Equal Rights
Posted by Ferdinand
Why were you even trying to communicate with those prepubescent, trailer park, P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act fodder? Collectively, the whole group in that thread don't have enough gray matter to constitute a brain let alone have informed opinions 
Are you snowed in? 
|
|
We have an opportunity to witness the same BS as our American neighbours very soon. Since Harper has seen fit to give the Canadian public the big >
 < by appointing 18 new senators; most of whom know little of governance; it is only a matter of days before we find that he is reinstated the 'not withstanding clause'.
There is no more separation of religion and state in our country than south of the 49th parallel
The election next month should prove interesting and provide someone with a majority government...Harper doesn't seem to think it will be the Conservatives
|
|
i think another reason the thread was locked is in general the moderators are conservative right wingers, and they started to see that you were making great, coherent arguments that were generally against their beliefs.
and by the way, i can assure you that if you start any kind of political discussion here, I will not use my moderating powers to hinder the progress of the thread as long as no one is making death threats to someone else. those must be done via PM.  
|
|
I couldn't read most of that crap. However, one great takeaway that I agree with: henceforth "that stupid Canadian" should be called "Turdinhand." It has a great ring to it, don't you think?
 Cab 
1990 325i(s) 2004 325XiT Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/29/2008 12:28PM by Cab Treadway. |
Um, yeah. A turd in the bush? Don't think I want to go there. Cab
1990 325i(s) 2004 325XiT |
Not without a rabbit anyway
|
|
Ok, I just read from the point where you jumped in until the end.
Ferd, I love you, man. If both of us weren't already married, I'd... well, nevermind, I don't want to say it.
Seriously though, why do you put so much effort making valid and cogent arguments supported by facts and citations when you know the only response you're going to get is something in the flavor of "stupid kanuk (sic)?" Might as well go outside and beat your head against the house. At least that way you might get something accomplished like dislodging an icicle. Fight the good fight, though, I guess. Although, I actually do see a little double-standardness in the juxtaposition of the views you have expressed over the years and your support of Obama. He might be a great leader (we have yet to see, but I have my hopes), but he never has seemed to show much in the way of undying support for the Constitution. Maybe I'm wrong, and what he's done since the election has impressed me, although it's ticked off a lot of his supporters. If you were American, I would put you in the Libertarian Party (with the exception of gun laws, I guess), based on what I know of you, and that's very much the other end of the spectrum from our pres-elect. Cab
1990 325i(s) 2004 325XiT |
Why is it that the new guy is so suspect of what you infer when the sitting and past president has blatantly pissed all over the constitution? Why do people have such closed minds and only see what they want to see? Nothing personal Cab, just an observation I've made about so many who continue to diss the democratically elected leader. Detractors threw all manner of BS and innuendo out there about Marxist ties, communist leanings and other completely unfounded nonsense. Funny how most if not all the actual documented proof of wrong doings and/or dubious actions of the loser are so conveniently ignore, swept under the rug or buried. This is the real double standard. Unfortunately, the country has been so badly raped that I doubt even Obama can restore it. The real power people will continue to stuff themselves at the trough until there is nothing left
This applies pretty much to Canada too :X |
I 
you too dude. It was amusing for a while. But I must admit they scored a crippling hit on me by locking the thread without warning. I didn't see that coming at all. Somebody mentioned that on the r3vLimited thread too, but nobody explained it there. What's the deal with Obama not showing respect for the Constitution? I haven't seen any of that, but I haven't gone looking for it either. What's the basis for people saying that? |
I'm defending neither the current pres nor the loser of this past election. I didn't vote for either of them, and I'm certainly not a big fan of either. It's possible to dislike one of two candidates without necessarily supporting the other. Obviously I would have rather had McCain in office than BO, not because I like him a lot, but rather because he was the only other possible choice. I voted for the Libertarian candidate, however, even though he had no realistic chance at winning.
I'm not dissing him at all. I actually am pleasantly surprised about how he's gone about his business since the election. I did not want him in office, but I think he might be not bad. His ardent supporters have been quite ticked off, though, because he's showing himself to not be as liberal as they wanted him to be in the selections he's been making for positions in his administration, by backing off the (unrealistic when they were made) declarations that he'd pull us out of Iraq immediately, etc. Marxist ties, et al, are not unfounded nonsense and innuendo. Connections between him and Marxists have been written about ad nauseum, how he sought out the Marxists when he was in school because he felt most comfortable with them, etc. I have not heard such claims discredited. As I've said since the election, perhaps he'll be the greatest thing for the world since fire, I certainly hope so, but I have been scared of him because of his lack of a real record, and the record that is there being so far to the left. To those who are far on the left, that's a good thing. To those of us in the middle or to the right, that's a scary thing. I am not a fan of higher taxes and potentially leading us towards socialism, and if he takes us there (as many have said he will want to), I will not be happy about it. Maybe that's all a vast right-wing conspiracy and he really doesn't feel that way. The point is, he doesn't have much of a record that shows he is or isn't anything in particular, so he can be all things to all people, both good and bad. That's how he made himself so appealing to people and got elected, in my opinion. He's very intelligent, well-spoken, charismatic, and charming. He gives a good speech and fills people with hope. The hope that I have, however, is that he's not all fluff and that he might actually have something to back up his speeches. We shall see. I believe that the best government is small, efficient, and doesn't intrude much in business or the lives of its citizens. To that end, I am vastly disappointed in the US government, and Bush certainly has made things worse, not better. I fear the likely reality that in an attempt to pull the US and the world out of the current economic situation, BO is going to make the government even bigger and more all-encompassing. Maybe that's necessary, or on the other hand, maybe a somewhat prolonged recession is necessary to get businesses to learn to operate better. I have no real idea.
Again, it's not about McCain being such a wonderful candidate. I felt that we were in a lose-lose situation, and since the candidate representing a party I actually do share ideals with had no shot, I did prefer the guy who wasn't Obama, because I felt he was the lesser of two evils. Maybe that was wrong, maybe it was right. It's of no moment, because BO is the next pres, and I will support him as such, even when/if I disagree with him. I consider myself part of the loyal opposition, but I'm not just opposed to him, but rather to the whole system and situation we find ourselves in. Cab
1990 325i(s) 2004 325XiT |
The worst, IMO, is that he's said that he wants to appoint judges who "legislate from the bench." Or at least I've heard that he's said that. Maybe that's another vast right-wing conspiracy. Anyway, that's not what the judicial branch is supposed to be about, and I don't want that. I maybe shouldn't have said what I did about him being disrespectful to the Constitution. I don't know that for sure, and I don't have any citations. I guess the dichotomy I see in your posts vs. your support of him is that he just tends to be very liberal, big government, high taxes, etc, and I read into your posts a lot of deep respect for the Constitution, and the extension of most of your musings seems to be to be a very libertarian perspective. BO, on the other hand, seems very not-libertarian. I'm not saying that one can't be both a supporter of the Constitution and also be liberal and in favor of large government, etc, but in my experience, most people who cite the Constitution and individual rights like you do tend to be more conservative politically. Cab
1990 325i(s) 2004 325XiT |
I don't pretend to understand that, either. In my ever-so-humble opinion, that is an issue that should never be voted on at all. You are absolutely correct in the r3v thread about how it doesn't matter if 99.9% of the population agrees on an issue, the rights of that 0.1% need to be protected. I am a practicing Christian, but I do not believe that homosexuals are against God or nature, and I don't think I believe that it's a choice, either. I think people are who they are, but the biggest issue is that all people, men/women/gay/straight/whatever, should be treated equally in the eyes of the law. If two people want to spend their lives together, as long as both are mentally mature enough to make that choice, who am I to tell them they're wrong? I probably do some things in my life that others might disagree with, too. In fact, the logical extension is that why do we have to stop marriage among two people? I'm not sure I can say we have to. If multiple people all consent to be married to each other, I don't have the right to say they can't. My feelings on the matter have no bearing. What really gets me about the gay marriage issue is that the right-wing zealots seem to have no problem with non-Christian straight couples. If a couple never steps foot in a church after their marriage, or gets married by a JOP and never goes to a church at all, then lives their lives according to whatever the heck they want, well, the anti gay marriage folk think that's just dandy. To me, I have much more respect for the monogamous same-sex couple who have been together for 20 yrs than for the the people who are married for convenience or tax purposes or have an "open" marriage or whatever. But that's not an issue to these people, simply because the two people involved are of the correct gender. I think that all couples should, in the eyes of the law, have a "civil union" or whatever you want to call it, and be subject to the same tax laws, property ownership laws, access to their loved ones during hospital visiting hours, etc. I couldn't give two poops about who someone is diddling, as long as it's all legal and amongst consenting adults, all this crap about same-sex couples being allowed to be "married" somehow changing the validity of my marriage? It's just that, crap. Anywho, that's a long-winded response to simply basically agree with you. I don't think it should be a legal issue at all, especially not since this country is apparently now so forward thinking and advanced. Cab
1990 325i(s) 2004 325XiT |
I think that part of why Cab is so well grounded is because he is what I would consider a real christian. For him being a christian is a way of living his life and setting a positive role model by example
...I just wish I was as level-headed
|
|
Thanks for the compliments, guys. I guess I just try and live my life by the golden rule "Do unto others" and all that. I know I'm not a perfect example by any means, but I try. Sometimes Mrs. Cab is frustrated because she says I'm too level-headed.
 Cab
1990 325i(s) 2004 325XiT |
'Steady as she goes' is always better in the long term
Here's wishing you and your tribe a Happy and Prosperous New Year B) |
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.