In fact, when we diverted into hot dogs (to make a valid point, of course) I was sure someone would end up being called a wiener (or worse) but so far, so good! :lol:
Liberal phobia and the cause….
- Thread starter Socrates the Greek
- Start date
In fact, when we diverted into hot dogs (to make a valid point, of course) I was sure someone would end up being called a wiener (or worse) but so far, so good! :lol:
You want a sure fire easy method to eliminate the deficit, S.J.? I bet there's thousands of square miles on the Canadian Shield of Crown Land. Hire half a dozen prospctors to look for gold and platinum, I'm sure theres oodles buried in there. You could probably put thousands of people to work on the Gov't. payroll to mine it and process it for sale. Bet those Kuwaitees (and other rich folks) would snap it up in an instant.
Perhaps we should kindly refrain from confusing the issue with facts. :lol::lol::lol:
Y'know, I found one of the many definitions of a liberal (the small "L" variety) and here it is:
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Does this sound right? The bolded words above don't appear to be applied all that "liberally" (pun intended) during some of our political discussions. This one of course is focused on Liberal phobia, and the disconnect between the formal definition above and the on-the-ground reality of some liberals' behaviour could be one of the root causes of this phobia. It's just a thought...
'Course, I wouldn't want to go around painting all liberals with the same brush. That type of behaviour would likely brand me as an intolerant neo-conservative, or a nazi, or something equally as frightening.
Anyone care to comment? (Not that I need to ask!)...
Edited: Here's the link to that definition... http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Does this sound right? The bolded words above don't appear to be applied all that "liberally" (pun intended) during some of our political discussions. This one of course is focused on Liberal phobia, and the disconnect between the formal definition above and the on-the-ground reality of some liberals' behaviour could be one of the root causes of this phobia. It's just a thought...
'Course, I wouldn't want to go around painting all liberals with the same brush. That type of behaviour would likely brand me as an intolerant neo-conservative, or a nazi, or something equally as frightening.
Anyone care to comment? (Not that I need to ask!)...
Edited: Here's the link to that definition... http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal
W-R-O-N-G!! If you spoil your ballot it negates your vote so it is the same as if you did not show up at the poll. Ergo, he who spoils the ballot should not feel justified to complain about the elected government because his/her vote did not count for or against. You may as well stay at home if you don't take seriously your civil duty to "make your vote count" :roll:
I've heard this before and it is nonsense for anyone to think they're "making a difference" by spoiling a ballot. For what? A protest? Nobody cares. I once talked to a guy who had to drive quite a few miles to get to the nearest poll, spoil his ballot, and then turn around and drive back home. He was a bit of an environmentalist, but he wasn't "thinkin' green" that day. Dumb bugger.
I think the solution could be that one of the alternatives on the ballot should be ‘none of the above’. If ‘none of the above’ wins, then there should be another election, with a totally new set of candidates.
And what is that going do to environment, JLM? It could be an ecological nightmare. Plus, how do you know that there is that much gold and platinum in them thar hills? You may end up destroying, devastating the country side with nothing to show for it.
That is a typically conservative solution (I am not even sure it is a solution, there is no guarantee of any return, there is a guarantee of destroying the environment). Canadians will never go for it.
Perhaps we understand different things with the word ‘tolerance’ countryboy. To me, tolerance means I will listen to other person’s views, I respect other persons’ views, but I don’t have to agree with them. On the other hand, I may disagree with them in the strongest terms.
To you, tolerance apparently means that I must agree with you, otherwise I am not tolerant. Well, liberal is not somebody you can simply walk over and expect him to agree with your views in the name of tolerance.
Tolerance means listen, respect, it does not mean agree.
Tolerant would mean nobody is on that ignore list you used to crow of so brazenly....
:lol::lol::lol: You bet Countryboy and I'm going to interject here with some more common sense. Who gets to see a spoilt ballot? Maybe one or two people of any or possibly no party affiliation who are only there to count ballots and record the number of spoiled ones & don't personally give a rats ass what's marked on the ballot. That is at one polling station which could have anywhere from a dozen votes to several hundred. Harper or Ignatieff just ain't gonna be seeing it and besides your name is not likely to be printed on it. :lol::lol::lol::lol:
Good question - Seismic testing shouldn't affect the environment ( I worked on a seismic crew in Alta. looking for oil about a thousand years ago) Of course the mining is going to have an effect, but there's another opportunity for creating employment, put a hundred environmentalists to work (I've worked around them too, and with them you don't get to screw up anything, they'll make you take your boots off before wading across a stream :lol
As for the abundance of gold and platinum- this is the Canadian Shield we are talking about - the treasure storehouse of the world- where there's copper, lead and zinc, there's gold and silver- don't know about platinum.
You are a bit stand-offish, aren't you? And you still carry on with telling me what I think. You interpretations of things in general seem to be positively bizarre. Not to mention abrasive. I don't think you have a very pleasant personality.
You don't have any idea what prospecting is, do you? A half dozen prospectors "may end up destroying, devastating the country side with nothing to show for it."
You're just full of negative and incorrect assumptions, aren't you?
I don't think humour is his long suit............:lol::lol: but that's Okay, a lot of people are like that.
Then either you are not a liberal, and as you said, definately not a Liberal; Human Rights Commissions were, and are defended by liberals and Liberals. Speaking out in opposition of liberal orthodoxy is met with the heavy hand of HRC commissars, with liberals as their cheering section. Discrimination in keeping with liberal ideals is fully protected under the law and defiance is censured or even prosecuted.
Liberals are tolerant of anything but intolerence to liberal ideals, but you sir have defended these actions on more than one occasion, so which is it?
