Aller au contenu
publicité

Cataclaw

Membre
 Afficher le profil  Parcourir son contenu

  • Compteur de contenus

    6 349

  • Inscription

  • Dernière visite

  • Jours gagnés

    16

 Type de contenu 

Tout ce qui a été posté par Cataclaw

  1. Cataclaw
    This was to be expected anyway. Besides, Saturn sucks.
  2. Cataclaw
    Agreed, peluche!
  3. Cataclaw
    Vive la 132 et vive les trois passerelles par dessus qui permettent ces belles prises de vues!
  4. Cataclaw
    War is bad and i'm against war. Armed conflicts necessary to stop genocide, for example, i can approve of. Troops do more than just fight wars. They perform disaster relief, peacekeeping and other noble things. They even instruct our youth and teach them how to be good neighbors and good citizens (instructors of the canadian cadet organization, a free non-profit organization dedicated to helping kids 12-19 improve their lives and have fun doing it. Often times rescuing teens that were into drugs and violence and teaching them good values and helping them with their problems.) This is why you should support the troops. When i say support the troops, i mean support them on a personal level. I don't mean support the wars they might be forced to fight or the politicians ordering them. Our Canadian Forces give their lives fighting for peace and trying to save lives. You're pretty cold if you don't support them. I'll remember to tell them that next time an ice storm strikes and a tree falls on you and you need emergency support.
  5. Cataclaw
    As military myself, i have to agree. I think it's crucial to being patriotic. Everyone should support the troops! That being said, you're allowed to disagree with the rationale behind war. I disagreed with the Iraq war but i still support my brothers in uniform to the south!
  6. Cataclaw
    Je vais faire une exception à ma décision de ne pas participer dans ce fil pour venir répondre à une question qui m'a été posé directement. Je n'ai pas suggéré que Yara parlait au nom de tout le monde. Ca serait franchement ridicule de dire une telle chose. Lorsque Yara dit 'vous', c'est évident qu'il parle du monde qui ne sont pas d'accord avec lui, bref, ceux qui "bitch sur elle". Lorsque je dit 'nôtre', je parle de ceux qui partagent mon opinion, autrement dit les mêmes personnes assigné à 'vous'.
  7. Cataclaw
    Ton opinion, Yara. C'est ton opinion, pas la nôtre. Moi je pense qu'elle capote un peu trop, quoique c'est vrai que nos jeunes parlent un français massacré. Sur ce point là je suis d'accord avec elle. Ceci est mon dernier message dans ce fil. Fuck me if i get drawn into this bullshit again.
  8. Cataclaw
    Better not tell this lady about Chinatown! She'd flip out at all the foreign languages being spoken there.. Or worse yet, the signs! They don't even have letters!
  9. Cataclaw
    Here we go again
  10. Cataclaw
    War on terror : agreed. It's totally naive to think you can completely eliminate terrorism. This is why the term 'war on terror' is no longer used. Bush a war criminal : i disagree with this idea. I strongly believe Bush was not an evil man, as many like to suggest. I simply believe Bush was acting in the way he thought was best for his country. Unfortunately, i also think Bush is extremely unintelligent. To be blunt, the man is stupid. As a result, we ended up with what i believe was a terribly awful administration, far from the best the Republican party has ever offered. Dumb? Unquestionably. Ignorant? Possibly. Malicious or deceitful at times, could well be. A war criminal? Nope.
  11. Cataclaw
    If you ask me, patriotism is an intensely personal and subjective thing. The term "patriotism" should be dropped from the public dialog.
  12. Cataclaw
    Now watch this drive!
  13. Cataclaw
    So, in general GoMontreal, it seems out of two issues we agree on one and disagree on the other. We agree in principle that wanting Bush, or wanting Obama, to fail, isn't cool. Disagreeing with the policies is one thing, but hoping those policies fail, even if they succeed resoundingly thus helping millions of Americans, isn't appropriate. But we seem to disagree on the whole socialism thing. And that's where our core differences prevent us from seeing eye to eye, even if we tried. For that reason i don't see a need to debate further, we've said our pieces and it's unlikely we'll convince each other. The one little bit i'd like to comment on is USPS. You claim the public option would destroy competition because it would be too good for the consumer, yet you believe the government can't do anything right and cite the example of USPS. Well, if USPS is only borderline satisfactory which is why FedEx and UPS can operate, logically it would be reasonable to expect a similar potential outcome with the health care service. The public option will most likely be borderline satisfactory, and private options will continue to operate. I'm not asking for you to agree with me on the viability of the public option, but for the sake of logic, you have to at least acknowledge the possibility that the aforementioned outcome is likely or at the very least possible! I know how you feel about this... i can almost guess what you're thinking. Rationally, you suspect what i say has the potential to be correct, but emotionally you can't stand the idea of government stepping into the picture. Well that's where i bust out my big word: "balance". I firmly believe that in most things in this world, balance is key. If you're too nice, you'll be trampled over. If you're too mean, everyone will hate you. Balance. If government fills in for what the private sector can't do, that to me is appropriate balance. It isn't "taking over everything". If government ran everything, we'd truly be socialist, and i wouldn't want that either. There are extremes... and in this instance, i find a modest public option to be a sustainable and viable solution that respects the notion of balance.
  14. Cataclaw
    You can be absolutely convinced that socialism is bad, but you ought to still hope the president succeeds in pushing for a socialist agenda if that agenda yields results. The rationale? Simple : "I hope i'm proven wrong." Example : If i strongly believe conservative policy X is bad, very very bad, and if President Y was trying to push for it, i would disagree with the policy, but still hope it worked. I would hope that President Y succeeded in making that policy achieve its objectives. Then i could happily say i was proven wrong. It's called having an open mind and changing your views when new information challenges your previously held opinions critically. I simply disagree. Obama has implemented a tremendous amount of reform in his short term in office. Some sources point to figures suggesting he's actually done more in the last 9 months than Bush in his entire second term. I personally believe a lot of that is genuine change. Increased gay rights. Increased separation between church and state. Closing of Gitmo. Pulling out of Iraq and stepping up the game in Afghanistan. Going after ambitious health care reform. Etc. I think it is change, not more of the same. In fact i think there is a factually undeniable amount of genuine change going on. Whether or not that change will all turn out to be good change... remains to be seen. I think it will, for the most part. That's just where you and I don't see eye to eye. You know, psychologists say the most rational people are the ones that are able to change their minds whenever new information is presented. I'm not saying i'm the most rational person in the world, but i will say this. I know my stance on issues. I'm also extremely open minded. "If Bush's policies turn out to be good, then fantastic". Yes, indeed. Why on earth wouldn't i find it fantastic? I'd love to be wrong if it meant the betterment of society. If policies i thought were incorrect turn out to be correct, then good for the people! It would challenges my ideas, force me to think, analyze... but what's wrong with that? I would ultimately grow as a rational individual. See, here's the thing about ideals and convictions... a strong conviction isn't about believing what you want to believe no matter what, always standing by your ideas. No. A strong conviction and strong ideals is about believing something and being able to rationalize and justify very thoroughly why you believe what you do. If you're able to do that, and new information is presented that challenges your convictions, then those convictions should logically change, lest you ignore the hard facts and go on thinking what you thought was correct. This is a fundamental principle of liberalism : rationalization, logical critical thinking, open mindedness and the capacity to change and evolve your ideas, concepts, convictions and beliefs according to the ever changing world around us. I see no factual evidence that suggests Obama or his staff is far-left and socialist. Bring me proof to the contrary and i'll be happy to reconsider my position. Again, i see nothing that suggests that at all. Got any examples or factual evidence that might support your arguments? Right. By that logic, damn the government for also offering roads, street lights, clean water and sidewalks! Oh, but those are necessary for having a functional economy, you say... right. So it's justifiable to build roads, but it isn't justifiable to save human lives. You know, why not just abolish all services! Abolish all government! All these socialist services.. roads.. sidewalks.. what's the point? No taxes! Then we can revert to anarchy because that's obviously a superior strategy! With all due respect, i think your logic is fundamentally flawed and your opinion is based on misconstrued political rhetoric. Just like the U.S. Postal Service has effectively destroyed all competition, right? Excuse me while i mail a package with FedEx or UPS... empirical data suggests the notions you suggest are simply not true. Please do!
  15. Cataclaw
    C'est dommage que la phase 4 compte 14 étages au lieu de 20... mais bon, le Solano est un excellent projet -- je le prend avec plaisir! En espérant que les phases 5-6-7-8 seront bonnes!
  16. Cataclaw
    Ok time for me to step in. Hate is a subjective term and that's the bottom line. The word hate to me might have stronger meaning than you. Everyone's idea of hate is different. As such, i think it's perfectly acceptable to say you hate Bush or you hate Obama. I don't think it's going too far. Freedom of opinion allows you to love and hate whomever you like. I don't think it necessarily makes you unpatriotic to say you hate the current sitting President. Patriotism is not a reflection of one's words, rather one's actions. For the record, i don't hate Bush and i don't hate Obama. I think Bush has an inadequate intelligence and disagree with his priorities. To be blunt, i think he's an idiot. I don't hate him, however. I agree with the importance you place on the presidency as an institution. I guess it all depends on how strong "hate" is, for you. Two things i take issue with. 1. Rush Limbaugh's desire for Obama to fail 2. Throwing around the word "socialism" and the idea that "socialism" goes against freedom and liberty. Firstly, it's true that Limbaugh didn't explicitly say he wants Obama to fail. He said he wants to fail in his push for socialism. Now what if, just what if, and warning : this requires an open mind... what if Obama's "socialist" agenda turns out to be a smashing success. What if it puts people to work, saves health care and fixes the country, unicorns and rainbows included. In such an outcome, wanting Obama's socialism to fail would be directly linked to wanting policies that were successful in improving the lives of people to fail as well. There's no rewording of Limbaugh's statements that can possibly make it alright. The fact is, he is unpatriotic in the extreme. His vision of patriotism is extremely narrow and diluted. Everyone should want the president to succeed, since the president's goals are to improve the country. You can disagree with his policies, but if the policies turn out to be successful, you should be man enough to admit it. A lot of people trash Bush for many things, but i think he succeeded in keeping the country safe since 9/11 and i thank him and admire him for that. That being said, overall, I strongly disliked Bush during his presidency, but something my friends could never understand was why i still wanted him to succeed despite everything. I would tell them : "of course i want him to succeed. I don't like the guy, but that doesn't mean i think the country should suffer. If Bush's policies turn out good, then fantastic! I may even change my opinion of him." Wanting someone to fail is the most close-minded thing possible. What if socialism turned out to be amazing? Would you still want it to fail out of principle? I'm a liberal, but if a conservative president were to do an outstanding job and push for conservative legislation that really made a difference, hell, i might change my political stance on some issues! That, to me, is patriotism. Now... about socialism. First, let's be real. The word is used so freely but nothing Obama proposes is true socialism. Ask any actual real-world socialist. He'll tell you that Obama's agenda isn't far-left at all, in fact it's pretty centrist compared to Canada, Europe and most of the world. The fact is, in America the "right" is the "right-right" as it would be in most other countries. And the "left" in America isn't really that left at all, it's more centre or centre-left than anything else. The whole American political spectrum is slanted to the right. So to call Obama a socialist is truly absurd. If you think Obama is socialist, you don't know what true socialism is. Secondly, i've been following Obama closely since the beginning and nothing he's proposed is truly socialist. Take health care... socialism takes away freedom, but Obama's plan gives you the full freedom to choose your doctor, choose your plan, choose pretty much everything. You have an enormous amount of liberty under the current health care plan and under Obama's reforms as well. All this use of "socialism" is just hogwash.
  17. Cataclaw
    Yaaaaa toujours des débiles! When Clinton was president, the far-right loonies wanted to remove him over a blowjob. When Bush was president, the far-left loonies wanted to remove him over the Iraq war. Now that Obama is president, far-right loonies want to remove him over a birth certificate? When another republican is eventually president, whenever that may be, the far-left loonies will resurface and demand impeachment over *shakes magic 8ball* toenail clippings. Protests at the G8 and the like are so common that nobody cares anymore. What has a protest ever accomplished? Unless you have ongoing protests for weeks or a massive protest with millions, it won't do squat, and that's the cold hard truth. The Iranian election protests may have changed something, a few minds, some mentalities, time will tell. I definitely approve of those. But a few hippies protesting Bush in Montreal... give me a break. I'm not a fan of GWB - at all - but even i find this a little silly.
  18. Cataclaw
    Listen, i fully understand that Bush was an unintelligent and completely shitty President, but his disastrous reign is over now, so let it go. This business of protesting and making death threats is just going a little too far.
  19. Cataclaw
    As i watched the video, i kept thinking at various points "you feel it's going to collapse? what do you base this on?" So i'm with Habsfan on this one. That doesn't change the fact we need to act and deal with the Turcot situation as soon as possible! We shouldn't take chances. I'd trust OursNoir's judgment over this youtube guy's any day!
  20. Cataclaw
    Psst GoMontreal, i don't think he was being serious That being said, i don't think it's correct to make such threats against the man. Yes Chimpy wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, and i agree with you all on that, but the best thing is to just ignore him, like Habsfan suggests.
  21. Cataclaw
    I'll refrain from commenting, you all know how i feel anyway.
  22. Cataclaw
    10/10, ToxiK.
  23. Cataclaw
    I read this article twice in order to fully process the incomprehensible factless backward-thinking bullshit contained therein. Mister Jean Cournoyer, kindly shut the hell up and go back to your NIMBY troll cave, you god damn idiot. Signed, The pro-intelligent growth, rational supporters of a prosperous future, that aren't driven by personal agendas coupled with an incorrect grasp of cities.
  24. Cataclaw

    Quebec-Maine-NB Highway

    Cataclaw a répondu à un sujet de MTLskyline dans Visions

    Can we annex Paris while we're at it? The Eiffel Tower is really cool
  25. Cataclaw
    Why on earth would you want to build a tunnel in a remote area like that? No... a bridge is what's needed. Definitely a bridge. A tunnel would be ridiculous!
×
×
  • Créer...