Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pierre the Great

"Reasonable Accommodations" Discussion

Recommended Posts

What kind of logic is that?

Unless you're the second coming of Luna Lovegood, things don't exist until someone can prove that they do. Not the reverse.

With God, you can't prove either way, so any belief you have is pure faith and not fact.

First, your analogy is lost on me because I know nothing about Harry Potter, which from what I can tell is what Luna Lovegood is from.

Second, it's perfect logic. I'm not saying that God exists because He can't be disproven; that would be poor logic. What I am saying is that you can't say He doesn't exist because you can't prove it. It's the same both ways. Whether you say God exists or doesn't exist, you can't prove it either way. Thus, you can't just say "God exists" or "God doesn't exist. You have to precede each statement with "I believe."

It's just like time travel. Just because it hasn't been proven doesn't mean it is an impossibility. At the same time, just because it can't be disproven doesn't mean it is possible. Like time travel, God is within the realm of possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Second, it's perfect logic. I'm not saying that God exists because He can't be disproven; that would be poor logic. What I am saying is that you can't say He doesn't exist because you can't prove it. It's the same both ways. Whether you say God exists or doesn't exist, you can't prove it either way. Thus, you can't just say "God exists" or "God doesn't exist. You have to precede each statement with "I believe."

Actually they teach you in English that leading any statement with "I believe" is unnecessary. The statement is coming from you and is obviously you're own belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
who said god was a "he".

you are making me sleepy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually they teach you in English that leading any statement with "I believe" is unnecessary. The statement is coming from you and is obviously you're own belief.

Are you serious? That would mean you would have to preface fact by saying "It is a fact that..." Never in all my years of English classes was I ever taught such a thing. Maybe if you're writing an opinion piece. I mean, if I say, "Gravity exists," does that mean it's my opinion? Obviously not, it's a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think lot of people are missing the forest for the trees in this whole debate.

I dont condone what Herouxville did; or the radical racists perspective some people are expressing at the Bouchard-Taylor commission on accomodements raisonables. However this is all a backlash against the radical racism of some members from minority ethnic communities who abuses the Charter to ask for discrimatory treatment. To ask for preferential treatment based on faith is the same discrimination as to prohibit it.

In short, the various minorities who used their faith as an excuse to gain discriminatory rights and freedoms are now being faced with the fact that such a use of religion can go both ways.

In the end, the bottom line is that in order to live in a true free and democratic society, you have to keep religion out of the public space. What we see now in Quebec is the normal, natural reflex of a tolerant majority who pushes back because some minorities abused said tolerance.

The message is simple: the values (equality, justice, etc) of the majority in Quebec supersedes personal faith in the public sphere.

Take it or leave it.

i just read this post and it deserves :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Shocking Truth

Oh, and there is no God.

Since it's a different topic, I'll jump back in for more: Prove it.

limon.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, your analogy is lost on me because I know nothing about Harry Potter, which from what I can tell is what Luna Lovegood is from.

Second, it's perfect logic. I'm not saying that God exists because He can't be disproven; that would be poor logic. What I am saying is that you can't say He doesn't exist because you can't prove it. It's the same both ways. Whether you say God exists or doesn't exist, you can't prove it either way. Thus, you can't just say "God exists" or "God doesn't exist. You have to precede each statement with "I believe."

It's just like time travel. Just because it hasn't been proven doesn't mean it is an impossibility. At the same time, just because it can't be disproven doesn't mean it is possible. Like time travel, God is within the realm of possibilities.

By this logic, Santa will come on Dec25th because he can't be disproven?

Elves and gnomes exist because they can't be disproven?

This is twisted, it is the very illogical to take anything as fact based only on superstitions passed on by previous generations.

So beware of the evil eye, don't step on a crack and say 20 hail Mary's!

Yes Fanpuck there is a God, he lives in the hearts and minds of all Christians.

Edited by johnnyhasbeen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fanpuck has been arguing on behalf of my original point since I wrote it...since this is my first chance to read the points and counter-points please allow me the opportunity to defend my original point.

I'm going to throw out a couple of assumptions...I'll even go so far as to say they are fact.

1) People are not born criminal. Large groups of a demographic who turn toward crime are typically victims of their environment due to socio-economic means. I think this is a generally accepted fact in today's world.

2) Breaking the law is breaking the law. Regardless of race, colour or creed.

It seems incredibly dense to argue that you shouldn't profile a demographic because they are a "victim" of their environment. If being in that environment pushes more people into a life of crime then that segment should be profiled. The concept of racial profiling is not new in policing crime. It's happened to the Irish, Italians, Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Native Indians, Asians, etc...almost every single culture has dealt with it...and I can almost guarantee it's because every one of these cultures has experienced periods of socio-economic distress.

Having said all of this, I don't agree with the hard line "reasonable accomodation" arguments being debated in Quebec. I find it very counter to what French culture actually has stood for in the past. I always looked at Quebec with admiration over the way they've often embraced aspects of other cultures...Jackie Robinson anyone?

Taking a stance to outline that people must come here and live within our laws and standards is one thing...something that I think is steeped in common sense. As always the issue is in the extremes.

I don't know about everyone else but I'm sick of the left wing crazies, minority lobby groups who play the race card, and hard line right wing fundamentalist groups playing both ends against the middle. The majority of people don't fall into these groups but the apathy and silence of the majority is deafening.

Edited by Zowpeb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By this logic, Santa will come on Dec25th because he can't be disproven?

Elves and gnomes exist because they can't be disproven?

This is twisted, it is the very illogical to take anything as fact based only on superstitions passed on by previous generations.

So beware of the evil eye, don't step on a crack and say 20 hail Mary's!

Yes Fanpuck there is a God, he lives in the hearts and minds of all Christians.

Did you even read my post? I NEVER claimed that God exists because he can't be disproven. I specifically pointed out that I wasn't saying that at all. I clearly said that God can neither be proven nor disproven, thus it can't be said that God does or does not exist. Neither statement can be proven true or false. Saying that it is a fact that God exists is just as incorrect as saying that it is a fact that God doesn't exist.

Since you failed to grasp my analogy, I will try another. So far, there is no proof of intelligent life in the universe. Thus, we cannot say that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. At the same time, there is no proof that intelligent life cannot exist on other planets. We can't prove that there isn't an alien species living on some planet that we haven't even discovered yet. Thus, you can't say definitively that aliens do not exist. They may or may not exist, we simply do not know.

It's a two way street. If you can't prove something, you can't claim it as fact. If you can't disprove something, you can't claim it as as impossibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems incredibly dense to argue that you shouldn't profile a demographic because they are a "victim" of their environment. If being in that environment pushes more people into a life of crime then that segment should be profiled.

That's silly. If the environment facilitates more people of a certain demographic to engage in criminal activities, then the environment should be changes so that people are no longer "pushed" in to a life of crime. If we accept the fact that criminals are often made by society, then society should take steps to eradicate the process by which they are made, not keep an eye on them to make sure they don't do bad things. The later is a band-aid solution, which avoids the problem, and only serves to benefit those who profit from the unleveled playing field.

BTW, just because something has been done in the past doesn't mean it is justifiable.

Also, many of you have been arguing for a certain restrained racial profiling. Here is some breaking news ... the people that actually are on the front-lines of using racial profiling very often are lacking the restrain and wherewithal to actually keep it in check.

Having said all of this, I don't agree with the hard line "reasonable accomodation" arguments being debated in Quebec. I find it very counter to what French culture actually has stood for in the past. I always looked at Quebec with admiration over the way they've often embraced aspects of other cultures...Jackie Robinson anyone?

You mustn't be English ... I don't think that reasonable accommodations have been made for Anglos all the time. I grew up under bill 101, language laws, and other restrictive policies that basically targeted Anglos. I have seen huge Chinese signs on Montreal with very little in the way of French translation in even large font .... yet try and do that in English.

I agree with you. In many ways Quebec has been very tolerant, and accepting of other cultures ... but they have also been very intolerant. I am still very shocked when I hear the way some Quebeckers refer to Native Americans. There is a lot of Franco intelligentsia who are embarrassed about this trend in Quebec, just in case you thought I was a reactionary left winger Anglo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know...it seems ironic in some ways, but in a sad sort of way, you can see why some in Quebec are pushing so hard against immigrants and anglophones. It truly is the vision of the political elite in Quebec that the province be only home to the "pure laine" francophones. Witness Parizeau's comments after the referendum loss which he blamed on "ethnics", and it's clear that the current posturing against anglophone immigrants, and according to the PQ not giving them the right to vote, is designed to make them second class citizens and discourage them from going to Quebec. They believe it is impossible for them to convince the children of immigrants that Canada is worth seperating from, so they figure dissauding their parents from coming altogether will serve their purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's silly. If the environment facilitates more people of a certain demographic to engage in criminal activities, then the environment should be changes so that people are no longer "pushed" in to a life of crime. If we accept the fact that criminals are often made by society, then society should take steps to eradicate the process by which they are made, not keep an eye on them to make sure they don't do bad things. The later is a band-aid solution, which avoids the problem, and only serves to benefit those who profit from the unleveled playing field.

BTW, just because something has been done in the past doesn't mean it is justifiable.

Also, many of you have been arguing for a certain restrained racial profiling. Here is some breaking news ... the people that actually are on the front-lines of using racial profiling very often are lacking the restrain and wherewithal to actually keep it in check.

You mustn't be English ... I don't think that reasonable accommodations have been made for Anglos all the time. I grew up under bill 101, language laws, and other restrictive policies that basically targeted Anglos. I have seen huge Chinese signs on Montreal with very little in the way of French translation in even large font .... yet try and do that in English.

I agree with you. In many ways Quebec has been very tolerant, and accepting of other cultures ... but they have also been very intolerant. I am still very shocked when I hear the way some Quebeckers refer to Native Americans. There is a lot of Franco intelligentsia who are embarrassed about this trend in Quebec, just in case you thought I was a reactionary left winger Anglo.

There are plenty of programs in place to help people in need. Most of them are designed to keep people reliant on them unfortunately...but that's an argument for another thread. To argue that western society at large is not trying to help people out of distressing socio-economic problems is absolutely pointless...the fact is that there are literally THOUSANDS of government programs to help these people. Despite that there will always be a poor segment of society...might have something to do with the fact that the Canadian government sets a poverty line based on a percent of income rather then based on an income vs. needs. As such there will always be a large segment of "poor". Again, I'll refrain from that tangent here. Policing a demographic that has higher rates of crime is NOT a band-aid solution...the police are not there to be a solution to helping people get out of their economic problems. They are there to find criminals and prevent crime. They are enforcing the law. If you want a solution then look to the government to stop handing out programs that create generations of people to rely on them...give people hand ups instead of hand outs like most of the programs we have.

How does policing this type of demographic "profit" people who benefit from an unlevel playing field? I could easily argue that there is a LARGE portion of people who profit from the very programs that are allegedly in place to help them. Take a guess at how many people in this country are employed by the Employment Insurance division of government...I'll give you a hint...it's well over 20,000 people. Might be over 30,000 now. There's a reason people refer to things like the "homeless industry"...because there are a lot of people/charities/"non-profit organizations making a LOT of money keeping the status quo in these demographics. If you want an actual solution you should look to improving these programs. The police are there to solve crime and prevent crime. Since crime typically occurs in the poorer demographic then they should certainly spend more resources in these areas. It also happens that these areas are minority areas. It shouldn't be about race...as I said the Irish, Italians, French, Native Americans, Jews, and more have all experienced life in the poor, high crime, demographic over the centuries. However, now we have a large left wing contingent who demand retribution in the form of programs and money that they dole out and keep people dependant for long periods of time...rather then putting in programs that would help build community and help people take steps forward. They've created a generational sense of entitlement to a group of people who are poor...but profiling a poor demographic with high levels of crime is the problem?

I also never claimed any 'reasonable accomodations' have been made for anglos. I'm of french background but I'm about as english as you can get since I group up in Ontario. Hey, I know full well the racism that pervades Quebec in regards to Native Canadians and the anglo population. However, I do think Quebec has generally been more willing to let people be until the last 20 years or so. Protecting your culture is a personal thing...always should have been. But the minority should not impose it's will on the majority...that's how I've taken some of the issues in this small Quebec town. Minority religions should not feel entitled to forcing a majority to change...much like the majority shouldn't feel a hockey player should be forced to speak a language...just idiocy. Let people be what they want, how they want, so long as it doesn't infringe on how you live your life.

Edited by Zowpeb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you even read my post? I NEVER claimed that God exists because he can't be disproven. I specifically pointed out that I wasn't saying that at all. I clearly said that God can neither be proven nor disproven, thus it can't be said that God does or does not exist. Neither statement can be proven true or false. Saying that it is a fact that God exists is just as incorrect as saying that it is a fact that God doesn't exist.

Since you failed to grasp my analogy, I will try another. So far, there is no proof of intelligent life in the universe. Thus, we cannot say that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. At the same time, there is no proof that intelligent life cannot exist on other planets. We can't prove that there isn't an alien species living on some planet that we haven't even discovered yet. Thus, you can't say definitively that aliens do not exist. They may or may not exist, we simply do not know.

It's a two way street. If you can't prove something, you can't claim it as fact. If you can't disprove something, you can't claim it as as impossibility.

No, I agree fully with that and misread your post. These are all, including elves, myths, and can't be proven or disproven. It is freely up to the individual to make their own choice. I choose to disbelieve in the super-natural ever since our beloved Habs lost to The Red Army on NYeve/ I truely thought we had super natural powers back then, as a pre-teen. Oh I know we tied, but really Tetchiak won in the shoot out!

Edited by johnnyhasbeen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The later is a band-aid solution, which avoids the problem, and only serves to benefit those who profit from the unleveled playing field.

You are a saint if you feed 1,000 starving kids living poverty. You're a communist if you ask why are these kids suffering.

Watching a neighbourhood because it's "bad". Is like putting a band aid on a gunshot wound.

That's the conservatives answer to everything. More police, more security, more crackdowns. Those are just band aids. If you want to fix the problem you have to go to the core of the issue. Why is this happening? Until the Canadian public is willing to actually want to fix the problems instead of having their heads in the ground, nothing is going to happen. Instead the public is taught to laugh at community programs like an inner city basketball court, outreach programs, etc. Until the Canadian public stops this elitist attitude, a cop at ever mail box and every corner is not going to solve societies problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you even read my post? I NEVER claimed that God exists because he can't be disproven. I specifically pointed out that I wasn't saying that at all. I clearly said that God can neither be proven nor disproven, thus it can't be said that God does or does not exist. Neither statement can be proven true or false. Saying that it is a fact that God exists is just as incorrect as saying that it is a fact that God doesn't exist.

Since you failed to grasp my analogy, I will try another. So far, there is no proof of intelligent life in the universe. Thus, we cannot say that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. At the same time, there is no proof that intelligent life cannot exist on other planets. We can't prove that there isn't an alien species living on some planet that we haven't even discovered yet. Thus, you can't say definitively that aliens do not exist. They may or may not exist, we simply do not know.

It's a two way street. If you can't prove something, you can't claim it as fact. If you can't disprove something, you can't claim it as as impossibility.

Which is exactly my point. I'm perfectly aware that there's a possibility of God existing, just like there is a possibility of aliens existing (but when you think about it, what's really the difference between the two of them?), but there is still no more reason to believe that God exists than there is the tooth fairy.

No, you can't disprove the fact that elves exist but why on Earth should you believe they do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are plenty of programs in place to help people in need. Most of them are designed to keep people reliant on them unfortunately...but that's an argument for another thread. To argue that western society at large is not trying to help people out of distressing socio-economic problems is absolutely pointless...the fact is that there are literally THOUSANDS of government programs to help these people. Despite that there will always be a poor segment of society...might have something to do with the fact that the Canadian government sets a poverty line based on a percent of income rather then based on an income vs. needs. As such there will always be a large segment of "poor". Again, I'll refrain from that tangent here. Policing a demographic that has higher rates of crime is NOT a band-aid solution...the police are not there to be a solution to helping people get out of their economic problems. They are there to find criminals and prevent crime. They are enforcing the law. If you want a solution then look to the government to stop handing out programs that create generations of people to rely on them...give people hand ups instead of hand outs like most of the programs we have.

How does policing this type of demographic "profit" people who benefit from an unlevel playing field? I could easily argue that there is a LARGE portion of people who profit from the very programs that are allegedly in place to help them. Take a guess at how many people in this country are employed by the Employment Insurance division of government...I'll give you a hint...it's well over 20,000 people. Might be over 30,000 now. There's a reason people refer to things like the "homeless industry"...because there are a lot of people/charities/"non-profit organizations making a LOT of money keeping the status quo in these demographics. If you want an actual solution you should look to improving these programs. The police are there to solve crime and prevent crime. Since crime typically occurs in the poorer demographic then they should certainly spend more resources in these areas. It also happens that these areas are minority areas. It shouldn't be about race...as I said the Irish, Italians, French, Native Americans, Jews, and more have all experienced life in the poor, high crime, demographic over the centuries. However, now we have a large left wing contingent who demand retribution in the form of programs and money that they dole out and keep people dependant for long periods of time...rather then putting in programs that would help build community and help people take steps forward. They've created a generational sense of entitlement to a group of people who are poor...but profiling a poor demographic with high levels of crime is the problem?

I also never claimed any 'reasonable accomodations' have been made for anglos. I'm of french background but I'm about as english as you can get since I group up in Ontario. Hey, I know full well the racism that pervades Quebec in regards to Native Canadians and the anglo population. However, I do think Quebec has generally been more willing to let people be until the last 20 years or so. Protecting your culture is a personal thing...always should have been. But the minority should not impose it's will on the majority...that's how I've taken some of the issues in this small Quebec town. Minority religions should not feel entitled to forcing a majority to change...much like the majority shouldn't feel a hockey player should be forced to speak a language...just idiocy. Let people be what they want, how they want, so long as it doesn't infringe on how you live your life.

I think you misunderstand me. When we are talking about "racial profiling" and larger percents of certain populations being imprisoned, we aren't really talking about Canada. We're talking about the US. Although it may not be equal across the board, crime is spread much more evenly between cultures than it is in the US.

Also, I wasn't talking about hand-outs from the government, but real shifts towards better education, less of a gap between the poor and the rich, etc. etc. These are the real issues ... not hand outs and such.

Yes, Quebec has become way more racist recently. Also, it isn't about the minority enforcing its will on the majority; but rather the majority ought to respect the rights of the minority.

Now this is where the interesting part of "Reasonable Accommodation" comes in to play. How far do you accommodate other nationalities and ethnicities? Well, I think it is reasonable to say that you accommodate them as long as you do not have to alter your laws to accommodate them. When a people come to your country they ought to accept the way things are done in their new home. When you come to someone's house you ought to play by their rules. However, you shouldn't MAKE new rules in order to NOT accommodate them, like bill 101 and the language law that specifically targeted Anglos.

Now, the debate really gets interesting in Quebec, because there are two groups who did not immigrate here, but who are being discriminated against: Native Americans (who were here well before the French), and English (who won Quebec from France in 1759. These two groups should not be considered in "Reasonable Accommodation", and we should have our full rights to practice as we have always practiced, and continue to want to practice. These groups, at different times, accommodated the French to varying degrees.

I understand fully when people get upset about a student coming to school with a knife. This is illegal in Canada, and has been for years. If someone wants to practice their culture to the nth degree, they should go back to their country of origin. However, if they are willing to adapt to the pre-existing laws, or at least the spirit of these pre-existing laws (which forbids the bearing of weapons in schools), then there really shouldn't be an issue.

Edited by Bacchus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are a saint if you feed 1,000 starving kids living poverty. You're a communist if you ask why are these kids suffering.

Watching a neighbourhood because it's "bad". Is like putting a band aid on a gunshot wound.

That's the conservatives answer to everything. More police, more security, more crackdowns. Those are just band aids. If you want to fix the problem you have to go to the core of the issue. Why is this happening? Until the Canadian public is willing to actually want to fix the problems instead of having their heads in the ground, nothing is going to happen. Instead the public is taught to laugh at community programs like an inner city basketball court, outreach programs, etc. Until the Canadian public stops this elitist attitude, a cop at ever mail box and every corner is not going to solve societies problems.

Before responding to Pierre's comments...Bacchus, I agree with almost everything you said in your last post.

Pierre, policing is not, and was never meant to be, the solution. I fail to see how you believe that this has ever been the claim of anyone, at any level of government. The goal of policing is to prevent crime. Crime occurs at a higher rate in a certain demographic, typically the poorer demographic. That poor demographic, in most nations, occurs along cultural/ethnic/racial/religious lines which tend to also vary every so many generations.

Social programs are meant to be the solution. Policing is the way we protect the rights of individuals against crime. What you seem to be entirely missing is that the common thread across demographics that commit high levels of crime is not race/culture/religion/ethnicity but poverty. Police are NOT supposed to solve poverty. They are supposed to protect the population against crime. Therefore they are not a "band-aid" solution to solving your greater question...they were never meant to be.

The concern should not be about some alleged elitism from the general population. I find this concept quite amusing since in a democracy, the voice of the general population writes the policy and sets the standard for what is considered normal and just. I always find that it's the left wing who tries to tell the rest of the general population exactly why they are wrong...

The real concern should be that there are literally thousands of failing government programs in place to help the poor and disenfranchised. Not to mention the thousands of charities also in place, and also failing, to help these same people. You need to look closer at why these programs are either failing or working so slowly. I would submit that the general reason is that the programs are poorly planned by inept left wing politicians, and more specifically the bureaucrats, who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo...else, if they solved the problems for this demographic, then they would have no one left to vote for them since the programs would become obsolete.

I am sick to death of seeing people claim we need to throw more money at the poverty issues that afflict this nation. The issue is not a lack of money. It's a lack of a coherent policy that is effective, that would help people to stand up for themselves. Instead we spend BILLIONS of dollars on the salaries of people to people not get out of their current state. Instead we pay people to stay poor. You could cut these programs down by probably 90%, cut the obese government staff supporting these programs down by large numbers(thus creating even more money to help the real issue), create an easy to access, coherent and effective program that actually helps motivate people to grow and strive for a better life. Instead we'll throw them some money and let them bounce along in a wasteful, unproductive, existence...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed my point. I was attacking the American right and the Canadian right (who increasingly believe the same views) who think policing is the only way to go.

If you look at any city in the US, especially back "home". Police, Police, Police, Police, we neeed more guns on the street, everyone should be packing heat. 1940's backwards thinking. Regression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is your suggestion for the time period it'll take to get conditions fair enough that certain races aren't driven to crime? (Keep in mind that's a long-term thing.) Let crime run rampant? Declare "everyone for themselves" on the streets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Screw policing. That is not the problem.

The problem lies with activist judges who are more concerned with the rights of perpetrators then the rights of victims. I don't know what started this trend behind the bench but it's got to stop. What's the point in putting more police on the streets when a left of centre judge will slap most criminals with a petty sentence and have them back out on the street shortly afterwards.

I don't know about the States in particular but this is definitely a problem in Canada. And one of the main reasons why it's allowed to happen - the Charter of Rights and Freedoms introduced by our own Trudeau. Not that abuse of the Charter was Trudeau's intent by any means, it is nevertheless ruthlessly exploited by defence lawyers. Ask any Canadian law enforcement official.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You missed my point. I was attacking the American right and the Canadian right (who increasingly believe the same views) who think policing is the only way to go.

If you look at any city in the US, especially back "home". Police, Police, Police, Police, we neeed more guns on the street, everyone should be packing heat. 1940's backwards thinking. Regression.

Actually, what I read was that you specifically implied/said policing was a band aid solution to solving the underlying problems that the poor have which has forced them to consider crime as a means.

I also completely disagree that our right wing and the US right wing believe in the same views. Republicans are WAY more right wing then the conservatives. In fact, the conservatives in Canada are pretty centrist...much like the Liberals are. I firmly believe people seem to get sucked into voting for the Liberal party for 3 reasons: blatant media support by the largest media owner, the connotation of the their name, generational voting. Frankly, I think very little of it has to do with actually agreeing with their views on policy vs. the conservatives as they are pretty similar overall with only slight variations. You can certainly argue the conservatives are just to the right of centre and the Liberals have tended to float from there to slightly left of centre depending on what they think will get them votes on a given day...but the differences are probably marginal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radio station says calling suspect "Hispanic" is racial profiling

What a ridiculous load of crap. The poor kids who have been raped said the guy was Hispanic! This kind of stuff just blows my mind and furthers my conviction that the world is going in the crapper. Everyone's too freaking scared to hurt someone's feelings. I have news for people: life's tough. Instead of whining, get a helmet and take it like an adult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...