|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 18, 2006 22:54:02 GMT -5
You work hard, all of your life. You pay in to government run programs for decades. When you reach the end of the line and expect your golden handshake, boom, too bad. We're going to tax the hell out of your savings, we want to revoke your property rights. While were at it, we'll make it almost impossible for your grandchildren to be considered for government jobs or crown corporation jobs because we need to fill quota's. I doesn't matter that they're more qualified or better educated, we want people with different ethnic backgrounds to get the taxpayer funded jobs. You just go ahead and die, then we'll tax you again, before your corpse turns to maggots. Sounds like the new secular society that you Liberals want. Discrimination and all! Ah. Conservatism and the endless whine of self pity. Zellers has a special on plastic pants.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 18, 2006 23:28:29 GMT -5
And this is the guy who picked the slogan for the Conservative campaign. It's not a laughing matter, but a lot of conservative's children get hit on the head with bibles,. Physical and emotional abuse and conditional love makes for a deity who delights in punishing malefactors who are usually, coincidentally either a visible minority or needing help in some way (read 'weaklings'). Fascism does appeal to fascist souls of course, but it is so hard to fathom how folks can forget that there are higher goals in life, than a few bucks more for them while the world becomes more cold and inhuman. The irony is that the world is a world of plenty. Human compassion is a preconditon for a happy life. Stand up for Canada. Stop fascists in their miserable, abusive, lonely, empty tracks. Yet another inflammatory diatribe post, tarring and maligning everyone that might hold a conservative point of view on some matters. Is the condemnation against those who hold a non Liberal or non Catholic viewpoint with basis or is it based on anecdotal comment (via the new media). Conservatives beat their children with the Bible? Come on. Even if this is hyperbole it goes too far. That would be like someone saying that Catholics support child molestation -- after all, priests are all homosexual pedophiles. We know that not to be true and would never suggest such a thing. All priests are not so inclined (some are, to be sure) and most Roman Catholics (except the deniers) are horrified by these actions of a few. So perhaps it is time to get facts straight. Perhaps it is time to get to know some “regular” non-Catholic believers who hold the Bible in high regard. Find out what they really believe. And remember . . . they are just as perfect as you are. Hey Franko! I am adressing some quite particular statements and attitudes expressed by a person of whom another poster expressed surprise that he was even allowed to post such ill-disguised fascistic and racist sentiments. These are not uncommon sentiments with the far right and their psycho-socio origins are well known. In this context of his referencing the Judeo -Christian founding ethos, I addressed that as pertaining to the poster. It is a truism that right wing conservative 'Christians' are big time supporters of capital punishment, the natural extension of corporal punishment,, in fact the ultimate in corporatl punishment, as is undoubtedly the person to whom this was directed. Does the expression "Spare the rod and spoil the child" ring a bell? This expression is commonly offered by right wingers to justify physically abusing children. You know this. Most fans of capital punishment and authoritarian regimes, have in fact been physically abused, and often in the name of God. The general thrust of my comments has been addressing the very right-wing and quite fascist tone of my interlocutor who waxes sentimental to our cultural heritage. I don't think Joe Clark was smacked around that much, but a great many angry, agressive right wingers with angry agressive postures of indifference to human suffering were. It's how they come to acguire the views. It should come as no surprise that kids who were largely raised in warmer, safer and more loving environments more often adopetd similar attitudes. There's nothing particularly controversial in what I wrote. Ironically, it was the loving acceptance of homosexually attracted individuals that has led to the terrible scandals that the church has suffered of late. Every tendancy has its proper happy medium. I don't generally condemn those who hold a non-Catholic or non-liberal view, but I certainly found a lot that was pretty offensive (racist, seff-righteous and evasive) with my interloquitor. I do however stand by my comments concerning authoritarian right wingers and emotional and physical abuse as misread in the bible. The rod refers to the rod of discipline, not a stick to beat kid with. While I have spent a hell of a lot of time defending Catholicism from what I consider to be erooneous or undue criticisms, I have not spent much time attacking Protestantism or Orthodoxy, Judaism, Islam or much else. Policies advanced in politics that I hate, I do of course fight, and so I should. How many times do I have to repeat that I have many, and some very serious objections to some Liberal positions and individuals.? I have spent an awful lot of time defending the ever so defensible Catholic church and myself from extremely pointed criticisms that I believe missed the mark. It's to be expected and I have no qualms about responding. Oddly enough, I got into it with Blaise when he was verbally abusing you (and human reasoning) for your fundamentalism. His basis was his own naive materialism and quite unscientific scientism which game him no foundation whatever for the criticisms. I am extremely critical of the inadequacies or even inanitiesof the mainstream philosophical foundations or rather lack thereof and am happy to point them out and refute them insofar as I am able. Arguing the truth of things is a noble use of the mind. As to knowing Christians who have a lot of respect for the bible, I of course hold that it is a Catholic book properly respected within the authoritive teaching office of the church founded by the apostles, whose teaching is guranteed by the promises of Christ throughout history. I do not idea how it could possibly have been otherwise given the historical record. That said, I know lots of people who are far finer human beings than am I , who don't agree with what I hold to be simple historical fact and who respect the bible greatly in their own manner. Why should I have a problem with that? I don't. Many would be and are great role models for me in many things. So. I'm sorry I ruffled your feathers, but my remarks were addressed in a farly specific context, and not intended to be a general and blanket condemnation of all conservative principles and practices. I don't believe that. Anyhow, I apologize for your discomfiture from reading my remarks, but they are to be read contextually.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 19, 2006 0:17:33 GMT -5
OK, what race did I insult tonight? Just like Conservatives, you tar Christians the same way. You take a ridiculous example and say all Conservatives or all Christians abide by the same principle. That is like saying a certain ethnic group all looks the same, you know seen one, seen them all. Shows how narrow minded that you are.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 19, 2006 0:57:29 GMT -5
Hitler was a socialist, was he not? Authoritarian? Definately! Stalin was a Communsit, was he not? Authortarian? Definately! It works on both sides of the spectrum, but you have a hate on for the right. Curious, why have you not taken a stab at the Time article on Harper? Since you believe that all Conservatives are evil. Something about being the greatest leader since Trudeau scare you off?
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 19, 2006 9:26:11 GMT -5
"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain". Winston Churchill
I used to think the world of Trudeau when I was much younger. And I still did when I got older. But, there were always others saying, Canada's financial woes started under his government. After researching it a bit, I have to agree.
I'm not a staunch Conservative or Liberal. Heck, I first voted NDP when Stephen Lewis was the head of the Ontario NDP. The point is, I've tried to be careful with my vote every time I casted it. But, it seems many politicians are painted with the same brush. They're more concerned about qualifying for that pension than they are about governing.
I'm pretty pleased with the present government. They inherited some pretty balanced books from the Grits. But, I find they have a better grip on the funds; though they haven't been in office all that long comparitively speaking.
They're also working extremely hard to restore Canada's international reputation and to protect Canadian sovereignty. If I'm traveling abroad I know that this present government will keep my interests at heart and not resort to 'quiet diplomacy'.
That doesn't make me a hardline Tory though. If the Liberals can prove to me that they have the same commitments to the nation as the Tories do, then I'll consider giving them my vote.
The NDP? Fagget 'bout it.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 19, 2006 10:39:11 GMT -5
Hitler was a socialist, was he not? Authoritarian? Definately! Stalin was a Communsit, was he not? Authortarian? Definately! It works on both sides of the spectrum, but you have a hate on for the right. Curious, why have you not taken a stab at the Time article on Harper? Since you believe that all Conservatives are evil. Something about being the greatest leader since Trudeau scare you off? Heh heh heh. Communism is state capitalism, and does indeed reduce to a naive materialism. It is an ill-founded faith based largely, like radical feminist thought on the writings of Engels and ultimately Hegel. It, like Nazi Germany was a modern attempt to build an atheistic society. You are quite right that violent authoritarian people often come from rigid authoritarian backgrounds. So you don't think Hitler was a fascist? Interesting take. Incidentally both he and Mousolini were baptized Catholics. Both also spcifically renounced the church. Fascists, the quintessential right wingers hold views nearly indistinguishable from your hardly veiled racism and bigotry. As the context of the thread was Canadian politics and what I must very happily acknowledge is my contempt for a numbrer of attitudes held by right wingers and the policies that flow from their mean-spirited little souls; the very attitudes in fact that make up your character as revealed in your own words, coincidentally, ; that is why out of respect for this thread the focus has been on the right wing, including a lot of bible-thumping Christians like that incredible goof Stockwell Day. The context is not dialectical materialim, or ideologies at large, but Canadfian political entities. Remember now? Where did you read that I think all Conservatives are evil? More misrepresentation? As to Time magazines Canadian spin-off considering Harper to be the man of the year, I could certainly see a context for this view, but do keep in mind that two out of three actual Canadians who aren't quite as ensconced in the business establishment of North America did not support him. I wii get around to reading it when I have more time for fun, not that this isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 19, 2006 10:43:46 GMT -5
OK, what race did I insult tonight? Just like Conservatives, you tar Christians the same way. You take a ridiculous example and say all Conservatives or all Christians abide by the same principle. That is like saying a certain ethnic group all looks the same, you know seen one, seen them all. Shows how narrow minded that you are. you might want to reread your post that caused one reader to wonder why you were not expunged from the board. Xenophobia on parade and your description and attitudes towards the poor in New Orleans.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 19, 2006 10:49:16 GMT -5
Hey Franko! . . . I'm sorry I ruffled your feathers I took umbrage with the following: It's not a laughing matter, but a lot of conservative's children get hit on the head with bibles,. The reason: the blanket statements that constantly get made regarding conservatives implying that all of them are Neanderthal Fundamentalist right-wing fanatical Christians. Not all people who vote for the Conservative Party are Christian. Not all Christians who vote for the Conservative Party are conservative (or if you wish, right wing, which is a poor relegation) Christian. That’s all. Include the term “far right” and I wouldn’t take offence at all. But yo jump from “Far right” to “right wing conservative” in the same breath, such as I am by your definition a right wing conservation Christian, yet I (and many in our church) oppose capital punishment because we are pro-life: natural life to natural death. The truism is not, but say something often enough and you’ll start to believe it. It is indeed used too support the right to spank. Not beat, spank. Not abuse, spank. Some, I fear, do go overboard in this, and it is a tragedy. However, what of non-conservative Christians? Do you suggest that they never raise a hand (or a wooden spoon, or a belt, or . . .) against a child? In fact, if you were to read articles or books by advocates of spanking you might be surprised that this method of discipline is to be used reasonably and rarely. I would go so far as to suggest that liberals abuse children too, though in their own way. They raise their children to be selfish hedonists because they don’t give boundaries (see how it might sound? Not “some liberals might abuse”, but “liberals abuse” – an unjustified blanket statement). Source? Who knows how Joe Clark was raised? He was raised in conservative Alberta – he may very well have been one of those who was spanked as a child. Angry aggressive, angry aggressive . . . only conservatives are such? You imply that only children raised in non-conservative homes are raised in warm, safe, and loving environments. May I introduce my children to you? Many would say that the scandals took place because of a blind eye turned to the ones involved. Wilful ignorance is not bliss. You call me a fundamentalist? Do you not know the difference between fundamentalist Christianity, conservative Christianity, and evangelical Christianity? I’m already posting too long. Please – look it up! Never once did I find Blaise to abuse me. Instead, I enjoyed his reasoned tête aux têtes, and am always willing to discuss and debate, reflect and rethink. Heck, I even change my mind sometimes! For example, one time I felt I was the “defender of the faith” when I lived in Alberta – people would ask me “How can you vote for Trudeau and call yourself a Christian?” and I would tell them the joys of being a Liberal. At one time I scoffed at all things environmental but last election voted for the Green Party (sorry, HA). And you know my position on the thought that the Roman Catholic Church has dibs on the Bible or on God. Again, ruffled feathers? No. Just the same concern as always when you make generalized statements of “conservatives” that extend far beyond the scope of what is true. Whether intended or not, that is how they read. Now . . . on to something a little less intense a little more fun. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 19, 2006 11:01:50 GMT -5
Shows how narrow minded that you are. Don't make it personal buds. There's a lot of good exchanges coming out here. Thanks. Dis
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 19, 2006 23:19:13 GMT -5
Don't want it to be personal either. I enjoy the debates and it is refreshing to hear all points of view. I just don't like being painted as an extremist, racist, biggot, fundimentalist, etc. When one gets painted with such statements, it usually is accompanied with a quote. It needs to be more than interepretation but actual factual words being written. If it sounds like it is racist, it may not be. It could be an actual fact. I seem to have been getting sniped at, because I quote some numbers, taken from a recent best selling book, that have certain persons riled up. I didn't write it, but would be glad to share the title and author, if need be.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 19, 2006 23:51:06 GMT -5
Hey Franko! . . . I'm sorry I ruffled your feathers I took umbrage with the following: The reason: the blanket statements that constantly get made regarding conservatives implying that all of them are Neanderthal Fundamentalist right-wing fanatical Christians. Not all people who vote for the Conservative Party are Christian. Not all Christians who vote for the Conservative Party are conservative (or if you wish, right wing, which is a poor relegation) Christian. That’s all. Include the term “far right” and I wouldn’t take offence at all. But yo jump from “Far right” to “right wing conservative” in the same breath, such as I am by your definition a right wing conservation Christian, yet I (and many in our church) oppose capital punishment because we are pro-life: natural life to natural death. The truism is not, but say something often enough and you’ll start to believe it. It is indeed used too support the right to spank. Not beat, spank. Not abuse, spank. Some, I fear, do go overboard in this, and it is a tragedy. However, what of non-conservative Christians? Do you suggest that they never raise a hand (or a wooden spoon, or a belt, or . . .) against a child? In fact, if you were to read articles or books by advocates of spanking you might be surprised that this method of discipline is to be used reasonably and rarely. I would go so far as to suggest that liberals abuse children too, though in their own way. They raise their children to be selfish hedonists because they don’t give boundaries (see how it might sound? Not “some liberals might abuse”, but “liberals abuse” – an unjustified blanket statement). Source? Who knows how Joe Clark was raised? He was raised in conservative Alberta – he may very well have been one of those who was spanked as a child. Angry aggressive, angry aggressive . . . only conservatives are such? You imply that only children raised in non-conservative homes are raised in warm, safe, and loving environments. May I introduce my children to you? Many would say that the scandals took place because of a blind eye turned to the ones involved. Wilful ignorance is not bliss. You call me a fundamentalist? Do you not know the difference between fundamentalist Christianity, conservative Christianity, and evangelical Christianity? I’m already posting too long. Please – look it up! Never once did I find Blaise to abuse me. Instead, I enjoyed his reasoned tête aux têtes, and am always willing to discuss and debate, reflect and rethink. Heck, I even change my mind sometimes! For example, one time I felt I was the “defender of the faith” when I lived in Alberta – people would ask me “How can you vote for Trudeau and call yourself a Christian?” and I would tell them the joys of being a Liberal. At one time I scoffed at all things environmental but last election voted for the Green Party (sorry, HA). And you know my position on the thought that the Roman Catholic Church has dibs on the Bible or on God. Again, ruffled feathers? No. Just the same concern as always when you make generalized statements of “conservatives” that extend far beyond the scope of what is true. Whether intended or not, that is how they read. Now . . . on to something a little less intense a little more fun. ;D Hi Franlo Good criticisms. Ruffled feathers is a little lame (ok-a lot) as an expression, and I do not mean to imply that all conservatives share characterisitcs of the right wing of the party. There is a point where the right-tilting iberal and red tory dance to very similar music. I can scathe and do scathe the Liberals for being libertarian and perhaps until the '70's corporal punishment e.g. the strap I used to enjoy every now and then in a Catholic school etc. As far as spanking is concerned, I definitely am of the opinion that it is a wrong thing to do. In principle and effect. I think it is useful for showing the limits of parents and I don't mean that personally. I was whacked once by my father. I was 15 and in his face big time, and he slapped me. Honest to God, in the middle of the night, he woke me up and had tears in his eyes as he apologized deeply for having delivered such a frustration to me. He was a beautiful guy, a captain in the army during WW2, a boxer in college a charming man a businessman who was also a city counseller in Mtl under Mayor Drapeau. Ane he very much practiced what he preached and tried to instantiate what he received at Sunday mass. A good man. Who was the newsman who referred to guys like him as the best generation, or the best men. I agree totally. However I digress as usual. I will attempt to better define my terms, but I must confess I do generally look askance at so-called conservative opinion in principle. But I will consider more and try to blather a little less loosely. I consider Harper to be a right wing conservative, and not a moderate conservative but I will fill in this claim. In fact I consider him to be pretty far rignt, and certainly not for his oppositon to abortion and the well-intended and accepting folly of men performing sexual acts with men which is considerably worse than encouraging children to inhale cigars. I would bet ten bucks that Harper got physically punished along with most of his supporters. And they always say the same thing. "It never did me any harm." Enough for now. Habs 5 - Buffalopians 2. God is good. Ten Reasons I Can't Spank A Catholic Counselor's Critical Examination of Corporal Punishment Gregory K. Popcak, MSW, LCSW www.exceptionalmarriages.comAll of the results below - and more - have been attributed not to abusive levels of corporal punishment or violence to children, but, rather, to commonly accepted level of spanking. These are the scientific findings of the profession. * n study after study, spanking has been found to increase deceitfulness, noncompliance, oppositional/defiant behaviors and violence in children. * Research consistently demonstrates that corporal punishment creates and maintains "willful defiance" and other unmanageable behavioral problems. (Thus, the notion that "willful defiance" deserves corporal punishment is exactly counterproductive.) * Children who are spanked have lower average intelligence scores, and demonstrate poorer school performance. This is not because they are less intelligent, but because they are more reluctant to demonstrate their intelligence for fear of being 'wrong' and, as a result, harshly judged. * Spanked children show less creativity and are less inclined to take healthy and appropriate risks; yet are more likely to take inappropriate risks. * Children who are spanked demonstrate a diminished ability to say 'no' in personally demeaning or dangerous situations (including drug use and sexual situations) - especially when encouraged by peers. * Spanking has been shown to significantly increase violent/bullying behavior (especially in boys) and shyness (in girls). * Children who are spanked have higher rates of constipation of the bowels, depression, substance abuse, suicidality, anxiety, and irrational fears/phobias. * Long-term studies indicate that girls who are spanked show a greater risk of ending up in abusive marriages; boys who are spanked have a higher than average chance of becoming abusive spouses. * Adults who were spanked as children tend to be less happy in their marriages. * Adults who were spanked as children tend to reject the religion of their parents. All of the above - and more - have been attributed not to abusive levels of corporal punishment or violence to children, but, rather, to commonly accepted level of spanking. These are the scientific findings of the profession. Ignoring or disbelieving these findings does not make them less true. The fact is, any mental-health professional who recommended spanking would be as suspect as a physician who, when asked about the dangers of cigarettes said, "Smoke 'em if you got 'em."
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 20, 2006 10:02:54 GMT -5
But where does Catholicism and the Conservative Party have any links? You keep comparing the two and make it sound like their doctrine is similar? If the truth be known, my Father, Grandfather and Great-grand-father were Orangemen and they supported the Conservative Party. That's as far away from Catholicism than you'll ever get. Your basis for linking the two are unfounded.
On another subject, I read, this morning, that Jean Chretien has joined Stephan Dion's election team. I guess the more things change, in the Liberal Party, the more they stay the same. Someone's got to show Stephan the ropes, when it comes to fleecing taxpayers and beating up protesters. Or, is that puppet strings, as opposed to ropes? Ropes and Chretien in the same sentence gives me pause for thought....LOL!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 20, 2006 10:34:22 GMT -5
Honestly, guys, I'm just happy no one really took Bob Rae too seriously. Good for all parties actually.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 20, 2006 19:55:01 GMT -5
But where does Catholicism and the Conservative Party have any links? You keep comparing the two and make it sound like their doctrine is similar? If the truth be known, my Father, Grandfather and Great-grand-father were Orangemen and they supported the Conservative Party. That's as far away from Catholicism than you'll ever get. Your basis for linking the two are unfounded. On another subject, I read, this morning, that Jean Chretien has joined Stephan Dion's election team. I guess the more things change, in the Liberal Party, the more they stay the same. Someone's got to show Stephan the ropes, when it comes to fleecing taxpayers and beating up protesters. Or, is that puppet strings, as opposed to ropes? Ropes and Chretien in the same sentence gives me pause for thought....LOL!!!!! I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't find much agreement between conservatism and Catholicism at all. Franko was a little angry with me and drew some connection I didn't quite get, but historically , Catholics support lliberals and in the US , democrats. Abortion and the adoption of policies advancing homosexual behaviours as social goods have dilluted this particular alliance considerably. There are some Catholics who vote condervative, but this is not normative. Of course not all Catholics are concerned about social justice either, but they should be. Catholic social teaching is proactive and calls for a "preferential option for the poor." "Woe to you rich for your consolations are now" is not a part of the gospel that I hear very often from conservatives, or "No man can serve two masters, God or money." Conservatives generally and in their policies seem mostly concerned about themselves, when compared to other parties. Harper for instance was employed by and spoke for the "Concerned Citizen's Coalition" that has very little to do with a movement of concerned citizens coalescing, but rather was started by a right wing multimillionaire insurance magnate to fight the national health plan. Times Mr Canada was his mouthpiece and it has remained a shadow organization advancing corporate interests against ordinary Canadians. The abysmal record of conservatives in failing to pursue social justice makes them really unattractive to me. Throw in state sanctonned killing of prisoners and I want nothing to do with them.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 20, 2006 20:07:29 GMT -5
Honestly, guys, I'm just happy no one really took Bob Rae too seriously. Good for all parties actually. Cheers. HAhhaha! Funnily enough, the candidate I found the most attractive, was easily Rae. That said, I had not, largely due to anticipated grief expected much divergence on really fundamental issues, but considered Rae to be perhaps the best candidate. I never expected Dion until the vote before the winning ballot. I like Rae quite a bit.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 20, 2006 22:02:58 GMT -5
I guess you didn't remember him as Premiere of Ontario, or work for the Provincial Government. It would have been great, to see Rae is Liberal leader. Two socialists and a Conservative, running for Prime Minister.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 21, 2006 1:45:25 GMT -5
Hanging chad?
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 21, 2006 9:03:15 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't find much agreement between conservatism and Catholicism at all. Franko was a little angry with me and drew some connection I didn't quite get, but historically , Catholics support lliberals and in the US , democrats. Abortion and the adoption of policies advancing homosexual behaviours as social goods have dilluted this particular alliance considerably. There are some Catholics who vote condervative, but this is not normative. Of course not all Catholics are concerned about social justice either, but they should be. Catholic social teaching is proactive and calls for a "preferential option for the poor." "Woe to you rich for your consolations are now" is not a part of the gospel that I hear very often from conservatives, or "No man can serve two masters, God or money." Conservatives generally and in their policies seem mostly concerned about themselves, when compared to other parties. Harper for instance was employed by and spoke for the "Concerned Citizen's Coalition" that has very little to do with a movement of concerned citizens coalescing, but rather was started by a right wing multimillionaire insurance magnate to fight the national health plan. Times Mr Canada was his mouthpiece and it has remained a shadow organization advancing corporate interests against ordinary Canadians. The abysmal record of conservatives in failing to pursue social justice makes them really unattractive to me. Throw in state sanctonned killing of prisoners and I want nothing to do with them. Do you have a link that shows Catholics historically vote Liberal? For one, elections are held by secret ballot. Last time I checked it didn't ask my religion anywhere on the ballot. Catholism may be community based, and their stance on issues close to Liberal politics (but churches are suppose to be non-political or loose their disignation as charitable organizations) .... but aren't all religions community based? Catholism does not hold the monoply on the helping the poor, or misfortunate. Now, in the 2001 census 43% of the population said they were catholic. So how did Harper win the election? If catholics vote Liberal than with 43% of the population (and similar voter turn-out across all denominations) then it should always and forever be a slam-dunk Liberal majority. As an aside, that 43% was down from 45% in the 1996 census ... so catholism is actually gettign less followers in Canada. Protestant population in Canada is 29% (down from 35% in 2001) ... I know "the prince" is going to blame this on immigration ... but in fact the reason why is partly immigration, partly because 2.6% of the population simply mark "christian" down, and mainly because 16% of the population reported "no religion". If religion determines political stripe as you infer ... then how do the conservatives ever win? In fact, the protestant population was larger than the catholic population (roughly 56%) and the 1971 census was the first time that there was recorded more Catholics than Protestants in the country (46% vs 44%). So how did King win those Liberal elections during the Wars with half the country being protestant?
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 22, 2006 18:27:57 GMT -5
I guess you didn't remember him as Premiere of Ontario, or work for the Provincial Government. It would have been great, to see Rae is Liberal leader. Two socialists and a Conservative, running for Prime Minister. I remember him quite well, and his record as premier was pretty good. His Rae days idea was particularly good. Instead of the usual throwing of a few to the lions of destitution, he chose to try to share the pain amongst everyone, better idea. People were too selfish for this, people who think exactly like your comment implies. Rae has moved on from socialism. Why misrepresent him? Why do you misrepresent everything?
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 22, 2006 18:53:15 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't find much agreement between conservatism and Catholicism at all. Franko was a little angry with me and drew some connection I didn't quite get, but historically , Catholics support lliberals and in the US , democrats. Abortion and the adoption of policies advancing homosexual behaviours as social goods have dilluted this particular alliance considerably. There are some Catholics who vote condervative, but this is not normative. Of course not all Catholics are concerned about social justice either, but they should be.
Catholic social teaching is proactive and calls for a "preferential option for the poor." "Woe to you rich for your consolations are now" is not a part of the gospel that I hear very often from conservatives, or "No man can serve two masters, God or money." Conservatives generally and in their policies seem mostly concerned about themselves, when compared to other parties.
Harper for instance was employed by and spoke for the "Concerned Citizen's Coalition" that has very little to do with a movement of concerned citizens coalescing, but rather was started by a right wing multimillionaire insurance magnate to fight the national health plan.
Times Mr Canada was his mouthpiece and it has remained a shadow organization advancing corporate interests against ordinary Canadians. The abysmal record of conservatives in failing to pursue social justice makes them really unattractive to me.
Throw in state sanctonned killing of prisoners and I want nothing to do with them.
Do you have a link that shows Catholics historically vote Liberal? For one, elections are held by secret ballot. Last time I checked it didn't ask my religion anywhere on the ballot. Catholism may be community based, and their stance on issues close to Liberal politics (but churches are suppose to be non-political or loose their disignation as charitable organizations) .... but aren't all religions community based? Catholism does not hold the monoply on the helping the poor, or misfortunate. Now, in the 2001 census 43% of the population said they were catholic. So how did Harper win the election? If catholics vote Liberal than with 43% of the population (and similar voter turn-out across all denominations) then it should always and forever be a slam-dunk Liberal majority. As an aside, that 43% was down from 45% in the 1996 census ... so catholism is actually gettign less followers in Canada. Protestant population in Canada is 29% (down from 35% in 2001) ... I know "the prince" is going to blame this on immigration ... but in fact the reason why is partly immigration, partly because 2.6% of the population simply mark "christian" down, and mainly because 16% of the population reported "no religion". If religion determines political stripe as you infer ... then how do the conservatives ever win? In fact, the protestant population was larger than the catholic population (roughly 56%) and the 1971 census was the first time that there was recorded more Catholics than Protestants in the country (46% vs 44%). So how did King win those Liberal elections during the Wars with half the country being protestant? Week of March 13, 2006 Que. Catholic desert Liberals in 'droves' 'Conscience, corruption and the Church' blamed for Grit's collapse "Clearly, a line has been crossed and a population mobilized." - Andrew Grenville By DEBORAH GYAPONG Canadian Catholic News Ottawa Churchgoing Quebec Catholics "abandoned the Liberals in droves in the last federal election, breaking century-old traditions of voting Liberal," says Ipsos Reid senior vice president Andrew Grenville. In an article for the March/April Faith Today magazine, Grenville reports that "conscience, corruption and the Church" were responsible for the Liberal Party loss in January. Ipsos Reid's polling figures showed that support for the Liberals among Quebec Catholics who attend church weekly fell from 56 per cent in 2004 to 29 per cent in the 2006 election. Intense discomfort "The rapid steep decline in vote for the Liberals among Catholics who attend regularly is an important indicator of intense discomfort," Grenville wrote. "Committed Catholics clearly have felt pangs of conscience over social transgressions like corruption and moral issues such as same-sex marriage, and have swallowed hard and switched their vote." The picture in the rest of Canada also showed a shift in Catholic voting patterns. "Catholic churchgoers have traditionally been voting red (Liberal) for decades, if not centuries," he writes. Historic shift
"But for the first time in the history of polling, Catholics who are regular churchgoers shifted away from lending the largest measure of their support to the Liberals (42 per cent voted Conservative, 40 per cent Liberal)." [/b] "And those who attend more than once a week were most likely to vote Conservative rather than Liberal - a real change of heart." Grenville said the link between Liberals and Catholics has "deep roots" because Catholics tend to vote for "more socially conscious" and "less individualistic parties than Protestants."
In Canada Catholicism's social orientation has a profound resonance with the Liberal Party's focus on social programs and community intervention.
Among Protestants, nearly two-thirds of weekly churchgoers voted Conservative, a level Grenville describes as "astonishing." "Clearly, a line has been crossed and a population mobilized." The shift could have a downside. "The fact that Quebec is still a part of Canada is in large part thanks to churchgoing Catholics in Quebec," he writes."In the last referendum, it was their vote that stopped the separatist Bloc. The fact that they have now fled the Liberal party in droves is shocking - and potentially worrisome for Canadian nationalists . . .". One-time burst?www.wcr.ab.ca/news/2006/0313/liberals031306.shtmlHowever, Grenville also argued the shift to the Tories may be just "a one-time burst of anger at the Liberals. "If a free vote on same-sex marriage yields no change, then the banding together of Church groups around the same-sex marriage issue may well go the way of the Temperance movement, the momentum slowly dwindling to nothing." The entire article can be viewed at the Faith Today website: www.faithtoday.ca. Faith Today is a communications organ of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 22, 2006 19:11:45 GMT -5
As any discussion of a political nature for me must include the most radically excluded, not because I like it, but like a civil rights march, it must be done or one loses a sense of compassion in increasingly narrowing circles of selfishness. I'm plenty selfish enough. This piece I googled upon when looking for stuff to respond to Skilly, has given me a little more respect for my average Canadian. Canadians favour laws governing abortion – pollBy WCR Staff Almost two-thirds of Canadians say the unborn child should be protected at some time before birth, according to an Environics Research Group poll.Only 30 per cent of those surveyed favour the current situation where there is no legal protection for the unborn.Environics has conducted the October survey annually for the past five years for LifeCanada, a pro-life organization. The survey has consistently found that Canadians are uneasy with the lack of any laws governing abortion in the country. The poll found 31 per cent of Canadians want unborn life protected from the point of conception. Another 23 per cent want legal protection at three months of pregnancy and 10 per cent after six months of pregnancy.The survey also found that 71 per cent of Canadians favour "informed consent" laws. Such laws, which exist in several American states, would require women to be informed about the stages of fetal development, including having an ultrasound scan, and possible side effects to their health before they can have an abortion.The highest level of support for an informed consent law is in Alberta where 81 per cent of those polled say they want such a law instituted. Women are as likely as men to support informed consent, according to the survey. The poll is based on 2,030 interviews and has a 2.2 per cent margin of error for all of Canada. Figures for individual provinces have a larger margin of error. Poll respondents were told that those under age 18 can currently have an abortion without their parents' permission. Asked whether they would favour a law requiring parents' consent before abortion, 55 per cent said "yes" and 42 per cent said "no." Another finding of the survey was that only 31 per cent of Canadians support the current funding of all abortions by the tax system. Forty-eight per cent say abortion should only be tax supported in the case of a medical emergency, such as a threat to the life of the mother or cases of rape or incest. Twenty per cent say payment for an abortion should always be a personal responsibility. Full details of the report are available on the Internet at www.albertaprolife.com/resources/poll_2006.html.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 22, 2006 23:59:54 GMT -5
Yeah, and I remember the 401 and the craters, especially east of Kingston. He had money for all of the special interest groups, but not for what was needed. I especially liked him and Pink Floyd, his Finance Minister, trying to spend us out of a recession. He only put us behind by 10 years. It took Harris to re-balance the books, with the Federal Liberals raping the province, for transfer payments. He took the grief for Bob and Floyd's spending spree. Harris was not perfect, but at least he straightened out the books.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 23, 2006 2:00:50 GMT -5
Yeah, and I remember the 401 and the craters, especially east of Kingston. He had money for all of the special interest groups, but not for what was needed. I especially liked him and Pink Floyd, his Finance Minister, trying to spend us out of a recession. He only put us behind by 10 years. It took Harris to re-balance the books, with the Federal Liberals raping the province, for transfer payments. He took the grief for Bob and Floyd's spending spree. Harris was not perfect, but at least he straightened out the books. This is too funny. I don't know about potholes in the 401. I do know that Rae's electi0on coincided with a significant recession in NA, and Harris, the sociopath gave away an entire Highway 407 for a hundred years and also left us open to the greeed of the operators. That was how he 'balanced. the books. The Harris government was held responsible for the lagging recession in Ontario after the rest of Canada was humming because of his gutting of spending. It was the Federal budgets of Paul Martin that got Canada and Ontario back on track. Every economist in the world knows that.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 23, 2006 10:22:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 23, 2006 23:42:52 GMT -5
Yeah, right! Martin's budget. You mean how he downloaded the federal debt to the provinces and they're still yelling about the fiscal imbalance today. It was Chretien and Martin who caused the fiscal imbalance in the first place. It'll take a true tax cutter, in Stephan Harper, to right the wrong that the Liberals did to provinces like Ontario.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 24, 2006 0:05:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 24, 2006 17:59:36 GMT -5
Ever study logic? Harper refuses and exemption that no one else in Canada gets so Harper has not been in bed with big oil for decades and hasn't advanced policies in their particualr interests? Four year olds should be able to work their way through this one. .....Oil companies are already getting over 1 billion dollars in tax benefits and exemptions, no doubt because it's so hard to sell our oil, and make no mistake, it is OUR oil that they are selling back to us, I have never, ever found conservatives too intelligent or well-informed, but usually even they aren't this facile. OOPS! forgot about Stockwell Day and Preston Manning and Harper.and George Dubya, and senile Ronnie Reagan the actor, and all the other morons.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 24, 2006 18:00:33 GMT -5
Yeah, right! Martin's budget. You mean how he downloaded the federal debt to the provinces and they're still yelling about the fiscal imbalance today. It was Chretien and Martin who caused the fiscal imbalance in the first place. It'll take a true tax cutter, in Stephan Harper, to right the wrong that the Liberals did to provinces like Ontario. He did indeed download, and Harris, the sociopathic moron gave tax cuts to the wealthy instead of using the funding where it was needed and kept his province in recesssion through his moronic cuts.And we maintained a good national health plan throughout. (see Romanov Report) And we went from the fiscal disaster of the Conservative govenment under Mr Sleaze, Mulroney, to having one of the best performing economies in the world.Are you denying any of this? It's always sleight of hand in your posts. Is there not any substance behind the rhetoric? I'm really quite conderned about you. You must be extremely unhappy.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 25, 2006 0:34:15 GMT -5
The Romanov Report? Nothing was ever acted on in this report. On the economy and Mulroney. It was Mulroney's free trade deal with the United States that made the economy recover. I didn't like Mulroney, but this was a real winner for this country. We sell 90% of what we make to the United States and have a huge trade surplus with them. It was nothing for Chretien and Martin to do but sit back and collect all of the wealth created by Mulroney's brave initiative. I'm still waiting for the list of initiatives that 13 years of Chretien/Martin Liberals had achieved for Canada. All I remember is HRDC and a couple of Billion being lost, a 1.5 Billion dollar gun registry that did not work. I remember the Grand Mere Hotel deal and it's neighboring golf course, with a Prime Minister twisting the arm of the president of the National Development Bank, a Crown Corporation, for a loan to a felon. I remember the sponsorship scandal, organized crime to steal money from the National Treasury for kickbacks in to Liberal coffers. I remember the Treasury debacle of expenses not reported. Remember, "I'm Entitled to my Entitlements, from Liberal Patronage appointee, David Dingwall? How about Andre Oullett head of Canada Post and their sponsorship kickbacks? Another ex-Liberal patronage appointee. Gerard Pelltier and CN, another former Liberal appointee, and their kickbacks through that Crown Corporation. Maybe Canada Steamships flying under flags of convenience, to avoid paying tax? It just so happened to be then Prime Minister Paul Martin's family business. Pepper spraying of protesters in BC at an APEC summit, choking a protester in Quebec, speaking to non existing street people, etc., etc, etc. This is what you consider as good government? I want no part of it! I saw Stephan Harper in an interview with CTV on his first year in government today. What a breath of fresh air. Direct, honest and forthcoming about his government and family. Not a lawyer or a person of wealth. Just an average guy with common sense. The first Prime Minister since the 1960's with true integrity.
|
|