Free Republic

It's amazing that all those on the left keep the leftists big government ideals at the forefront regardless of the fact that they have failed no matter where and when they've been put into effect in the entire history of the world.

We won't have lines like in Canada and Britain. Yup.

Just like all the rest of the moochers and looters. The system failed because of the people involved, not because of the fundamental flaws in the system. Yup.

Under government control, there won't be 75% profits, or any level of profits. Non profit efforts are exactly that.

Bob Rae was Ontario Premier; he headed the Ontario New Democratic Party - which is the very socialist left wing party. As opposed to the standard left wing party - the Liberals.

He is certainly no dummy, and his years of governing did severely moderate his views on practical government. He was more conservative than most of his Liberal peers, and did a better overall job than most of them. But he's still a big government type with sympathy for the masses and all that good stuff.

Sorry, Bill. Your particular brand of liberation theology has been discontinued.

Catholicism is no longer the agar in which neo Marxist thinking grows like, well, alge; JPII and now Benedict have brought the Church back on track. The Vatican has given notice that it does not give aid and comfort to any organization that supplants the Gospel with the theology of totalitarianism. The 1960s are over and so, basically, are you.

Your years in the seminary appear to have not had the effect on you that they have had on some very notable padres that I have been privileged to have known. A clue, Bill: it ain't the Gospel according to the DNC.

Maybe we should spring Kevorkian and let the angel of mercy deal with all these no-longer=dangerous denizens of the California penal system.

Sarcasm.

As a society, we should not murder. But we might weld the damn bars shut and show the daily videotapes to all those schoolchildren who are making a choice between the Crips / Bloods and moral society.

I really don't care if they're dangerous any more. That's not the point. But then it's incumbent upon us to deal with these individuals as they wind down towards death. We need to get them to turn their lives around. They aren't getting out and should not. But they might persuade others not to follow their lead into a criminal life.

I don't want to be callous here, but calling a Chihuahua a dog is like calling a White Castle a Porterhouse steak.

You shouldn't be able to lose a dog the window with a sneeze or accidentally squish it with a drinking glass. Or live in fear that it would mugged by a gang of field mice if ever it got, say, into nature as far as a lawn.

If you're going to get a rat, then get a rat, I say. A normal rat, not an animal that's had its brains reduced in size by more than half during the midgitization process. Jeez.

As Lenin once published "What Is To Be Done?", I propose that we ask that question about this particular loon.

He associates himself with, among other entities, Noam Chomsky and the CBC. He wraps himself in the cloak of love for his fellow man, and lives off the proceeds of capitalism whilst sneering at it and examining the world at large to see what could possibly replace it.

For the best of all possible motivations of course.

Moron or monster - that is the question. Perhaps we need not solve this, though. The punishment ought to be the same.

I'll bet that their health costs resulting from their chosen form of non participation in the economy are very real to the taxpayer.

Paul Hellyer contributed immensely to a Canadian military presence that is now mostly imaginary.

I wonder which politician is the more idiotic - Carter for having a First Encounter with an ET, or Hellyer for attempting to set up formal government relations with them.

But we must tolerate their cultural predilections. We cannot judge them. It would not be just to expect them to operate under the rules of a civilized nation.

But their whims are as good as our laws. Just ask them.

The tourism industry is suffering a decline because of negative publicity?

It couldn't have anything to do with the mutilation of the entire country by a brutal and semi literate tinpot dictator of several tribes of backward savages who have largely forgotten how to walk upright? It couldn't have anything to do with yet another Marxist redistribution scheme that has caused the deaths of tens of thousands and turned a food exporting country into a famine area? It couldn't have anything to do with brutality on a scale that is only permitted in 3rd world nations by the same liberals who are scandalized by underpants on Arab heads?

This article could have been written by the same mainstream media here that spends much of its time and effort lionizing thugs and looters and publicly licking their unshod and unwashed feet.

Oh boy oh boy oh boy.

Gender is of course the wedge in order to pry open this particular Pandora's box.

The legion of attributes that can be selected stagger the mind. Hitler's feeble attempt comes to mind: blond hair and blue eyes. Why not a muscular build? How about tall? Long fingers for playing the piano? A super heart in case heart disease runs in the family? No chance of diabetes here. Down's Syndrome becomes a thing of the past like polio. All well and good. No down side here.

And the rejected humans wind up in the labs for their most use to society: experimental procedures or drug testing. Or in Soylent Green.

And the West finds yet another way to lose yet more ground to the fertile and more energetic societies who wish to supplant it.

Many thanks.

There was a similar exhortation or attitude that the Roman Republic adopted, which I THINK I remember, which fell by the wayside after republican rule ended and the increasingly erratic and sociopathic Caesars assumed tyrannical rule. There was no longer the great ideal of the Republic. There was only the increasingly ruthless ascending, not the greasy pole, but the bloody one.

Not really something that you might put your life on the line for - or your sons' lives.

I think that a lot comes down to whether morals are external and objective or else internal and subjective.

The secular humanists (and the liberal religious groups) seem very much inclined to do as they wish to do as they wish to do it because they can. There is little holding them back as long as they happen to have a whim to do something.

They bleat on about societal morals and ethics and there are some that have even heard of ethos. But when you get right to the core and find out what is the basis of their belief it comes down to simply what they happen to feel at the moment. It may be influenced by years or decades of relatively consistent behaviour, but there is nothing at the core that is either objective or rational.

It is the result of the feeling of one's stomach or similarly subjective bases.

Fabulous rebuttal. Reluctantly, however, I shall use the first definition that I happened to google up:

Secular Humanism: a religious worldview where "man is the measure;" man, in himself, is the ultimate norm by which values are to be determined; all reality and life center upon man; man is god.

This definition fits all those determined secular humanists that I have ever encountered in person or whose works or interviews that I have been exposed to.

And by 'man', I have observed that the meaning actually pertains to either the subject of the conversation or else the one in power. Or the one who wishes to be in power.

I have. Fascinating words. I wonder where you might have copied them from.

Anything in particular from Spartan history that lends anything to your rather wispy point?

Secular humanism IS self worship. However it is practised, it is based upon the idea that the individual human is the center of his universe and that there is no other force or entity that matters more.

Whatever the secular humanist decides at the moment is right and good. It is based upon a subjective notion of right and wrong. An internal set of criteria that is influenced by one's moods, feelings and whims. Whereas Christianity is based upon an objective, external set of criteria which does not waver.

The secular humanist's behaviour is strictly based upon the decision of the moment and is therefore unsuitable to base not only societal rules upon it, but personal ones as well.

Yes.

Unless you are culturally suicidally inclined. Then I imagine it would be most welcome.

The culture that replaces ours will have a strong ethical code and a consistent moral base. It's the only way to have a strong one and ours is weakening.

Perhaps the Latinos might supply a moral backbone. Lord knows that few American institutions have one. They are a possible hope.

Else we might consider Mandarin Chinese as a first language. After the navel gazers and self indulgent here have sapped the nation's very will to survive.

The Roman Republic could be described by the mothers' exhortations to their soldier sons: Come back with your shield, or on it.

Compare that to Mother Moonbat Sheehan's words.

There is far too much evidence for strictly belief. One must conclude that secular humanism is extremely detrimental to humans. One might conclude it is deadly. At any rate, it serves mankind better by its absence.

Any philosophy that elevates immediate self indulgence over long term well being of one and one's kindred cannot even begin to be considered as a substitute for Christianity. Well, not unless you are considering suicide for yourself and elimination of the whole human race.

My point is that there is little other documentation anywhere that would lead to the assumption that this anything more than a diplomatic shading of the truth from an ostensibly Christian nation to a fervent Muslim one.

The main difference in the role of the religious is that ours does not have clerical rule. The laws were enacted by (for the most part) lay people in a lay role. The laws were mostly aligned directly with the Christian, with major influence from English law.

I don't consider the founding fathers treasonous or (the current definition of) liberal. I consider them to have acted with political expediency.

The Presidents and cumulated Senate of the United States have never ever said or written anything that might be in the least bit misleading, have they? Especially if it could lead to political gain?