Holy shit you guise, I can't believe I haven't heard this yet up in here.
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
A: To ask the Governor General to prorogue parliament.
Imperfect on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
Err, it's usually the Democratic Party in the US being likened to a Big Tent, not the Republicans. The Republican economic conservatives aren't as substantial a force (yet).
Err, it's usually the Democratic Party in the US being likened to a Big Tent, not the Republicans. The Republican economic conservatives aren't as substantial a force (yet).
The Democratic party are kind of a mix between the Greens, the NDP and the Liberals with the PC thrown in for good measure.
The GOP are basically the Reform party + other crazy regional parties that don't have enough traction to be relevant on any level
Robman on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Err, it's usually the Democratic Party in the US being likened to a Big Tent, not the Republicans. The Republican economic conservatives aren't as substantial a force (yet).
The Democratic party are kind of a mix between the Greens, the NDP and the Liberals with the PC thrown in for good measure.
The GOP are basically the Reform party + other crazy regional parties that don't have enough traction to be relevant on any level
And the Bloc (for the Dems). At least for their ideological stance and less for the regionalism.
Err, it's usually the Democratic Party in the US being likened to a Big Tent, not the Republicans. The Republican economic conservatives aren't as substantial a force (yet).
Um ... what?
The phrase "Big Tent" in the US has almost always been used to describe the Republican Party and their coalition between Social Conservatives, Economics Conservatives and Neo-Cons (or proto-Neo-Cons or War Hawks or what have you).
The whole GOP coalition exists because the US Conservatives back in the 70s played straight to the racist fuckwad idiot "Value Voter" in the South in order to get enough demographics behind them to win elections.
The same way the new Conservative Party here is the result of the PC party allying themselves with Reform Crazies from the West in order to get enough demographics behind them to win elections.
shryke on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Err, it's usually the Democratic Party in the US being likened to a Big Tent, not the Republicans. The Republican economic conservatives aren't as substantial a force (yet).
Um ... what?
The phrase "Big Tent" in the US has almost always been used to describe the Republican Party and their coalition between Social Conservatives, Economics Conservatives and Neo-Cons (or proto-Neo-Cons or War Hawks or what have you).
The whole GOP coalition exists because the US Conservatives back in the 70s played straight to the racist fuckwad idiot "Value Voter" in the South in order to get enough demographics behind them to win elections.
The same way the new Conservative Party here is the result of the PC party allying themselves with Reform Crazies from the West in order to get enough demographics behind them to win elections.
Except that it applies far more to the Democratic Party than the Republicans and since at least the 90s has referred to the Democrats? The Republicans are nowhere near a Big Tent coalition compared to the wide range of ideological stances within the Democratic Party.
Err, it's usually the Democratic Party in the US being likened to a Big Tent, not the Republicans. The Republican economic conservatives aren't as substantial a force (yet).
Um ... what?
The phrase "Big Tent" in the US has almost always been used to describe the Republican Party and their coalition between Social Conservatives, Economics Conservatives and Neo-Cons (or proto-Neo-Cons or War Hawks or what have you).
The whole GOP coalition exists because the US Conservatives back in the 70s played straight to the racist fuckwad idiot "Value Voter" in the South in order to get enough demographics behind them to win elections.
The same way the new Conservative Party here is the result of the PC party allying themselves with Reform Crazies from the West in order to get enough demographics behind them to win elections.
Except that it applies far more to the Democratic Party than the Republicans and since at least the 90s has referred to the Democrats? The Republicans are nowhere near a Big Tent coalition compared to the wide range of ideological stances within the Democratic Party.
Except that you are wrong. Like ... really wrong. Do you know much about American Politics?
shryke on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Err, it's usually the Democratic Party in the US being likened to a Big Tent, not the Republicans. The Republican economic conservatives aren't as substantial a force (yet).
Um ... what?
The phrase "Big Tent" in the US has almost always been used to describe the Republican Party and their coalition between Social Conservatives, Economics Conservatives and Neo-Cons (or proto-Neo-Cons or War Hawks or what have you).
The whole GOP coalition exists because the US Conservatives back in the 70s played straight to the racist fuckwad idiot "Value Voter" in the South in order to get enough demographics behind them to win elections.
The same way the new Conservative Party here is the result of the PC party allying themselves with Reform Crazies from the West in order to get enough demographics behind them to win elections.
Except that it applies far more to the Democratic Party than the Republicans and since at least the 90s has referred to the Democrats? The Republicans are nowhere near a Big Tent coalition compared to the wide range of ideological stances within the Democratic Party.
Except that you are wrong. Like ... really wrong. Do you know much about American Politics?
So the Blue Dogs are imaginary? The environmentalist segment of the Democrat party doesn't conflict with the Banking/Industry segment or the Progressive segment or that there are differences between the African-American and Latino segments with the rest of the party?
Whereas we have the Republican party with an ignored economic conservative wing (to the point that the Democrats have started picking them up through Blue Dogs) that has been at the helm of neo-conservatives and social conservatives for a long time now, with the two of them mainly complimentary as they both had separate spheres of concern (foreign policy vs. social policy), and now are beginning to purge the party of anything not resembling the two (moreso the social conservatives)?
I mean, it's nice and all that you're trying your hardest to paint the Conservatives as Republicans, but you'd have a better job doing so through references to ideological similarities and/or governing tactics than trying to apply Big Tent which hasn't been a descriptor of the Republican party for, again, two decades. And if you're going to post something, post something substantive and do me the fucking credit of an argument than an ad hominem.
Well, as a bitter old Red Tory, I think a lot of people have lost sight of how fragile the coalition that formed the modern incarnation of the Conservative Party actually is. They were only able to pull off the merger itself with some pretty egregious double dealing, and there are certainly people within the party who are disgusted by Harper. There are also a heck of a lot of people who think that the problem is that the party is either not enough like the Mike Harris Tories in Ontario, or not enough like the Reform party. One could be forgiven for hoping that, in the event of Harper's removal as party leader, there are sufficient sour grapes that the donation well begins to dry up.
What what? Did someone say coalition?! Our government's under attack! It's a coup! It's a coup!
It's only a coup if the MPs involved don't all have the same letterhead.
In the back of Harper's mind, there's a conflict going on: one side says, "jeez, fifty thousand people lost their lives, this is awful," and the other says, "...but I haven't heard my name or the word 'prorogue' on the CBC in almost two days."
But anyway, it is reassuring to see massive international support on this scale. Today, my cynicism is taking a break from its normal rolling boil.
In the back of Harper's mind, there's a conflict going on: one side says, "jeez, fifty thousand people lost their lives, this is awful," and the other says, "...but I haven't heard my name or the word 'prorogue' on the CBC in almost two days."
But anyway, it is reassuring to see massive international support on this scale. Today, my cynicism is taking a break from its normal rolling boil.
I was talking to my dad earlier, he was trying to donate funds to the Red Cross but their website was down due to traffic.
I guess we can at least credit Harper with the sense to keep the ultra-religious retards silent rather then spouting off that "god willed it to that nation of sinners" shit that permeating the US media right now.
Do you really think there are those in Canada who even think that? That earthquake in many ways could just as easily done its damage to places within our borders or to the south of us. Its such a copious amount of bullshit to even think that they deserved it for their sins when we are all sinners.
Thankfully we don't have anyone like Pat Robertson on TV. But it's important to remember that Harper appointed a bunch of far-right evangelical activists to various posts including chief of staff Darrel Reid, former president of Focus On The Family Canada and close personal friend of "Doctor" James "beating your children makes them grow up proper" Dobson
Do you really think there are those in Canada who even think that? That earthquake in many ways could just as easily done its damage to places within our borders or to the south of us. Its such a copious amount of bullshit to even think that they deserved it for their sins when we are all sinners.
Reminder that Harper's chief of staff is Darrel Reid, former president of Focus On The Family Canada and close personal friend of "Doctor" James "beating your children makes them grow up proper" Dobson
I've heard rumblings that a big british survey found that children that were spanked when young develop into better kids on almost all developmental indexes.
Do you really think there are those in Canada who even think that? That earthquake in many ways could just as easily done its damage to places within our borders or to the south of us. Its such a copious amount of bullshit to even think that they deserved it for their sins when we are all sinners.
Red'd for also being copious bullshit.
I was going to make a retort about "well maybe you're perfect and all", but then I saw your screen name and I could only laugh.
Nah, I just don't buy into this "we're all sinners and awful and we should feel guilty and repeeeeeeent" bullshit.
Live your life as right as you can and don't sweat it. It's easy.
Well yeah, live your life as right as you can. That's the best anyone can do. But no one (you and I included) will do it perfectly all the time, we all make mistakes. So we're all sinners. I don't see what's "not to buy" here, it's a pretty straightforward idea.
Nah, I just don't buy into this "we're all sinners and awful and we should feel guilty and repeeeeeeent" bullshit.
Live your life as right as you can and don't sweat it. It's easy.
Well yeah, live your life as right as you can. That's the best anyone can do. But no one (you and I included) will do it perfectly all the time, we all make mistakes. So we're all sinners. I don't see what's "not to buy" here, it's a pretty straightforward idea.
There's a difference between recognizing that people are flawed and viewing them as "sinners". It's a loaded word with implications beyond mere acknowledgment of human imperfections.
Nah, I just don't buy into this "we're all sinners and awful and we should feel guilty and repeeeeeeent" bullshit.
Live your life as right as you can and don't sweat it. It's easy.
Well yeah, live your life as right as you can. That's the best anyone can do. But no one (you and I included) will do it perfectly all the time, we all make mistakes. So we're all sinners. I don't see what's "not to buy" here, it's a pretty straightforward idea.
There's a difference between recognizing that people are flawed and viewing them as "sinners". It's a loaded word with implications beyond mere acknowledgment of human imperfections.
Nah, I just don't buy into this "we're all sinners and awful and we should feel guilty and repeeeeeeent" bullshit.
Live your life as right as you can and don't sweat it. It's easy.
Well yeah, live your life as right as you can. That's the best anyone can do. But no one (you and I included) will do it perfectly all the time, we all make mistakes. So we're all sinners. I don't see what's "not to buy" here, it's a pretty straightforward idea.
There's a difference between recognizing that people are flawed and viewing them as "sinners". It's a loaded word with implications beyond mere acknowledgment of human imperfections.
Yes it's a loaded word, it's also the perfect word to use in response to religious fundamentalists like Pat Robertson et al.
Seriously, what do you think is a more productive counter to Robertson's bullshit? Yammering about what Richard Dawkins thinks, or confronting him with the major tenets of his (purported) own religion?
Nah, I just don't buy into this "we're all sinners and awful and we should feel guilty and repeeeeeeent" bullshit.
Live your life as right as you can and don't sweat it. It's easy.
Well yeah, live your life as right as you can. That's the best anyone can do. But no one (you and I included) will do it perfectly all the time, we all make mistakes. So we're all sinners. I don't see what's "not to buy" here, it's a pretty straightforward idea.
That the concept of "Sin" is in and of itself just some religious bullshit to make people feel guilty?
Nah, I just don't buy into this "we're all sinners and awful and we should feel guilty and repeeeeeeent" bullshit.
Live your life as right as you can and don't sweat it. It's easy.
Well yeah, live your life as right as you can. That's the best anyone can do. But no one (you and I included) will do it perfectly all the time, we all make mistakes. So we're all sinners. I don't see what's "not to buy" here, it's a pretty straightforward idea.
There's a difference between recognizing that people are flawed and viewing them as "sinners". It's a loaded word with implications beyond mere acknowledgment of human imperfections.
Yes it's a loaded word, it's also the perfect word to use in response to religious fundamentalists like Pat Robertson et al.
Seriously, what do you think is a more productive counter to Robertson's bullshit? Yammering about what Richard Dawkins thinks, or confronting him with the major tenets of his (purported) own religion?
So I have no problem with Wolverine's post.
Neither one of those are productive counters, though anything Richard Dawkins has to say is probably less effective. There are probably close to a billion Christians who don't buy into the sort of fundamentalist pop Christianity that Pat Robertson and his ilk espouse. When it comes to some one like Pat Robertson, there are roughly two things any of us can do:
Don't take anything he says to heart
Don't give him any money or assistance
The thing is, we're not talking to Pat Robertson, or even any Christian fundamentalist, right now. If you're actually talking to one, it might be helpful, but that's not the case right now.
I disagree. Strongly. If you accept the premise that there is such a thing as sin and that we're all sinners, you accept a whole lot of other premises as well that can topple your argument before you form it. Mistakes are different from sin - sin is a divine concept, as writ by God. Rear-ending a guy in a car is an accident. Rear-ending a guy in the butt is a sin in the eyes of God.
Unless of course you don't accept the concept of sin in the first place, then you can actually discuss homosexuality on its merits instead of on the tenet of "God sez no."
I disagree. Strongly. If you accept the premise that there is such a thing as sin and that we're all sinners, you accept a whole lot of other premises as well that can topple your argument before you form it. Mistakes are different from sin - sin is a divine concept, as writ by God. Rear-ending a guy in a car is an accident. Rear-ending a guy in the butt is a sin in the eyes of God.
Unless of course you don't accept the concept of sin in the first place, then you can actually discuss homosexuality on its merits instead of on the tenet of "God sez no."
I like the idea of sin. If there really is some cosmic lord god that created everything as he saw fit, then by god i'm going to stick it to him by sticking it in this lovely girl who I am seeing out of wedlock. Because if such a supreme being really cares about stuff like that, then they need to be taken down a notch.
I hope some angry Hatians tie that fucker down and cockpunch him until he's a eunuch.
edit: rare win in CBC comments
I for one, would have a real hard time riding that $7 M Alberta sponsored Olympic luxury train, knowing what's happening in Haiti. Sure there are tough decisions to make about where gov't spends money and that decision's been made already. But you're willing to spend my money on that stupid train, and then say 'no money from Alberta' to help ease this catastrophic human suffering? I've found money in my budget to make my donation, Ed, hopefully enough to make a small difference. The tax break? I could care less. I don't think that's the main reason why most people donate, FYI. This makes Albertans look like cheapskates - even the maratimes are donating.
I wonder, if given the choice, what ALBERTANS would rather do with our tax dollars...help people to enjoy the high life, or give people a chance to live.
There's a fantastic use of taxpayer money right there. Let's spend money on a legal fight where, if we win, the taxpayer will get stuck with a bigger bill. That's leaving aside all the other benefits. In strictly dollars and cents terms, InSite is bargain.
Of course they made that decision, it's the decision that every single study done on the thing supports. I've read several of them. Stupid mutter mutter conservatives useless fucks mutter mutter
Posts
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
The Democratic party are kind of a mix between the Greens, the NDP and the Liberals with the PC thrown in for good measure.
The GOP are basically the Reform party + other crazy regional parties that don't have enough traction to be relevant on any level
And the Bloc (for the Dems). At least for their ideological stance and less for the regionalism.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Um ... what?
The phrase "Big Tent" in the US has almost always been used to describe the Republican Party and their coalition between Social Conservatives, Economics Conservatives and Neo-Cons (or proto-Neo-Cons or War Hawks or what have you).
The whole GOP coalition exists because the US Conservatives back in the 70s played straight to the racist fuckwad idiot "Value Voter" in the South in order to get enough demographics behind them to win elections.
The same way the new Conservative Party here is the result of the PC party allying themselves with Reform Crazies from the West in order to get enough demographics behind them to win elections.
Except that it applies far more to the Democratic Party than the Republicans and since at least the 90s has referred to the Democrats? The Republicans are nowhere near a Big Tent coalition compared to the wide range of ideological stances within the Democratic Party.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Except that you are wrong. Like ... really wrong. Do you know much about American Politics?
So the Blue Dogs are imaginary? The environmentalist segment of the Democrat party doesn't conflict with the Banking/Industry segment or the Progressive segment or that there are differences between the African-American and Latino segments with the rest of the party?
Whereas we have the Republican party with an ignored economic conservative wing (to the point that the Democrats have started picking them up through Blue Dogs) that has been at the helm of neo-conservatives and social conservatives for a long time now, with the two of them mainly complimentary as they both had separate spheres of concern (foreign policy vs. social policy), and now are beginning to purge the party of anything not resembling the two (moreso the social conservatives)?
I mean, it's nice and all that you're trying your hardest to paint the Conservatives as Republicans, but you'd have a better job doing so through references to ideological similarities and/or governing tactics than trying to apply Big Tent which hasn't been a descriptor of the Republican party for, again, two decades. And if you're going to post something, post something substantive and do me the fucking credit of an argument than an ad hominem.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
It's only a coup if the MPs involved don't all have the same letterhead.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
I would agree that the response so far seems to be appropriate.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
But anyway, it is reassuring to see massive international support on this scale. Today, my cynicism is taking a break from its normal rolling boil.
I was talking to my dad earlier, he was trying to donate funds to the Red Cross but their website was down due to traffic.
That makes me happy.
Options include waiving fees, speeding up applications for family reunification, and perhaps even relaxing the definition of who can be included in reunification.
"Minister Kenney has been asked by the PM to quickly look at all options on the issue of visas, family reunification, and refugees," said spokesman Alykhan Velshi.
Well, I guess the government isn't completely heartless.
Only when there's a natural disaster to exploit.
Red'd for also being copious bullshit.
I've heard rumblings that a big british survey found that children that were spanked when young develop into better kids on almost all developmental indexes.
I was going to make a retort about "well maybe you're perfect and all", but then I saw your screen name and I could only laugh.
Live your life as right as you can and don't sweat it. It's easy.
There's a difference between recognizing that people are flawed and viewing them as "sinners". It's a loaded word with implications beyond mere acknowledgment of human imperfections.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
You put it much better than I could have.
Seriously, what do you think is a more productive counter to Robertson's bullshit? Yammering about what Richard Dawkins thinks, or confronting him with the major tenets of his (purported) own religion?
So I have no problem with Wolverine's post.
That the concept of "Sin" is in and of itself just some religious bullshit to make people feel guilty?
Neither one of those are productive counters, though anything Richard Dawkins has to say is probably less effective. There are probably close to a billion Christians who don't buy into the sort of fundamentalist pop Christianity that Pat Robertson and his ilk espouse. When it comes to some one like Pat Robertson, there are roughly two things any of us can do:
The thing is, we're not talking to Pat Robertson, or even any Christian fundamentalist, right now. If you're actually talking to one, it might be helpful, but that's not the case right now.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Unless of course you don't accept the concept of sin in the first place, then you can actually discuss homosexuality on its merits instead of on the tenet of "God sez no."
I like the idea of sin. If there really is some cosmic lord god that created everything as he saw fit, then by god i'm going to stick it to him by sticking it in this lovely girl who I am seeing out of wedlock. Because if such a supreme being really cares about stuff like that, then they need to be taken down a notch.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/01/15/calgary-haiti-alberta-donations-stelmach-red-cross.html
Yukon: $25,000
British Columbia: $500,000
Manitoba: $100,000
Ontario: $1 million
Nova Scotia: $100,000
New Brunswick: $100,000
Prince Edward Island: $50,000
Newfoundland and Labrador: $1 million
Alberta: 0 because BOOTSTRAPS
I hope some angry Hatians tie that fucker down and cockpunch him until he's a eunuch.
edit: rare win in CBC comments
There's a fantastic use of taxpayer money right there. Let's spend money on a legal fight where, if we win, the taxpayer will get stuck with a bigger bill. That's leaving aside all the other benefits. In strictly dollars and cents terms, InSite is bargain.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
If the Olympics vendors donated every dollar of profit to Haiti to assist the reconstruction of ahahahhahaaha yeah that's going to happen.
Hurray!
Of course they made that decision, it's the decision that every single study done on the thing supports. I've read several of them. Stupid mutter mutter conservatives useless fucks mutter mutter