Dissatisfied with Choices

[no1important]

RE: Dissatisfied with Cho

That will change eventually, every generation there is less religious people, more people become "un-brainwashed", so it will change. I don't recognize the supremacey of a god. I do not even believe in God. I am past believing in "fairy tales" long ago..........

 

[Vanni Fucci]

So what then of people that do not believe in God, or believe in some other deity? Are they to be excluded from our legal system? Is not the separation of church and state a worthy goal?

 

[Jay]

So what then of people that do not believe in God, or believe in some other deity? Are they to be excluded from our legal system? Is not the separation of church and state a worthy goal?

As I'm sure you see, I was simply providing an alternative point of view, as I'm convinced your statement wasn't accurate.

Those who don't believe or believe in different gods are afforded the same rights.


Is the separation of church and state a worthy goal? Personally I think it depends.

In Canada we would say it was wrong for the government to dictate what religion we belong to. In reality we seem to believe in the first amendment of the US Constitution when it comes to religion.

“Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

We would expect our government to not create laws establishing religion. But I think it is wrong for the government to decide to fund schools and then later tell the schools they can't teach religion to children, because the state pays for the schools, and church and state must remain separate.

I suppose this is one of the reasons I consider myself a conservative. I think that the public school system has gone too far with removing religion classes from school. What really should have happened is the government should have gotten out of direct funding to the schools. If half of an imagination was used, we could find a better way.


Congratulations on becoming a moderator!

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Dissatisfied with Cho

Quebec and Alberta. You are supporting separatists, jay.

OK, so anyone who supports Quebec and Alberta is a separatist? OK.

I support respect for provincial powers. If that respect can’t be accomplished than I don't see what the point of having the constitution is, and I therefore don't see why any state in Canada would stick around.

Thank you Jay, the powers that the provinces are guaranteed in the constitution must be respected and acknowledged, or this country is doomed.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Dissatisfied with Cho

Look at his policies. Look at the statements he's made in the past. Look at what some of his MPs have said in the present.

They are separatists, Jay. They are just too cowardly to come out and say so.

Bull crap and you know it.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Dissatisfied with Cho

And the Harperites, who have a long history of being anti-Quebec, have joined up with that separatist party, Jay.

As was proven in the June 2 vote, then so have the NDP and the Liberals. So, Rev, either they all have or none of them have. Whats your answer?

 

[bluealberta]

So what then of people that do not believe in God, or believe in some other deity? Are they to be excluded from our legal system? Is not the separation of church and state a worthy goal?

Guys, even your democratic heros in the hated US, Clinton and Kerry, espoused religous viewpoints. The point was made a few posts ago, why is it wrong to have someone with morals and ethics, as defined by their religious upbringing, background, and teachings, as opposed to the crooks and liars we have now? Surely someone with morals and ethics is better than the bunch mafia types now running the country like an extension of the mafia family. If you think otherwise, then make your bones, folks.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

So what then of people that do not believe in God, or believe in some other deity? Are they to be excluded from our legal system? Is not the separation of church and state a worthy goal?

Guys, even your democratic heros in the hated US, Clinton and Kerry, espoused religous viewpoints. The point was made a few posts ago, why is it wrong to have someone with morals and ethics, as defined by their religious upbringing, background, and teachings, as opposed to the crooks and liars we have now? Surely someone with morals and ethics is better than the bunch mafia types now running the country like an extension of the mafia family. If you think otherwise, then make your bones, folks.

...but that's not what I said, blue...I said that it was fine for a politician to be religious, as long as he/she leaves his/her religion out of his/her politics...we need no faith based initiatives here...

 

[bluealberta]

So what then of people that do not believe in God, or believe in some other deity? Are they to be excluded from our legal system? Is not the separation of church and state a worthy goal?

Guys, even your democratic heros in the hated US, Clinton and Kerry, espoused religous viewpoints. The point was made a few posts ago, why is it wrong to have someone with morals and ethics, as defined by their religious upbringing, background, and teachings, as opposed to the crooks and liars we have now? Surely someone with morals and ethics is better than the bunch mafia types now running the country like an extension of the mafia family. If you think otherwise, then make your bones, folks.

...but that's not what I said, blue...I said that it was fine for a politician to be religious, as long as he/she leaves his/her religion out of his/her politics...we need no faith based initiatives here...

Having reviewed the CPC website and information, I personally do not see any faith based intitiatives. I think it is asking a lot for people to leave out their personal beliefs and background, that is partly what defines a person. So, in my opinion, if a person has religous beliefs, or if a person is an aethist, these beliefs will form part of any public decision they make. It's impossible to do otherwise.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

So what then of people that do not believe in God, or believe in some other deity? Are they to be excluded from our legal system? Is not the separation of church and state a worthy goal?

Guys, even your democratic heros in the hated US, Clinton and Kerry, espoused religous viewpoints. The point was made a few posts ago, why is it wrong to have someone with morals and ethics, as defined by their religious upbringing, background, and teachings, as opposed to the crooks and liars we have now? Surely someone with morals and ethics is better than the bunch mafia types now running the country like an extension of the mafia family. If you think otherwise, then make your bones, folks.

...but that's not what I said, blue...I said that it was fine for a politician to be religious, as long as he/she leaves his/her religion out of his/her politics...we need no faith based initiatives here...

Having reviewed the CPC website and information, I personally do not see any faith based intitiatives. I think it is asking a lot for people to leave out their personal beliefs and background, that is partly what defines a person. So, in my opinion, if a person has religous beliefs, or if a person is an aethist, these beliefs will form part of any public decision they make. It's impossible to do otherwise.

Well thankfully blue, your party will never form a government, so we need not worry about that do we...

 

[bluealberta]

So what then of people that do not believe in God, or believe in some other deity? Are they to be excluded from our legal system? Is not the separation of church and state a worthy goal?

Guys, even your democratic heros in the hated US, Clinton and Kerry, espoused religous viewpoints. The point was made a few posts ago, why is it wrong to have someone with morals and ethics, as defined by their religious upbringing, background, and teachings, as opposed to the crooks and liars we have now? Surely someone with morals and ethics is better than the bunch mafia types now running the country like an extension of the mafia family. If you think otherwise, then make your bones, folks.

...but that's not what I said, blue...I said that it was fine for a politician to be religious, as long as he/she leaves his/her religion out of his/her politics...we need no faith based initiatives here...

Having reviewed the CPC website and information, I personally do not see any faith based intitiatives. I think it is asking a lot for people to leave out their personal beliefs and background, that is partly what defines a person. So, in my opinion, if a person has religous beliefs, or if a person is an aethist, these beliefs will form part of any public decision they make. It's impossible to do otherwise.

Well thankfully blue, your party will never form a government, so we need not worry about that do we...

Time will tell, but unfortunately, your party is in power, and we do know how well that is working, don't we..........

 

[no1important]

RE: Dissatisfied with Cho

Its obvious people dislike Harper more. He blew a good opportunity to gain ground over Gomery but blew it.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Dissatisfied with Cho

Its obvious people dislike Harper more. He blew a good opportunity to gain ground over Gomery but blew it.

If there were valid reasons to dislike him fine, but all the crap about scarey, hidden agendas, etc. are simply fear mongering without any basis in fact. For instance, if there were a hidden agenda, why has not Barbie Belinda let everyone know? The fact that she has not said anything just proves there is not and never was a hidden agenda. And if lowering taxes, and getting the government out of our faces is scarey, BOOOOOO! :wink:

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Dissatisfied with Cho

There could be legal ramifications if she spoke publicly, Blue. There are also parts of that hidden agenda that they likely wouldn't have let her in on because it was well known that she didn't support them.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Dissatisfied with Cho

There could be legal ramifications if she spoke publicly, Blue. There are also parts of that hidden agenda that they likely wouldn't have let her in on because it was well known that she didn't support them.

Okay, how about Scotty boy Brison? Keith Martin? They were in the conservative party, they should now too, right? Face it, this socalled hidden agenda is simply a scare tactic and fear mongering for the uninformed and ignorant on the left who have problems thinking for themselves and actually paying attention.

Your excuses are a little off, here, she is free to speak in the House without fear of legal ramifications, so if she had any proof, what better place to to it than right in front of Harper. Thing is, she has nothing, as usual.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

So what then of people that do not believe in God, or believe in some other deity? Are they to be excluded from our legal system? Is not the separation of church and state a worthy goal?

Guys, even your democratic heros in the hated US, Clinton and Kerry, espoused religous viewpoints. The point was made a few posts ago, why is it wrong to have someone with morals and ethics, as defined by their religious upbringing, background, and teachings, as opposed to the crooks and liars we have now? Surely someone with morals and ethics is better than the bunch mafia types now running the country like an extension of the mafia family. If you think otherwise, then make your bones, folks.

...but that's not what I said, blue...I said that it was fine for a politician to be religious, as long as he/she leaves his/her religion out of his/her politics...we need no faith based initiatives here...

Having reviewed the CPC website and information, I personally do not see any faith based intitiatives. I think it is asking a lot for people to leave out their personal beliefs and background, that is partly what defines a person. So, in my opinion, if a person has religous beliefs, or if a person is an aethist, these beliefs will form part of any public decision they make. It's impossible to do otherwise.

Well thankfully blue, your party will never form a government, so we need not worry about that do we...

Time will tell, but unfortunately, your party is in power, and we do know how well that is working, don't we..........

My party is in power is it? And what party would that be, pray tell?

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Dissatisfied with Cho

Nothing she said could be used outside the house if she signed a confidentiality agreement. Parliamentary priviledge stops in the foyer where the press scrums happen. Both Brison and Martin are said to have given strategic information about the hidden agenda to the Liberals, although we will never know for sure.

The Harperites are insanely litigious. We know that. Even after Grewal admitted to demanding "bonds" from his constituents before he would do his job representing them, Harper was threatening to sue any Liberal who mentioned it outside of the House. That Grewal was on record as having volunteered the information didn't matter to Harper, he was still threatening to sue in a bid to silence anybody talking about the issue.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Dissatisfied with Cho

Nothing she said could be used outside the house if she signed a confidentiality agreement. Parliamentary priviledge stops in the foyer where the press scrums happen. Both Brison and Martin are said to have given strategic information about the hidden agenda to the Liberals, although we will never know for sure.

The Harperites are insanely litigious. We know that. Even after Grewal admitted to demanding "bonds" from his constituents before he would do his job representing them, Harper was threatening to sue any Liberal who mentioned it outside of the House. That Grewal was on record as having volunteered the information didn't matter to Harper, he was still threatening to sue in a bid to silence anybody talking about the issue.

Oh pulease. Where do you get this stuff, in the stratosphere from ET? Brison and Martin are "said to have"... said by who? When/ Where? Spin spin spin, lie lie lie.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Dissatisfied with Cho

Conservatives have made the charge that they took "secrets" with them, Blue. The Liberal charges of a hidden agenda perked up after the defections.


If you actually follow politics in this country you already knew that though. Methinks thou doth protest too much.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Dissatisfied with Cho

Conservatives have made the charge that they took "secrets" with them, Blue. The Liberal charges of a hidden agenda perked up after the defections.


If you actually follow politics in this country you already knew that though. Methinks thou doth protest too much.

And methinks you spin too much. There is no hidden agenda. Get over it. You have no proof, simply shady, backroom, slimy, sleazy, unfounded allegations, all in the name of a good smear campaign that the lazy and unintelligent fall for. At least you know your audience.