gdp's Comments

Macleans.ca : "That's kind of the sentiment we're getting at"

Sat, 7 May 2011 16:14:13 +0000

To be fair to Emily, she was saying that Elizabeth I ended religious persecution and killing in Britian. There is even a grain of truth to that (thou it's not entirely true). Liz I did do much to bring about peace between Catholics and Protestants. To say that that was the start of secularism is still just as baffling. As I note in my comment above, Elizabeth I had a large role in establishing the Church of England. That's hardly something a secularist would want on their resume.

Macleans.ca : "That's kind of the sentiment we're getting at"

Sat, 7 May 2011 16:06:49 +0000

How is the esablishment of a state run church a move towards separation of church and state? It seems to me that Elizabeth I went in the exact opposite direction, melding church and state in a way that endures to this day. Ending religious persecution has nothing to do with church/state separation. The historical record will always show that the first nation to be founded on secular principles is America. It will always remain so. Jefferson was and is a hero to freethinkrs around the world. It's a shame that anyone takes credit from him, and hands it to a monarch who in no way thought chuch and state should be separate (the exact opposite in fact). That is why I try to show you the truth. You beliefs do a disservice not only to Jeffersons memory, but to your own understanding of the history of freethought.

Macleans.ca : "That's kind of the sentiment we're getting at"

Sat, 7 May 2011 16:06:27 +0000

You have a pesecution problem if you read my post to you as an attack. I asked you a question, and even had the courtesy to say please. What part of my post did you consider an attack? I give credit to Elizabeth I for many things, and think she was a great monarch. She was not what you think she was. Thou less fanatical then bloody Mary, she was a devout protestant and believed in the divine right to rule. She also executed Catholics, thou not at the stake. Since you enjoy looking at wikipedia (I do as well), take a gander at what they say about her: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I_of_Engla... "One of her first moves as queen was to support the establishment of an English Protestant church, of which she became the Supreme Governor. This Elizabethan Religious Settlement held firm throughout her reign and later evolved into today's Church of England." cont. below

Macleans.ca : The Night of 1,000 Delusions

Sat, 7 May 2011 15:27:36 +0000

The most telling moment in the Liz May interview I saw was when she said that we actually had a "minority government" since only 60% of Canadians voted, and only 40% of those voted CPC. It makes me wonder what planet she's living on. Maybe after some time in the house she will realize that Canadians actually elected a CPC majority. I'm betting that even after that epiphany, she still won't show any respect for the result. The Greens are the most shamless self-promoters of any party. May winning her seat was the biggest black mark on what was otherwise a great night.

Macleans.ca : "That's kind of the sentiment we're getting at"

Sat, 7 May 2011 15:02:41 +0000

We've had this conversation before Emily. Could you please point out when the British came up with the concept of church/state separation? Before you answer with something about Elizabeth I let me remind you that not only was she both head of the state AND the church, she also was a proponent of the divine"right to rule" idea that was in vogue at the time. The truth is that "secularism" wasn't even a word until 50 years after Jefferson coined the term "separation of church and state" in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. Your problem is that your anti-American bias does not permit you to give credit where it is due. You hold tight to your revisonist history if you want, but you should at least make an attempt at backing up your claim by pointing to the moment in history when you think the Brits came up with the idea. My guess is that you won't be able to find any such moment, as to this day the monarch is STILL the head of both chuch and state in Britian. (even thou they have followed the Americans lead and now have a de facto secular society)

Macleans.ca : Plus/minus

Tue, 3 May 2011 17:19:05 +0000

Well I'd rather you explain it to me Emily. It is your theory after all. The Conservatives gained 391,751 more new votes this election, then the combined "left" parties you listed. How does this equal any leftward shift, nevermind a major one? It's a simple question. Does it have something to do with balloons?... cause these numbers should really pop yours.

Macleans.ca : Plus/minus

Tue, 3 May 2011 17:14:31 +0000

Just simple math actually... but thanks anyway.

Macleans.ca : Plus/minus

Tue, 3 May 2011 16:26:38 +0000

Let's test this major move left with the numbers provided. Vote change for CPC +623,332 Vote change for NDP/Bloc/Green/Lib +231,581 Do you see why this does not equal a major leftward shift? I'm sure with a little more effort towards intellectual honesty, you can figure it out.

Macleans.ca : Plus/minus

Tue, 3 May 2011 16:19:15 +0000

I think he's refering to Emily.

Macleans.ca : Layton's against the old games. It's a new one now.

Tue, 3 May 2011 16:01:36 +0000

So the CPC vote share went up by over 3 points, at the same time voter turnout increased by 2 points. It sounds like Canadians came out in droves, to support this massive leftward shift you speak of. Glad you are so happy with the result. I am too.

Macleans.ca : The Commons: The last night

Tue, 3 May 2011 14:07:44 +0000

I'll admit I was not happy with Jack after the french debate, but his strategy worked better then even he could have imagined. If that is what it took to collapse the Bloc like that, then he could promise Quebec the moon for all I care. It's not like he was going to be able to open constitutional talks anyway, even if by some miracle he had ended up as PM. You're right about Jacks future problems there too. Now he has to find a way to deliver things for Quebec, and I don't see how he's going to do that.

Macleans.ca : The Commons: The last night

Tue, 3 May 2011 11:28:53 +0000

The NDP hype that had you down probably scared Ontario Blue. I know the idea of PM Layton had me a bit edgy. Nice to see that you have realistic future expectations thou. I'm sure Harper will do many more things that I hate, but for now it tastes like victory... and the taste is sweet.

Macleans.ca : The Commons: The last night

Tue, 3 May 2011 11:23:31 +0000

It's like Christmas and my B-day all rolled into one. Osama as fish-food and my most hated political enemies, the Bloc, reduced to virtually nothing in the space of 24 hours. I couldn't have imagined how good of a week this would be. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Macleans.ca : Radio-Canada lies "all the time", says Kenney

Thu, 17 Feb 2011 21:00:20 +0000

Kelly McPharland takes Kenney to the woodshed (rightly so): http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/17/ke...

Macleans.ca : Radio-Canada lies "all the time", says Kenney

Thu, 17 Feb 2011 20:58:45 +0000

I don't find this "joke" funny, as Kenney has shown a cavalier regard for the truth in the past. He claimed that he did not direct the omission of SSM from the citizenship guide. Turns out... he did. He claimed, when in Israel, that Kairos was defunded due to anti-semitic leanings. He came home... and claimed that he hadn't said that at all. He claimed that there was no interference from his office in keeping George Galloway out of Canada. Turns out... there was. In many ways I respect Kenney. He has been a very good immigration minister, and is probably one of the better retail politicians going. This current goof-up by him clearly encapsulates why I could never support a party that he leads. I know some of my Conservative brethren are pretty high on him for future leadership. I hope they reconsider for the sake of the party, and the country. A man who thinks like this (and is clumsy enough to be caught at it) should never achieve our highest office. There is a distinction between political dissemination, and bald-faced lying. Kenney doesn't have the proper respect for the difference.

Macleans.ca : NFL Picks: The Super Bowl of football games

Sun, 6 Feb 2011 16:45:12 +0000

Since Mr.Reid picked the Steelers I guess I can start the party early. Green Bay is now fated to win. Mr. Feschuk is right on about Pittsburgh's Secondary. It is awful (except for Troy of course). The rest of the D is scary, but the Packer O-line should hold up. Pittsburgh's O-line is a different story. With their pro-bowl center out they will have to double team Raji all day. This means alot more room for CM3 or Woodson to get to the QB. Bathroom Ben is going to have more trouble picking himself up off the turf, then he has in picking up sober women. I won't call him Rapelisberger thou. It's innocent till proven guilty for me. As far as I'm concerned Kobe did nothing wrong outside of cheating on his wife, and OJ did not directly murder anyone.

Macleans.ca : Jesus historians get an earful from Maurice Casey

Sat, 22 Jan 2011 19:56:19 +0000

You are correct about the question of "young woman" vs. "virgin". Matthew takes a verse out of the old testament, (Isaiah 7:14 -"A virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel"), and tries to apply it to Jesus when it has nothing to do with him . You can read the story in Isaiah to get the context. Hebrew has a specific word, "betulah", for a virgin, and a more general word, "almah", for a young woman. Almah is the word used in Isaiah, and the author of Isaiah knew the difference, as he uses betulah later on.

Macleans.ca : NFL Picks: These ones are for half the marbles!

Sat, 22 Jan 2011 19:09:31 +0000

Thanks for the link. If Aaron wins on Sunday he will also have as many road playoff victories as Favre had in his whole career. I feel blessed that my team replaced a HoF QB, with one that may turn out to be even better. He is quite humble too. When asked about being compared to Brady, Manning, and Brees he said, "I think we need some more hardware around here first.". Give the man a prize. That is exactly the right answer.

Macleans.ca : NFL Picks: These ones are for half the marbles!

Sat, 22 Jan 2011 19:03:20 +0000

How does that explain how Tom Bieber won three Superbowls with normal hair? All I can say about Gisele is that she better hope she doesn't get pregnant. Old Tom would just throw her over the side for a new "model".

Macleans.ca : NFL Picks: These ones are for half the marbles!

Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:20:44 +0000

It looks like they both picked right to me. Did you look at Feschuk's record up there at the top? He ain't always wrong. You try picking every game against the spread one year, add up your record, and see how knowledgable you are in comparison.