yeah.... round and round and round we go!! Oh and Shakalaka, Shakalaka, Shakalaka, Shakalaka, Shakalaka, Shakalaka, Shakalaka, Shakalaka, Shakalaka, Shakalaka, Shakalaka, Shakalaka, Shakalaka, Shakalaka, Shakalaka, Shakalaka, Shakalaka, Shakalaka, Shakalaka, Shakalaka, Shakalaka, BOOOOOOOOOOOM! hahaha :) OK, I'm done.
|
|
Jan 24, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
man, if its an outright apology you want jay for "implying" a physical altercation, then you got it! I APOLOGISE, but this so called fight talk is as far as the apology covers.
Ive seen your pipes in the ltj photos, id be smart not to start anymore shit.
|
|
Jan 24, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Jan 24, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You have to believe me when i say, that if there was a humorous approach to activisim that actaully saw significant change in respects to the public being informed/empowered/mobilized/unified and getting in political dialogue, i would grab onto it in a heartbeat. I just dont where to find it, and how to use it. I know, and accept i have ALOT to learn about engaging in debate, with people who may or may not have all the relevent information.
|
|
Jan 24, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
It also depends on the specific content that the difference of opinion is based on. In some realms there is still somewhat of a trace of the unknown, in others, its blindly apparent, and the blindness to it, is what is keeping it alive.:057:
|
|
Jan 24, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
But sometimes opinions can be made based on no fact or misinformation... But in the case they are actually made from researching/thinking and they still come up with the same opinion, or this is how they made the opinion, than I agree - people may have different ideas about the same things.
|
|
Jan 24, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 wamp wamp!
|
|
Jan 24, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Jan 24, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm pretty excited.
Elected senate, scrapped gun registry boondoggle, increased government transparency, lower taxes etc. I think the platform is pretty solid. Most of these are obviously good ideas that the Liberals just wouldn't support because the opposition thought of them. Harper isn't a religious nutcase like some on the Canadian right (Preston Manning, bless his heart, is a religious nutcase) so I don't see gay rights being eroded during this mandate like a lot of people seem to be worried about. Canadians are much more oriented towards civil libertarianism than Americans and I think our Conservative party reflects this. Americans are also much more religious than Canadians according to many studies, and I think that our political parties in general reflect this with increased separation of church and state, which translates into less repressive social policy. Also, to those comparing Bush and Harper: Bush's policies have expanded government spending and size by a huge amount; Harper's policies are by and large about reducing the size of government. The Republican Party is no longer a fiscal conservative party, while the Canadian Conservative party IS. Comparing the Republicans with the Conservatives is simply NOT a reasonable comparison anymore, mainly because the Republican party has changed so much in the last few decades. A good way to look at it is that the Conservatives are closer to classical Liberalism while the Republicans are 'Neo-Conservatives'. If all goes well, I may actually decide to stay in Canada for my career when I get my B.Sc in a few months. Oh, and does anyone know if there's a fable filter for vBulletin? Last edited by FlorpIncarnate; Jan 24, 06 at 07:10 PM.
|
|
Jan 24, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
OOOh ,thats some good stuff you gots there florpy! How bout telling the peeps about the much anticipated disolving of Indegenous rights, and subsequent assimalation? Or what about the invigorated expenditure in the militarty department? Or better yet, how bout the increased of troops in Afghanistan and Haiti? Hell, the country can deal with a few more sons and daughters dying as a result of carrying out our governments imperialist agenda right!? What i dont understand, is how you presume to know what the hell your talking about, and then hint that perhaps the Conservatives are somehow, an alternative to the liberals? They represent the same ruling elite - except the cons, got the more radical righties too! Go back and reread you post, the dripping smugness communicates that your idea of economic stability comes from the ability to stare at numbers, mainstream media, reactionary prose, that somehow excuses Canadian government of anything and everything because we arent as bad as them "Americans," - and have no idea whats going outside the window. You have your right to your opinion, but being free of scrutiny, critisism, and getting your ass called, at every single comment you make on this baord about your limited grasp of national politics, and inherant truths, wont be so easy. I fucking promise you. Classic liberalism and conservatism, share the same bed, except one likes it rougher than the other. Quote:
ps: so what boards are we talking about here? Im pretty sure you can just put me on ignore here, but this aint run by vbulletin, im pretty sure nwdnb is currently? but i could be wrong? If you want be off your ass, dont be mentioning my name in your posts, for no reason, and youre free to ride the contrain all the way into......... Last edited by fable; Jan 24, 06 at 09:00 PM.
|
|
Jan 24, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
not if its at the expense of peoples lives or quality of life. But i do agree i could use a valium. But i think theres a few conservative supporters out there, that could use a bit of education, and if said supporters are going to call me out, ill respond like always.
|
|
Jan 25, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
you actually fit right in there. stupid canadians.... Last edited by PHUNK; Jan 25, 06 at 12:03 PM.
|
|
Jan 25, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
-was it my negetive stance on nationalism? -was it my negetive stance on the current conservative government? -was it my brief explanation of my beleifs on Quebec Sovereignty? Stupid Canadian? If stupidity refers to a general lack of oppropriate action in the face overwhelming proof, then id say at one time i was indeed extremely stupid. But if your just shit talking, well, i agree, i got in it pretty heavy in this thread, i was pissed, (that isnt an excuse) But i firmly believe that those who voted conservative, might have thought they were voting for an feasable alternative to the monopoly of Liberal rule, but infact did so, with a incomplete knowledge of their ideology and in turn will be limited in trying to predict future policy making and or policy destroying. By the very acceptance of voting conservative, as a means to instill a new prospect of rule, one completely ignores the similarity in ideaolgoy between the two parties, and the glaring fact, that representing an even more radically right national consticuency doesnt help most people on this nation. But i guess well see. I do in fact pray, that im proven completely wrong.
|
|
Jan 25, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I can only lighten the mood on this thread so much fable.... help me out here...
|
|
Jan 25, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think they both make good cases. Personally, I think fable is closer to the truth.
Quote:
Last edited by Mangle; Jan 25, 06 at 12:56 PM.
|
|
Jan 25, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
what exactly about the post that you quoted is incorrect? Do dispute the fact that the term "Canada" never really represented the people as a whole in this nation, rather, the government and wealthy elite, and large business? A capitalist system that began in this nation around the early to mid 1800's was at the expece of a genocidal, and apartheid project involving anywhere to min. 5million to max 10million indegenous peoples? Residential Schools, treaty acts, and a program that "allowed" indegenous peoples to trade in their ethnic identity for "citizenship" and small parcels of token land. Do you not still see this very action going on today? How long do you think it will be before the Government revokes the Indian Act entirely? I do fully admit that the Indian act is somewhat racist initself, but vs. the alternative of a full assimiliation of indegenous peoples under the belief, or rhetoric of "unifying a nation" How many examples do we need to bring up from history, to understand that when a contemporary government or rulers talk about unifying a nation, theyre talking about owning the exclusive rights to the land, at the expence of peoples culture, history, diversity, and essentially freedom. Alexander the Great?, Ghenghis Khan? The crusades? Come on, these people, and endevours wrote the fucking book. I havent even touched on the immigration policy, attacks on the working people,(hell we just had five unions essentially crushed by the government, and corrupt union leadership IN ONE SUMMER!?!?) Security certificates, two tier citizenship act, third party national security act, the threat of further massive privitization, this in the realms of provincial resources, and social services? Im not saying we are doomed, i never once said that, but i think it would be acceptable to say, that there is a large contingent of people (who excercise their power to vote) that dont know left from fucking right. Everyone talks about their right to vote, like its no such a big deal, that a conservative voter and someone intrinsically socialist in their beliefs can somehow get along? What the fuck? One supports a path that has classically, histrorically and currenly represented opprressive rule, the other has been marked as a militant, a hippy, a jobless bum, an ungrateful citizen?? Why? How? Really the enemies arent the common populace, but if memebers of the common populace support the structures that repress, millions across this globe, you think that a semi-angry tone, is too much? I support a united front, but there isnt one, and ill fully admite that its really hard not to lose my shit, when i get in a dialogue with someone who hasnt taken the time to study, and empower themselves in the way a country works, and has worked -THEIR OWN COUNTRY. Why is it such a stretch to believe that a governmental capitalist based organization that is leading imperialist endevours abroad, would not be carrying similiar actions on their own home soil? When did a contingent of the populace start believing that oppression/racism doesnt stem from a material base? When this very material base, is whats supporting them? And when did it become incorrect to put things into context, and understand that similair actions, taken by similair government, representing the same nation, are RELATED? and are under the same agenda/policy/ideology/self serving strategies? You really think sound like a fool? Then discuss, counter the points, and ill responds. (btw - it was you, that first brought the phrase -"stupid canadiann" into this thread)
|
|
Jan 25, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Jan 25, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
yo fable. way to sway people to your side...
here's a tip. When you present only the facts in your argument, people have little choice but to debate the facts or else look like a tool for throwing a net tantrum in the face of facts. When you present facts that are clouded in the the most extreme of self-righteous, moral, indignation coupled with full-on ad hominem attacks and laced with pure unadulturated condescending belittlement in your rhetoric - people are going to focus on your presentation rather than your content. Seriously - I know this. I used to hang with Marxists :)
|
|
Jan 25, 06
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Harper is a politician, and most people believe in 'god', therefore he must pander to the religious in his speeches. Martin also does this, but to a lesser extent. There is no denying that the Conservative party has a large base of support from religious voters who vote Conservative primarily for religious social concerns. This is unfortunate in my opinion, and I assume in yours too. However, there isn't prayer in public school as far as I know, and again, as I understand it, religious social concerns are not the major focus of the Conservative party right now. Fiscal conservatism is. Harper is an economist after all. Bibles in every classroom? I think not. Furthermore, a 'budget surplus' means very little. It simply means the government is taxing more than it is spending. That it still taxes and spends too much doesn't have as much of a ring to it. I fully expect the Conservatives to cut spending and taxes. Quote:
Quote:
|
