Heretic

Members
  • Content count

    13,258
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Heretic last won the day on January 28 2016

Heretic had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6,461 Gaming the system

About Heretic

  • Rank
    Canucks Franchise Player
  • Birthday 09/11/1963

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Armstrong, BC
  • Interests
    God, Hugs, Wife, Daughters & Son, Hockey, Football, Motorcycle, Camping, Computers, Sci Fi...

Recent Profile Visitors

40,812 profile views
  1. Motion 103, also known as M-103, is a motion proposed during the 42nd Canadian Parliament by Iqra Khalid, a Liberal MP representing Mississauga—Erin Mills. The motion states that the members of the House of Commons call on the Government of Canada to condemn Islamophobia in Canada and "all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination". It also calls on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to carry out a study on how racism and religious discrimination can be reduced and collect data on hate crimes. The motion passed by a vote of 201–91 on March 23, 2017.[1] So, I take that bold part to mean that Sharia Law can never exist in Canada neither then. Some think it's against "free speech"... Rex Murphy: M-103 has passed. And what today has changed for the better? Rex Murphy | March 24, 2017 5:04 PM ET More from Rex Murphy David Akin/National PostThe anti-Islamophobia motion M-103 has attracted protesters to Parliament Hill. The basic question to ask the supporters of the contentious anti-Islamophobic motion is has it any utility? Will it do anything? Will it change attitudes for the better? If there is a stock of genuine Islamophobia in Canada, will recording this motion decrease it, or move to decrease it? That, I presume, was the priority consideration in the minds that brought it forth. Obviously, they must have thought it would, for otherwise there would be no point in issuing it, arguing for it, and stirring the quite considerable debate it already has. For the motion itself, and the politics that attended it, have not been without contention. The questions raised on its wording were legitimate. Why the particular focus on Islam? Why not a motion, as some have suggested, speaking out against prejudice against all religions? There is also concern that the motion will, in some manner, chill valid criticism of Islamist terror, or will not make allowance for legitimate criticism or analysis of Islam. Such criticism would now be forced to wear the degrading mantle of Islamophobia. Given this welter of mixed impressions and varied understandings of the very point of the motion, how effective can it be? There is the key term itself, Islamophobia. As I have suggested in an earlier piece, this recent coinage, Islamophobia, is itself a contested term. The minister piloting the motion sees Islamophobia as “the irrational hatred of Muslims that leads to discrimination.” That’s not as clear as at first glance it might seem. If the fear is “irrational,” then the ambition to reduce it by means of a distant parliamentary motion is a curious if not a wild response. Irrational fears are by definition those not subject to reason. We eliminate those only by therapy or medicine. We do not argue them away. Hence, we have never had a motion deploring claustrophobia. The cruel deeds, by a terrorist, at the British Parliament this week give sombre point to these concerns. Should we not have some moderate response of caution and concern after London? Is that irrational? There is nothing irrational in having a reasoned or limited fear towards a group publicly committed to terrorism, and self-declared perpetrators of it, in the name of Islam. Nor is there bigotry, Islamophobia, in seeing the declared connection with Islam in these kinds of terror acts. If there is an Islamic connection, and it is declared ,even insisted upon, by the actors themselves, it is surely not phobic both to see the connection, and heed the declaration. Then too, there is the rhetorical or forensic deployment of the term. A person who criticizes Islam, or who reasonably makes a connection between current terrorism and certain groups within Islam will, in some circles, very quickly be labelled Islamophobic. No one likes to be called a bigot, and thus people — under fear of such a charge, mute their speech, trim their thoughts and withhold honest criticism because of the weight of this word, Islamophobe, being placed on their shoulders. Plainly put, sometimes the charge of Islamophobia is merely a harsh and dishonest way of shutting down an argument, or expelling all discussion. Who argues with bigots? Yet there is an even wider reason to question the motion’s value. Time and again it was stressed that it was not a law, not a piece of legislation, but a mere motion. It therefore mandated precisely nothing. It had no penalties for people who choose to ignore it, brought into being no requirements in action. So, it must be presumed, its point was merely to place on parliamentary record the sentiment of the House of Commons on a sensitive manner. And, to be blunt, what will that likely achieve? Will it perhaps launch one of Parliament’s dubious and protracted studies? Will it change the social or moral landscape of the country in any detectable way? Its proponents make such a case for its innocuousness, such a point of repeating it is not legislation, and how it will not alter existing laws or behaviours. So what will it do? What is it for? We might add as well that the public have long lost the habit, if they ever enjoyed it, of looking on Parliament Hill as their moral lighthouse. I will go further. My guess is that the great swath of the Canadian public, the great large centre hailed by politicians of every stripe, is not really in need of guidance. They are not reflexively or otherwise “haters of Islam” and are appalled by the very notion. In fact the public might more readily send moral signals to Parliament than the reverse. The remaining segment, that element that we may agree are in the obnoxious camp of genuine prejudice, will be oblivious to the point of contempt at any prodding from “those politicians” to change their minds or views. Can a mere motion really carry any weight with the very set it is designed to address? I really do not think so. A buzz of stupid chatter is all they will hear if they listen at all. Finally, it is interesting that by raising this matter to parliamentary attention, the motion itself provoked more of a storm than it settled. There were contentions in the House. There were the usual accusations of playing politics with a sensitive issue. There was sharp division on why Islam was centred in the debate and not all prejudice towards all religion. Was that helpful? To return to my original question, was the debate and division in Parliament itself likely to reduce in any measurable way the Islamaphobia its was designed to reduce? http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-m-103-has-passed-and-what-today-has-changed-for-the-better
  2. If the Devils had a better goalie than us that could steal a few games for them, they would be ahead of us in the standings.
  3. Don't check out that new Hot Mess thread - it's a mess. 

    1. Rubik

      Rubik

      I've never heard this song... but Pink Floyd is aweosme.

    2. zzbottom

      zzbottom

      But how hot is it? 

  4. The company I worked for, lost the contract. I was told the differences was about $250K or so, 300 of us were laid off July 1st last year. The company that won the contract, touts itself as a "Canadian" company - yet most of their "employees" are in India, and except for a couple of entry level positions (to do "hands on work" like installing a pc on someone's desktop), they didn't want to hire any of us. I agree, they could have saved that money easily elsewhere - maybe there was more going on that I am not privy to...still, bottom line is, 300 people out of work, not contributing to the economy the way they used to...I was out for 7 months, started a short term contract at the end of Jan this year...but I'm still seeking a permanent position.
  5. The problem is, people there (over seas) contribute ZERO to our economy, and the people here displaced, cause a drain on our economy - collecting EI, not paying back into the system in the way of taxes as they used to, not spending as much on goods and services, etc...etc...all just so that some big corporation can save about $250,000 dollars in expenses. That may seem like a lot, but to them, it's peanuts. So it has nothing to do with "quality" as you say at all - the person who replaced me is just as qualified as I am, though their ability to communicate effectively is much lower (English language barrier, Canadian culture).
  6. Hard to do when you're an "older" worker, but yes, definitely do that when you're younger (I went back to school when I was 25 and got a computer electronics diploma) Tip for anyone wanting to get into the IT/Computer industry - DON'T. Get a trade instead - like an electrician - you'll have work for life. Your job can easily be done by someone over seas, like in India for a fraction of what you are worth here. That's what I want to see change - increased taxes to company's that use employees over seas for work done in Canada.
  7. Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away...
    Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air...
  8. Only the Canucks, with a delayed penalty call, would dump the puck into the opponents end... I know this isn't the 1st time I said this, this season...
  9. Thanks to beating the Wild, we now are more than likely going to pick 4th.  (which really isn't 4th - it's 5th thanks to Vegas).

    1. Show previous comments  7 more
    2. canuktravella

      canuktravella

       pears wheres edler  gone and ya tanev is probably getting traded

    3. Chip Kelly

      Chip Kelly

      Necas,Glass, or Poehling for me. I would stay away from d unless they are the obvious BPA.

       

      Center is the #1 priority imo over wing or d.

       

      Actually maybe not Glass or Foote for that matter with Canucks luck these type of guys would probably get hurt.

       

      Centers can always move to wing. When Craig Button compared Necas to Claude Giroux at a similar age my antennae perked up!!

    4. Ghostsof1915

      Ghostsof1915

      Are you not entertained????????

  10. Well there you go - no need to be snotty about it. Sometimes thought, where there's smoke, there's fire.
  11. No idea how valid this source is, interesting but the title is a little too exaggerated: Trump Catches John McCain In Most Sickening Act Of White House History NEWS by American News 3 hours ago0 In the past few months, Arizona Senator John McCain has been on a personal vendetta to destroy President Donald Trump. Now, it looks like his pitiful revenge strategy may be costing him his career. Since Trump took office, the White House has been plagued with information leaks to the public. Now, Time Pundit is reporting that McCain is high on the list of suspects, noting that he somehow gained access to the content of President Trump’s private, classified telephone calls with world leaders. After reviewing McCain’s public statements about Trump and from intelligence personnel, White House officials believe McCain has inside knowledge of the president’s phone calls—including one with Russian President Vladimir Putin. If this is true, McCain is making things worse by sharing this information with his colleagues and possibly the mainstream media. “He has been given transcripts or actually listened to calls and is sharing what he has heard. There is no doubt. He is one of the major leaks,” an administration insider reportedly said. http://americannews.com/trump-catches-john-mccain-sickening-act-white-house-history/
  12. De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da...

    1. Ghostsof1915

      Ghostsof1915

      That's all you want to say? :lol:

    2. smithers joe

      smithers joe

      i'm impressed with your command of vocabulary. stellar. 

  13. A bit unrelated but this idea that certain demographics should be covered has been making me wonder about whether that's the issue all along with the world view we live in. That is, we're all supposed to be the same, but all the non-white-male groups out there seem hell bent on leather making sure there is separation...that is, by wanting to be singled out, have your own marches/parades / ____ lives matter - don't you think that in itself is what is causing the "differences" issue and/or contributing to it? Who cares if you're black/white/brown/yellow/male/female/gay/atheist/christian/muslim/blue collar/white collar/conservative/liberal/what have you?
  14. I will not read trade proposals...I will not read trade proposals...I will not read trade proposals...I will not read trade proposals...I will not read trade proposals...I will not read trade proposals...I will not read trade proposals...

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. Heretic

      Heretic

      I need to stay out of the Proposals and Armchair GM'ing forum - makes me crazy.

    3. smithers joe

      smithers joe

      everybody has different opinions. and of course, our opinions are golden and matter above all. 100 different opinions and we are all right. what drives you crazy about that?

    4. Heretic

      Heretic

      There are opinions, and there are dumb @ss ones....the opinions don't bother me.