Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next  

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Page 14 of 17
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Matt





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 192
Reputation: 40.4Reputation: 40.4Reputation: 40.4Reputation: 40.4
votes: 3
Location: York-Centre

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

theatheistjew wrote:
Sorry, but funding Catholics was a mistake and still is. Funding other schools to be "fair" would be even more of a mistake.

I was always taught in public school that "two wrongs don't make a right"


Without funding for the Catholic Board and having it enshrined, we would not have a Canada today.

I agree with two wrongs not making a right, but by now (via forums and blogs) I'm sure you know I disagree with your assumption that either of these be classified as "wrongs". :)
Christian Conservative





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 86
Reputation: 50.8
votes: 2
Location: Southwestern ON

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For the record, I don't support Tory's plan, but I will say this... now that the word is out that the UN Human Rights Commission supports Tory's view, it may turn out that this whole issue was a set-up for Mr. McGuinty to walk into... like a big old bear trap.

How on earth are they going to answer that one? The Liberals, who love to appeal to equality and "rights", are proposing to continue to defy a ruling from their beloved Human Rights Commission... a ruling that Mr. Tory is proposing that we act upon.

It's turning into a stroke of political genius, if you ask me... and I say that as someone who opposes Mr. Tory's plan.
theatheistjew





Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 398
Reputation: 11.2
votes: 10
Location: Niagara Region, Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Matt wrote:
theatheistjew wrote:
Sorry, but funding Catholics was a mistake and still is. Funding other schools to be "fair" would be even more of a mistake.

I was always taught in public school that "two wrongs don't make a right"


Without funding for the Catholic Board and having it enshrined, we would not have a Canada today.

I agree with two wrongs not making a right, but by now (via forums and blogs) I'm sure you know I disagree with your assumption that either of these be classified as "wrongs". :)

We don't know that there would be no Canada today eventually if the BNA act didn't address Catholic school funding.

Yes, it is wrong to fund religious schools. Again, are you for or against funding a school for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as long as they kept to the Ontario curriculum, or how about a school for Geocentric Believers?

It is only fair, that every cult, religion, belief or non belief be able to get public funding too.

And as far the Human Rights Commission goes, who care what they say?

There was no stroke of genius by Tory here. He has committed political suicide. I saw McGuinty's new ad today, and I was impressed by the fact that he didn't talk about other parties, just about the fact that things don't appear broke right now, so why change things? He reminds me of Norman Bates though. I wasn't sure if I was watching a political leader or a serial murderer. He has to do something about his stare.
Matt





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 192
Reputation: 40.4Reputation: 40.4Reputation: 40.4Reputation: 40.4
votes: 3
Location: York-Centre

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

theatheistjew wrote:

We don't know that there would be no Canada today eventually if the BNA act didn't address Catholic school funding.


We also don't know that if Harper were to hold a vote on the Afghanistan mission's future today that he would lose it. But looking at the numbers and understanding how contentious of issues both were in their respective times, it shouldn't be too hard to guess the outcome of either scenario.

theatheistjew wrote:

Yes, it is wrong to fund religious schools. Again, are you for or against funding a school for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as long as they kept to the Ontario curriculum, or how about a school for Geocentric Believers?


I am for your right to apply for funding of your spaghetti monster school and for the provinces right to accept or reject that application based on whatever criteria they put forth. Same goes for Scientology, Wicca, Judaism, Islamism, etc. In fact, if you can find 300 families that want to send their children to a spaghetti monster school, I will personally lobby on your behalf for funding for that school.

theatheistjew wrote:

It is only fair, that every cult, religion, belief or non belief be able to get public funding too.


Hardly. It is fair that every faith based school can apply for funding. Receiving it is a different matter.

theatheistjew wrote:

There was no stroke of genius by Tory here. He has committed political suicide.


John Tory is demonstrating leadership. Whether or not that leadership becomes his noose remains to be seen. However, reversing now would be political suicide. I don't know where you are on this but I know some conservatives have demanded this policy be reversed. People can agree with the policy or disagree with it, but anyone who sincerely believes that reversing the policy now would be beneficial for the PC Party is (I don't think this was suggested in the forums but has been on blogs), pardon my french, fucking stupid. Imagine Harper doing a 180 on the FAA in the middle of the 06 election because a large group of conservatives were pissed about donation limits. We would have had a Martin majority written in stone after that. Thinking any political leader could reverse themselves at this point and even hang onto their current seat count, let alone trying to expand it, is incredibly naive.
theatheistjew





Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 398
Reputation: 11.2
votes: 10
Location: Niagara Region, Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Matt, I had a discussion about this with my non political wife. She grew up a secular Christian in Chatham btw. She said it is disgusting to take a child a put them in a religious school to begin with, but there is no way she is going to fund it.
She also believes strongly that this will create intolerance and more hatred as it divides children of different faiths from school to school.
As far as politics, she doesn't pay attention to the issues and votes for whoever I tell her the best candidate is (I always voted Conservative). Now, she is suddenly telling me, she is not voting for Tory, and we will both vote for McGuinty now.

She even watched McGuinty's speech at noon on CTV and agreed with me that he really looks like Anthony Perkins in Psycho.

I would vote for Tory if he admitted a mistake in bringing this to the table (a politician admitting a mistake? Maybe it would actually work), but by committing political suicide I meant, he was dead as soon as he mentioned it.
Matt





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 192
Reputation: 40.4Reputation: 40.4Reputation: 40.4Reputation: 40.4
votes: 3
Location: York-Centre

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

theatheistjew wrote:
She said it is disgusting to take a child a put them in a religious school to begin with, but there is no way she is going to fund it.


She only funds it if she checks the Catholic Board when filling out her income taxes. If she checks the public board, she doesn't fund it. Mind you both the Catholic schools and the Public schools receive funds above and beyond what is slated for them in income taxes, so the only way she could really claim "there is no way she is going to fund it" is if she were to move to another jurisdiction where she wouldn't have to. That, or somehow forcing the issue of Catholic funding to the forefront and pushing for it to be removed from the constitution, which will be a costly, lengthy, and difficult battle.

theatheistjew wrote:
I would vote for Tory if he admitted a mistake in bringing this to the table (a politician admitting a mistake? Maybe it would actually work), but by committing political suicide I meant, he was dead as soon as he mentioned it.


I for one think it would work, but not in the middle of an election campaign, and therefore not in this instance. Attacks of "flip flopper" are easily deflected by pointing out that one made these mistakes because he's only human, but if it's in the election campaign you will be attacked for not having principles, for endorsing an opponent party's position on the issue, for dithering, for having no backbone, and for the scare-factor - how many other policies will you reverse once you're elected into government??

A week in politics is a longtime, and a week in an election is an eternity. There just isn't enough time during a campaign to explain yourself on a policy reversal of any kind. If the election were next fall and Tory tested the water by floating the idea out there, a reversal before Christmas would be fine. But for having said it only last month with the vote a month from today,

I understand that you want him to reverse himself, and I can respect that. I think most people who are demanding he reverse it realize that will definitely cost him the election. However there are a few who think that reversing himself is the only way he can win. I think the latter group is nuts.
theatheistjew





Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 398
Reputation: 11.2
votes: 10
Location: Niagara Region, Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Matt, if I check that box will the Catholics receive less money from the government, even a penny less?

Tory forgot that there are many secularists who vote Conservative. This position is a huge no no. I can't see any secularist go for it unless they bleed Tory blue.

This was too important an issue to be part of a platform. In fact, it warrants a provincial vote. And that won't happen because it would mean that we would vote against Catholic school funding too.

Quebec did away with the BNA agreement and doesn't fund Catholic schools anymore.
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Mrsocko, you are talking gibberish. Science scrutinizes all new finds. If there was evidence that contradicts evolution, the scientist who found it would be more famous than Jesus Christ. There is none.



Read this book for evidence that evolution is wrong.

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe.

And he is not more famous than Jesus Christ.

You have alot of faith in Scientists. Y'know they have been wrong once or twice in the past.

I don't believe that the simpleton creationists have it right when they say that the world is 6000 years old. I also don't believe that evolutionists have it correct either.
Riley W





Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 857
Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5
votes: 10
Location: Manitoba

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The PCs are doing well!

Too bad Craig...

Quote:
Toronto, ON – A new Ipsos Reid poll conducted exclusively for CanWest News Service and Global Television and released on the eve of the official launch of the Ontario provincial election campaign finds that John Tory’s Progressive Conservatives have narrowed the gap in their race against Dalton McGuinty’s Ontario Liberals from a seven-point deficit measured on August 24th to a five-point deficit today--a result that comes in the face of John Tory’s apparently unpopular stance in favour of faith-based funding for schools, which apparently has been partially offset by the latest Conservative “McGuinty’s record of broken promises” radio blitz.

---

An online survey of nearly 1,400 voters conducted by Innovative Research Group Inc. in the days before the election found a plurality of respondents - 43% - have an unfavourable impression of Premier Dalton McGuinty. Only 33% of respondents reported having a favourable impression of the provincial Liberal leader.

Meanwhile, a greater proportion of respondents reported having a favourable impression of John Tory, leader of the Progressive Conservatives (33%) than an unfavourable impression (31%).
theatheistjew





Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 398
Reputation: 11.2
votes: 10
Location: Niagara Region, Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrsocko wrote:
Quote:
Mrsocko, you are talking gibberish. Science scrutinizes all new finds. If there was evidence that contradicts evolution, the scientist who found it would be more famous than Jesus Christ. There is none.



Read this book for evidence that evolution is wrong.

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe.

And he is not more famous than Jesus Christ.

You have alot of faith in Scientists. Y'know they have been wrong once or twice in the past.

I don't believe that the simpleton creationists have it right when they say that the world is 6000 years old. I also don't believe that evolutionists have it correct either.

Dr. Ken Miller silenced and debunked all the claims by Behe in his farcical book. I posted the Miller video, maybe you should watch it, unless you really don't want to know.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just have to note, I don't think words like "farcical" appear in scientific literature. I believe I have seen it in polemical writing though. Are you arguing religion or something else here?

PS. This whole debate reminds me about that movie "Mission to Mars". You know the one, where they discovered that life on Earth came from Mars? It only changes the question from "how did life on Earth begin", to "how did life on Mars begin". Kind of silly and pointless. No one knows, no one will ever know, unless someone actually invents a time machine, and goes back to actually take pictures.

The religious fervor on both sides is impressive though. You guys defend your canon well. Kudos especially to the religious fanaticism of the Atheist Jew, the man with an oxymoron for a name. How can you be both a Jew, which is a one God religion, and an Atheist, which is a no god religion? You could be an apostate Jew, but an atheist Jew seems impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_to_Mars
Matt





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 192
Reputation: 40.4Reputation: 40.4Reputation: 40.4Reputation: 40.4
votes: 3
Location: York-Centre

PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

theatheistjew wrote:
Matt, if I check that box will the Catholics receive less money from the government, even a penny less?


For each person that checks the Catholic board's box, the Catholic board will receive a certain sum of money based on a formula I imagine would take into consideration the range of checks for that board. Can I say that for certain? No. I'm a software developer for a private Ottawa company, not head of the educational bureaucracy in Toronto. But does it matter if you check the wrong gender or income bracket on your income tax forms? I do believe it does.

So take your position as you will; on what logically makes sense, or on a logical statement being unable to be proven 100% factual. Generally, I've noticed this type of question typically lumps conservatives in the former and liberals in the latter group.
theatheistjew





Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 398
Reputation: 11.2
votes: 10
Location: Niagara Region, Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Just have to note, I don't think words like "farcical" appear in scientific literature. I believe I have seen it in polemical writing though. Are you arguing religion or something else here?

PS. This whole debate reminds me about that movie "Mission to Mars". You know the one, where they discovered that life on Earth came from Mars? It only changes the question from "how did life on Earth begin", to "how did life on Mars begin". Kind of silly and pointless. No one knows, no one will ever know, unless someone actually invents a time machine, and goes back to actually take pictures.

The religious fervor on both sides is impressive though. You guys defend your canon well. Kudos especially to the religious fanaticism of the Atheist Jew, the man with an oxymoron for a name. How can you be both a Jew, which is a one God religion, and an Atheist, which is a no god religion? You could be an apostate Jew, but an atheist Jew seems impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_to_Mars


I guess you are redefining religious by calling me religious. I explain on my blog header how I can be both an atheist and a Jew. It isn't a hard concept for the intellectually unchallenged. Clue: Hitler would have killed me for being a Jew. He wouldn't have cared whether I believed in God or not.

Evolution is a fact, and scientists and anyone who understands how science works, knows it is fact. We know it happens, just like we know that there used to be ice ages, though nobody was there so as the creationists like to spew "how do we know they really happened, were you there?"
theatheistjew





Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 398
Reputation: 11.2
votes: 10
Location: Niagara Region, Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Matt wrote:
theatheistjew wrote:
Matt, if I check that box will the Catholics receive less money from the government, even a penny less?


For each person that checks the Catholic board's box, the Catholic board will receive a certain sum of money based on a formula I imagine would take into consideration the range of checks for that board. Can I say that for certain? No. I'm a software developer for a private Ottawa company, not head of the educational bureaucracy in Toronto. But does it matter if you check the wrong gender or income bracket on your income tax forms? I do believe it does.

So take your position as you will; on what logically makes sense, or on a logical statement being unable to be proven 100% factual. Generally, I've noticed this type of question typically lumps conservatives in the former and liberals in the latter group.

Again, I really don't care, but I just wondered what the answer was (just for trivia's sake).
I doubt they receive less, but they should receive zero. I just wrote another post on the idiocy of funding religious schools and I linked your blog to it. No need to thank me:)

http://baconeatingatheistjew.b.....-plan.html
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You see, claiming that theories are fact is not the kind of thing scientists do. You just don't understand what science is. That does not make you a bad person, it just makes you like everybody else; there are some things you understand, and some you don't.

If you want lessons on the scientific method, and what science is, you can start paying me. Otherwise, I recommend you stick to the polemics/apologias, you seem to have that down. Stay away from debates, you use too many logical fallacies to be taken seriously. Your blog would probably be a better place for this kind of writing.

Just take a minute, and reflect on how emotional all your responses are. How you favor the emotional over the rational; how you call names instead of debating. How you believe in things instead of reasoning them out, and how once you believe, your faith is unshakeable. I think you will arrive at the conclusion that the human animal cannot escape religion anymore than it can escape breathing. The need to believe in something is deeply rooted in our psyche; whether you believe in God, no god, mother Earth, or science, it is all religion. No one is more enlightened than anyone else in that regard. Your only choice with regard to religion is which one to pick.
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Page 14 of 17

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


I hope John Tory loses.

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB