StevetheClub
-
Posts
152 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by StevetheClub
-
-
14 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:
yes and I stipulated the difference between the "far".
We can debate values. But lets not pretend that many traditional conservatives values are simply out-dated and have no place today. That doesn't mean you, as a Conservative, believe in them. But every time someone says they believe in the "traditional definition of marriage" and are a conservative, it's a PC way of being bigoted. That's all I meant. Social liberalism.
A lot of people I know are Conservatives (ie vote Conservative) but are social liberals. In Canada it's a bit different.
My point being, the right wing nuts seem to be taking more and more ground from the conservatives. Steve Bannon basically runs the White House under a Republican government. How can any moderate Republican vote for a party like that?
Sorry, I'm not following. I agree with you that the far right seems to be "taking more and more ground from the conservatives". The point I was trying to make is that you seem to be letting the far left off the hook. The far right is "nuts" and "bigoted" whereas the far left is simply something you "can't relate to". I think that the far left is just as destructive and increasingly pervasive as the far right - we only just have to look to our universities in Canada and the US to see evidence of this - and as a social liberal I find this very sad to watch.
-
I try to spend time reading both Fox and CNN. I think regardless of where you stand if your goal is to be informed and not just entertained then I think you're doing yourself a disservice by only reading what you agree with. And as someone who reads both, I find their respective leanings very clear and think they both have their fair share of contributors who sit on the far ends of the spectrum.
29 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:I have to be honest, I trust CNN more. I enjoy CNN more.
I guess Im a bad Conservative. But when I watch CNN, I consider it news. When I watch Fox, I have my filter on - I enjoy it, I like the conservative perspective, but I expect to have to filter it through a BS meter.
And while clearly most of CNN's staff are liberals, my thinking is beginning to switch. We should all be liberals. Because how we treat each other should be the defining characteristic of ourselves, our communities and our species. If you're a far left Liberal, I cant relate to you. If you're a far right liberal, believing in some Conservative things such as smaller government, fiscal responsibility, national security etc, Im on board.
But the "Conservative" movement is becoming far too hijacked by the far right to the point "Conservative" is losing its traditional meaning. At least in the US.
It sounds like you're implying that consideration for you we treat each other is a liberal value, which is unfair. As a liberal, I would say that the far left is doing just as much hijacking as the far right and that those closer to the middle on both sides value how we treat each other.
-
20 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:
I suppose if you think disabled people have it so easy, you could trade. I bet they'd be okay with that too.
Indeed. I thought maybe the first post was a lapse in judgement and that there'd be some back-tracking after Jacquie responded. Did not expect to see doubling down on the ignorance.
-
Not sure what the big deal is. He is currently overseeing two offices and it sounds like he and/or his superiors would like him to shift to one, which sounds like is typical.
-
We flew Calgary to Cancun direct with WestJet Vacations in January and the experience, from booking to touching down, was our typical - i.e., very good - WestJet experience.
-
2 hours ago, Atomic said:
Prescription pills can be helpful but can also be harmful. Apparently he was on Adavan and suicidal thoughts are one of the side effects. It is tragic. People often try to think of suicide in logical terms like it's something that someone has to be planning forever but really all it takes is one really bad night alone in your head. It is so sad.
There is definitely growing evidence that psychotropics can, and often, do more harm than good.
-
10 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:
I don't even know what to say. Lol
greatest drama of all time. Although it's a show that suffered due to its creator taking so much time off. Plus he did get too cute at times. And the whole thing suffered by running out of time at the end.
But watching it on DVD without a year off between seasons, it's phenomenal. Incredible cast. Incredible performances.
To this day whenever I hear the HBO logo intro the sopranos theme song immediately pops into my head. Sort of like how the 20th century fox fanfare is so associated with Star Wars.
I'd take The Wire over The Sopranos, but it's definitely up there.
-
16 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:
I didnt call him a denier but dismissing his choice of words is just too much right wing defense. And it rises a lot higher than a poor choice of words since he made it worse with his, presumably more thoughtful, clarification.
You quoted a response that said he should resign for denying the Holocaust and then called a defence of him not being a Holocaust-denier silly, so I think it's reasonable to think that you thought he was denying the Holocaust.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a pretty massive gaffe (any implications that I was minimizing his choice of words was unintentional), I just don't think it's helpful - in fact it's counterproductive and unneccesary - to go to such extremes when criticizing him.
- kelownabomberfan and Atomic
-
2
-
1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:
That's a silly way of defending Spicer. He wasnt referring to "allies". He was referring to "his own people". And ofcourse Hitler did. Spicer tried to clarify that he meant Hitler didnt drop bombs of chemicals, that he used them in the "holocaust centres".
Over-reaction? Come on. This is the Press Secretary.
Calling him an Holocaust denier is an over-reaction. It's clear that's not the case.
Calling him out on a very, very poor choice of words. That makes more sense.
-
37 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:
Very interesting. I'm not sure how to feel. I spoke to an ER nurse who told me about this last week. She said changes can be great but no one believes the government won't screw it up. They have to expand the remaining ER's and redeploy other ER docs so you don't have six docs spread out to six facilities but now maybe you have six or hopefully more at three.
Plus trying to divert people away from these facilities is a good idea. If you go to the ER at 2 am and wait 8 hours you might as well have gone to your GP or walk in.
I'd be interested in how many of the 50 beds for mental health services added to Victoria hospital are just re-allocated beds. Sad that mental health issues weren't given more attention considering how ill-equipped hospitals, especially ERs, are to treat mental health issues and yet they see so many. I know I'm biased, but I think addressing mental health-related visits would go a long way to improving services overall.
-
44 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:
Not sure what you are talking about. Could you post me a few examples of my whines please, so I can conduct myself in a matter that is more palatable for you in the future? And we should take this to PMs instead of airing this out in the forum.
Hear hear!
-
2 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:
Trump Won Because Leftist Political Correctness Inspired a Terrifying Backlash
What every liberal who didn't see this coming needs to understand
Probably all very true. The logic of the Trump supporters is mind-boggling, but I have no doubt the writer is bang on.
-
2 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:Here's a post from another site I follow. Maybe this will tell you a bit about why Trump won:
I think you're absolutely right in why Trump one. I disagree with their logic, but if there's one thing Trump did well is he tapped into that anger.
-
4 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:
First you talk about angry hateful rhetoric, and then you go on and post angry hateful rhetoric. The Federal Government is going to "swarm in" and eject people. Really? Look, I'll be the first to apologize if even a quarter of the apocalyptic nonsense you posted above comes true, but I've seen this crap before, in 2011, when every single PC loon was moaning about how Harper was going to get rid of abortion laws and gay marriage, and it never happened. Instead of babbling on about "tragedy and horror" why not actually give the new administration a chance? Sure beats eating the massive pile of sour grapes you have piled up in front of you.
In some ways I couldn't agree more, the problem I have is that you don't seem to practice what you preach. Apply your own advice to the Alberta NDP and federal Liberals and I may actually want to be a part of this thread more often.
I don't want to pile on you, so I'll also say that I think that much of the anti-Trump crowd is also going overboard with their apocalyptic fears (not people here, just reactions I've seen elsewhere).
One of of my favourite responses: http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/11/its-going-to-be-okay.html?utm_source=List&utm_campaign=7ddada973f-okay_2016_11_09&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5b568bad0b-7ddada973f-52034077&mc_cid=7ddada973f&mc_eid=14cb952ac7
-
-
24 minutes ago, TrueBlue said:
RE: Maas
Found the audio from his interview yesterday. 10 minutes, but quite comical.
https://omny.fm/shows/ched/nov-1-hc-jason-maas-discusses-his-concerns-about-w
If, and this is a big if, he's not talking out of his ass and his team is uniquely affected by the mic because they run an exclusively no-huddle offense then perhaps he has a point. But I'm not in a position to know how much of what he says is just excuse and how much is a legitimate, unique concern.
-
On 2016-10-08 at 10:14 AM, wbbfan said:
The difference between the legal and illegal drugs is beyond silly in many cases. Alcohol is probably more destructive then all but the hardest drugs.
If you track any huge money industry far enough down the rabbit hole you find awful destructive stuff. Any time you get such a high value in an industry of any sort you get the kind of people who would do any thing to protect it.
Exactly. If the legality of a substance was based on its harm to individuals and society as a whole (and conversely its ability to help) there would be a lot more psychotropic drugs that would be illegal and a lot more recreational drugs that would be legal.
-
-
10 hours ago, Mark H. said:
Great game. Their commentary on Lefevour was hilarious. First he's the best QB since Doug Flutie, living up to the 18 on his jersey. Second half...looks like Drew Willy will be starting next game.
Or how after 17 unanswered points Rod Black said it's been back and forth all game.
-
I'm hesitant to keep posting in this thread because I don't want to take away from discussion of the game itself - I would actually recommend the mods move it to it's own thread - so this will be my last comment in this thread.
2 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:To be fair, if someone asked me if they could take their very young baby for free, I'd assume its yes. Can parents take babies to Jets game free? I dont have an issue with them asking the NHL (which controls this game) for free admission for the baby. I dislike the narrative that the NHL is somehow forcing this mother not to breast feed. That is not true. This is about buying a ticket or not. The NHL gave them tickets. They declined. They now have lost whatever right they had to complain. They have nothing to complain about now.
Taking a baby places does not supersede other rules. Can you take your baby into a nightclub because you want to breast feed? No. Can you drive with your baby suckling on your teat? No. Again, those are silly no brain examples but this isnt about breast feeding. Its about two young know it all parents who think they should take little timmy who wont know the difference to the heritage classic and get him some media. This newspaper story will be framed on his nursery for years to come.
I'm trying really hard to be tactful, but I'm honestly not sure if you've read any articles on this based on what you've written so far. The point, from the parent's mouths themselves, is to bring attention to a ridiculous policy. There is nothing in any of the articles that I have read that indicates that they are trying to get attention for themselves, or get free tickets, or whatever.
I don't feel like going through the thread and quoting every else, but it's also not about privilege or entitlement.
Damn right they can still complain and with the NHL trying to pay them off they should complain louder. Because not only is the NHL going to do nothing about their insensitive and out-of-touch policy, they tried to bribe them with tickets on the condition they stay quiet.
Of course, the NHL has every right to have stupid policies, just like these people have the right to bring to light one policy that goes against the standard practice at every other similar venue.
-
2 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:
Which part isnt true?
Child can drink from bottle. True.
Milk can be pumped from breast. True.
Pumped breast milk can be placed in bottle for child to drink. True.
I edited my post. As I said, breastfeeding is more than just delivering milk.
Parents complained. True.
NHL rectified situation by allowing baby to attend game for free. True.
Parents declined. True.
Parents went back to media. True.
This actually indicates that they weren't in it for the free stuff and instead it was a matter of principle.
-
3 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:
As for beastfeeding issue, the child could drink from a bottle filled with pumped breast milk. Its not a breast feeding issue. Its a "we want our kid to get in for free" issue. On that one, I actually agree. A baby that young shouldnt need a ticket. The issue I have is this not a human rights issue. its a "we want free stuff from a private business" issue. They whined, got free stuff, declined and get whining. They want MORE free stuff.
The thing is,
none of what you wrote is actually true(although I suppose I'm not convinced it's a human rights issue, so perhaps that and yeah, we agree the kid shouldn't need a ticket, so there's that too).What I mean to say, is that I don't see anything in the article that states they want free stuff. Everything I see points to them wanting to right a wrong policy.
And breastfeeding is not just a milk delivery system. It is a more complex interaction than that, and a mother shouldn't have to compromise on this.
-
As for those who say it is a child protection issue, the kid could wear protective gear, like many do of that age at events like this. There's no reason for CFS to be called.
-
It's unfair, and potentially discriminatory, to tell a woman who is breastfeeding her child to either pay for a ticket or she can't go. There is plenty of precedent for this and the intensity of the reactions in this thread is honestly confusing to me. The practice of allowing a child under 2 to sit in a lap and not pay for a ticket is quite common. Airlines and athletic venues everywhere, including our own MTS Centre, have a policy allowing this. Certain events where quiet is both important and expected, such as the opera or live theatre, have no babes-in-arms policies and given the context this makes sense. For a hockey game or a flight this does not make sense.
Nowhere in the article does anyone say the mother is not allowed to breastfeed, that is very clearly not the issue. The issue is being forced to buy a ticket for the child who would sit in her lap. Again, it is common practice to not have to do this and why the NHL would do this does not make sense.
As to what the problem is, the problem is that the policy is still not to allow this, which is, again, unfair and potentially discriminating. They are standing up for breastfeeding mothers everywhere and for that, I say good on them.
US Politics
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by StevetheClub
You provided your thoughts on news organizations from both sides of the spectrum and made clear statements about how you view the far left and right; I don't think my comments are a stretch. That being said, if I misunderstood you I misunderstood you. No biggie.
**edit: Amen to the arrogance of the far left. Preaching to the choir there.