Liberal John McCallum says that Harper is spreading pessimism about the economy - Page 2 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

PsYcNeT · 12-17-2008, 12:37 PM

1. That's my point however, nothing constructive can be said, because the thread was introduced and structured in such a way as to invite criticism towards it's subject. That's not a balanced discussion.

Not to mention we really don't need a thread or a discussion everytime one party disagrees with another.

2. I'm sure you hated them before AdScam, don't bluff.

3. From what I've read here, 'hate speech' is more appropriate I guess. It's unnerving to read how many people wish physical, emotional, and financial harm to people they have never met, just because they disagree with their opinions/political stance. Go read the "3 people punch" thread, or the last thread on Jack Layton.

ikaris · 12-17-2008, 12:41 PM

Did this really need its own thread? This just seems like an attempt to bait people.

Weiser Wonder · 12-17-2008, 12:49 PM

The article quotes one Liberal MP. Either I'm missing something or you are putting words in the mouths of the entire Liberal party.

Rerun · 12-17-2008, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikaris

Did this really need its own thread? This just seems like an attempt to bait people.

It certainly deserved its own headline in the news.

Do you think that John McCallum was attempting to bait Stephen Harper and the Conservative party? All I did was report what McCallum said and give my own opinion on it.

calculoso · 12-17-2008, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

1. That's my point however, nothing constructive can be said, because the thread was introduced and structured in such a way as to invite criticism towards it's subject. That's not a balanced discussion.

Not to mention we really don't need a thread or a discussion everytime one party disagrees with another.

Isn't the point of a discussion board to discuss things? If you want things balanced (and assume they aren't already), put forward your contrarian viewpoint and balance the discussion.

The OP presented things as per his opinion. If you don't agree, say so and say why.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

3. From what I've read here, 'hate speech' is more appropriate I guess. It's unnerving to read how many people wish physical, emotional, and financial harm to people they have never met, just because they disagree with their opinions/political stance. Go read the "3 people punch" thread, or the last thread on Jack Layton.

Quite the statement from someone who has "-Never Hit A Man With Glasses...Use A Bat Instead-" as a signature...

Rerun · 12-17-2008, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

The article quotes one Liberal MP. Either I'm missing something or you are putting words in the mouths of the entire Liberal party.

Give them time. I'm sure they'll all get a chance to throw in their 2 cents worth.

Rerun · 12-17-2008, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

1. That's my point however, nothing constructive can be said, because the thread was introduced and structured in such a way as to invite criticism towards it's subject. That's not a balanced discussion.

You seem to be confusing me with the "unbiased media". Its not my job to present a unbiased topic in order to stimulate a balanced discussion. I have my point of view. If you don't like it, prove me wrong.

Rerun · 12-17-2008, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

3. From what I've read here, 'hate speech' is more appropriate I guess. It's unnerving to read how many people wish physical, emotional, and financial harm to people they have never met, just because they disagree with their opinions/political stance. Go read the "3 people punch" thread, or the last thread on Jack Layton.

Hate speech? Give me a break.

Cowboy89 · 12-17-2008, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

1. That's my point however, nothing constructive can be said, because the thread was introduced and structured in such a way as to invite criticism towards it's subject. That's not a balanced discussion.

Not to mention we really don't need a thread or a discussion everytime one party disagrees with another.

2. I'm sure you hated them before AdScam, don't bluff.

3. From what I've read here, 'hate speech' is more appropriate I guess. It's unnerving to read how many people wish physical, emotional, and financial harm to people they have never met, just because they disagree with their opinions/political stance. Go read the "3 people punch" thread, or the last thread on Jack Layton.

I don't hate Liberals. I completely disagree with both the philosophy and the execution of their policies put forth more than 50% of the time, and yes even before adScam if that's what you're getting at. I never wish anyone physical harm based soley on their views. I do however wish financial harm upon those that manage their finances unwisely. A failure to punish unwise decisions by means of a government bailout, or government program presents a moral hazard and ensures that the same unecessary risks will be taken once again in the future. Sometimes people need negative reinforcement to avert irresponsible behavior in the future.

Weiser Wonder · 12-17-2008, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rerun

Give them time. I'm sure they'll all get a chance to throw in their 2 cents worth.

OK. Maybe you can change the thread title in the mean time.

Rerun · 12-17-2008, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

OK. Maybe you can change the thread title in the mean time.

done

Gozer · 12-17-2008, 01:28 PM

Who would Jesus vote for?

PsYcNeT · 12-17-2008, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gozer

Who would Jesus vote for?

Likely those in favour of social welfare and non-violence.

mrdeeds · 12-17-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gozer

Who would Jesus vote for?

No-one, Jesus is anti-establishment.

Rerun · 12-17-2008, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gozer

Who would Jesus vote for?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Likely those in favour of social welfare and non-violence.

I don't know about that...

Isn't there an old saying that "God helps those who helps themselves" and the bible specifically says:
Paul said in 2 Thessalonians (3:10) “… If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.”

And with regards to violence... the bible is filled with wars, killing, and violence, much of it done by God or in the name of God.

CaptainCrunch · 12-17-2008, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Likely those in favour of social welfare and non-violence.

I have my doubts about that. While Jesus would help those who couldn't help themselves. IE the sick, the mentally disturbed. He probably wouldn't lift a finger for that group of people that takes advantage of the social welfare network when they have no need. Jesus would probably be in favor of tightening the welfare system or reforming it so that only those that really had a need could access it.

In terms of violence, Jesus didn't really stop wars, or murders or his own execution, I don't think he ever took a serious stance on non violence. And remember his old man perpatrated every violent act that you could think of including the mass murder of millions through flood, fire and eathquake.

Jesus, would probably actually be a fairly staunch social conservative.

PsYcNeT · 12-17-2008, 02:22 PM

I guess my mind has been poisoned by the liberal/hippie agenda.

I always thought the New Testaments message was of love and the greater good of man.

Weiser Wonder · 12-17-2008, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I have my doubts about that. While Jesus would help those who couldn't help themselves. IE the sick, the mentally disturbed. He probably wouldn't lift a finger for that group of people that takes advantage of the social welfare network when they have no need. Jesus would probably be in favor of tightening the welfare system or reforming it so that only those that really had a need could access it.

In terms of violence, Jesus didn't really stop wars, or murders or his own execution, I don't think he ever took a serious stance on non violence. And remember his old man perpatrated every violent act that you could think of including the mass murder of millions through flood, fire and eathquake.

Jesus, would probably actually be a fairly staunch social conservative.

Yes, Jesus did take a firm stance on non-violence. You have probably heard of the phrase "turn the other cheek".

Jesus's teachings are in large part meant to contrast the old testament, not reinforce it. If there was one thing Jesus taught it was peace.

mrdeeds · 12-17-2008, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I guess my mind has been poisoned by the liberal/hippie agenda.

I always thought the New Testaments message was of love and the greater good of man.

Unfortunately, one can draw many interpretations from the New Testatment for almost any purpose.

flip · 12-17-2008, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdeeds

Unfortunately, one can draw many interpretations from the New Testatment for almost any purpose.

I just registered for Rels 273 last night. It is Introduction to the Bible. So in about 5 months I'll be able to comment more accurately on this comment.

Until then all I have to say is that I find it funny that an MP from a party with a leader who's green policy will destroy this country's economy should not be speaking out against Harper.