Violator Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 E1 Even though i picked E1 its still feels a little left leaning for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ilunga Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Alflives said: I remember reading somewhere about the Natives peoples' of our British Columbia coast not having wars. It was due, in large part, to the older and wiser women choosing a male chief to represent them in meetings with other tribes. If these women didn't like the direction of the chief (for example wanting to start a war) the women replaced him. There's a picture of the US leaders watching the live feed of bin Laden getting killed. There were a lot of men (including Obama) watching like they were at a football game. Then Hillary was there, and she was totally aghast. Maybe women should rule? Check out Benobos brother ,they and chimpanzees are the closest species to us on the genome, 98 percent I believe. Chimps are a patriarchy like humans, Benobos are a Matriarchy. When the males get contentious the just sex them up until they calm down. Imagine if human society was the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samurai Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 5 hours ago, Alflives said: I remember reading somewhere about the Natives peoples' of our British Columbia coast not having wars. It was due, in large part, to the older and wiser women choosing a male chief to represent them in meetings with other tribes. If these women didn't like the direction of the chief (for example wanting to start a war) the women replaced him. There's a picture of the US leaders watching the live feed of bin Laden getting killed. There were a lot of men (including Obama) watching like they were at a football game. Then Hillary was there, and she was totally aghast. Maybe women should rule? The natives of the west coast kept slaves and regularly engaged in warfare. Well researched and no different than any type of hunter-gathering society. The norm for these societies was violence - if you lived in that time your chances of being killed by violence were extremely high. There is a myth that such societies were peaceful. Euros were just as bad and it wasn't really until the 15th century where death by violence started to drop in Europe. Humans regardless of where we came from were more violent than we are now - not even comparable really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 Rhino for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ilunga Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 10 hours ago, Alflives said: I remember reading somewhere about the Natives peoples' of our British Columbia coast not having wars. It was due, in large part, to the older and wiser women choosing a male chief to represent them in meetings with other tribes. If these women didn't like the direction of the chief (for example wanting to start a war) the women replaced him. There's a picture of the US leaders watching the live feed of bin Laden getting killed. There were a lot of men (including Obama) watching like they were at a football game. Then Hillary was there, and she was totally aghast. Maybe women should rule? Check out Benobos Alf. They and chimpanzees are the closest living relatives to humans Chimps, like humans are a patriarchy, to quote from a Science article "males reguarly attack,and sometimes kill,adults and babies,from their own and neighbouring groups sometimes forming coalitions to do battle together" Sound familiar ? Benobos are a Matriarchy, quoting from the same article," in contrast Benobos societies are relatively peaceful with squabbles rarely escalating to serious violence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ilunga Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 8 hours ago, samurai said: What do you mean by fact? You are talking about re-distributing by gov't action which as you should know costs money. You cannot call yourself conservative and in the same breath advocate progressive gov't social policy. You may support fiscal responsibility but that is a far stretch from conservative. I do believe it to be a fact that you can support women's reproductive rights, seperate church from state,same sex marriage,health care for all and believe in and act on climate change and be fiscally conservative. And do this by legislation. I call my self fiscally conservative and socially progressive. As to how I would do this refer to Huey Longs speech, Every Man a King. While the details would be different, the overall tone of his speech about the levels of debt and redistribution of wealth would be the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samurai Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 16 minutes ago, Ilunga said: I do believe it to be a fact that you can support women's reproductive rights, seperate church from state,same sex marriage,health care for all and believe in and act on climate change and be fiscally conservative. And do this by legislation. I call my self fiscally conservative and socially progressive. As to how I would do this refer to Huey Longs speech, Every Man a King. While the details would be different, the overall tone of his speech about the levels of debt and redistribution of wealth would be the same. Okay so you support reproductive rights but as a gov't you wouldn't fund it - that is the basic contradiction. Fiscally conservative as it is generally understood means minimal taxation and limited gov't involvement because it costs money. So if you fund it you aren't FC and if you don't fund it you are not progressive. Acting on climate change would be another example. Separation of church and state has nothing to do with either position, nor same sex marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ilunga Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 34 minutes ago, samurai said: Okay so you support reproductive rights but as a gov't you wouldn't fund it - that is the basic contradiction. Fiscally conservative as it is generally understood means minimal taxation and limited gov't involvement because it costs money. So if you fund it you aren't FC and if you don't fund it you are not progressive. Acting on climate change would be another example. Separation of church and state has nothing to do with either position, nor same sex marriage. You obviously did not get my point or read the speech I asked you to check out. I define fiscally conservative as not spending more money than one, in this case a society makes. I would fund the socially progressive ideas that cost a society it's wealth by legislating a redisdtribution of wealth in a way similar to the way Huey long describes in his speech, every man a king, but in modern terms. Example from said speech he states 12 people own more than 120.000.000 million people. I would redisdrebute that wealth. Like I stated read the speech then you will understand what I mean. I do understand that he was going to run for president , a month after delivering this speech he was assinated. He was already enacting policies similar to the ones he describes in his speech in his home state of Louisiana where he was governor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 10 hours ago, Ryan Strome said: Rhino for me. I always preferred the Work Less Party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 17 hours ago, brownky said: You're **** out of luck. Those people have real jobs and are too busy working to make ends meet. Or they are doing so well personally by using those skills that trying to do things in the public sector would be a significant downgrade and they aren't altruistic enough to bother. A lot of those people know they can make a lot more money in the private sector so for them the public sector is useless to them, just as you stated. Its unfortunate but the smartest people aren't going for political office ever, they know when and where to make their money elsewhere. 16 hours ago, Alflives said: I remember reading somewhere about the Natives peoples' of our British Columbia coast not having wars. It was due, in large part, to the older and wiser women choosing a male chief to represent them in meetings with other tribes. If these women didn't like the direction of the chief (for example wanting to start a war) the women replaced him. There's a picture of the US leaders watching the live feed of bin Laden getting killed. There were a lot of men (including Obama) watching like they were at a football game. Then Hillary was there, and she was totally aghast. Maybe women should rule? In fairness Alf, it had been what? An almost 10 year hunt to track him down after 9/11, I am sure everyone there was anxious to finally get the man who had orchestrated the worst single attack the world had seen at the time (I believe it was?? My history is failing me right now). The fact that your fellow man had been hunting this guy for years and years, to finally get a final location on him and get him (dead or alive), was probably something every person had been waiting for to finally bring "peace" to the American population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 17 hours ago, Qwags said: INFP. I feel your pain. But I'll never say it out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 20 hours ago, Baer. said: Alright guys.... Who put C3 “We dance round in a ring and suppose, But the Secret sits in the middle and knows.” ― Robert Frost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 On 10/1/2018 at 10:10 AM, canuckster19 said: With all the politically charged hubbub going on I thought it would be interesting to get a perspective of how CDC feels they lean politically. So here's the chart, pick the coordinate that suits you, votes are anonymous. Apologize for my lack of MS Paint skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckster19 Posted October 8, 2018 Author Share Posted October 8, 2018 4 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said: So the lower class is living on a prayer? The middle is halfway there? And the upper class will make it, they swear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 6 minutes ago, canuckster19 said: So the lower class is living on a prayer? The middle is halfway there? And the upper class will make it, they swear? Dead or alive...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 I am confused! I believe in the following...….. 1. I am an environmental realist...…………..everyone pollutes and no one should 2. I am a humanitarian and a capitalist...…..we need to look after those that need it, and keep what we earned 3. I believe nothing is for free 4. I believe in gender equality, even in the courts! 5. I do not believe business should be able to lobby government 6. I do believe everyone needs to stand up for themselves, within a family, community and globally 7. I believe that everyone in Canada should be given a piece of land that they need to live on (this gives them opportunity) 8. I believe in rules and transparency 9. I believe in free government votes and no party affiliations 10. I believe in geo-thermal heating, and LED lighting 11. I believe in the death penalty 12. I am a BC separatist, and a Canadian Nationalist 13. I believe that everyone should take their own lunch pale to work Like I say......I am confused! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 23 hours ago, janisahockeynut said: I am confused! I believe in the following...….. 1. I am an environmental realist...…………..everyone pollutes and no one should 2. I am a humanitarian and a capitalist...…..we need to look after those that need it, and keep what we earned 3. I believe nothing is for free 4. I believe in gender equality, even in the courts! 5. I do not believe business should be able to lobby government 6. I do believe everyone needs to stand up for themselves, within a family, community and globally 7. I believe that everyone in Canada should be given a piece of land that they need to live on (this gives them opportunity) 8. I believe in rules and transparency 9. I believe in free government votes and no party affiliations 10. I believe in geo-thermal heating, and LED lighting 11. I believe in the death penalty 12. I am a BC separatist, and a Canadian Nationalist 13. I believe that everyone should take their own lunch pale to work Like I say......I am confused! This doesn't even make sense and sepratism has no place in Canada imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattJVD Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 Mostly call myself a centralist. I have some right leanings: I think the government should leave most sectors off the economy alone With some left leanings: I do think a lot of environment protection regulations are necessary. I do like publicly (100% general tax revenue funded, not user funded) healthcare and education. A current hot button topic around here is housing: I lean right on that issue. It's the individual's responsibility to provide them selves with housing, not the state's responsibility to house them. Municipalities need to get out of the way and let the industry react to the increased demand without being delayed for years in expensive regulatory hurdles (which the cost of gets passed down to the buyer). I'm okay with helping a neighbor out if they're on hard times (Employment Insurance, WITB, etc). But I'm not okay with free rides. Edit: I listed as more on the globalist side. I wouldn't mind seeing 0 tariff trading with every state as a starting point. Adding a tariff if a state is producing it's products cheaply by have lax environmental or worker protection policy. If another state can produce something more cheaply than you, and they are not destroying the environment or their workers, then good for them. They are more efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 On 10/8/2018 at 11:50 AM, Rob_Zepp said: Dead or alive...... Like a record? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.