samthemacman
13p10 comments posted · 0 followers · following 3
14 years ago @ returntosimplicity.com - CO2 (Church of Two) Do... · 0 replies · +1 points
I am concerned about both what is being done and being defined as "church" and what it is being called. Words have meaning. The etymology of words and context render their meanings and how they should be used and applied. In this case I am completely in agreement with you that when individuals gather regularly in twos and threes, for mutual encouragement and edification, it is good and helps people walk out their relationships not only with God but with each other. I just cannot accept that this is "church", for it bears no resemblance to what is considered to be "church" in the New Testament. That is my "beef" so to speak. The other issue that springs out of this is the distortion of what is a church when you look at statistics. Two or three people meeting each week should not be viewed or considered to be a "church".
14 years ago @ returntosimplicity.com - Walk On - You'll Never... · 0 replies · +1 points
14 years ago @ Starfish Network - Think Tank 2008: Looki... · 0 replies · +1 points
You could sign up and dialogue in the forum. Thanks for commenting.
15 years ago @ rabble.ca Canadian fed... - A clean win for corpor... · 0 replies · +1 points
I spoke with five university students and a dozen college students. Of them, one was a "diehard" NDPer, and yet, failed to go and vote. All talk and no action. Seven others were Marxist Leninist, and several were Libertarian. The Libertarians actually voted, and some of the Marxist Leninists caved in and voted Marxist (all in Waterloo). The others chose to not vote. They felt voting endorsed a non-democratic electoral process and system. Kudos to them. I agree.
All these students felt that the NDP made a lot of rhetoric (noise) that did not resonate with them or their issues. Even on the environment, they did not view the NDP as a viable choice. Also, call them cynical (I call them realists), but they pointed out something that most people are not talking about in the aftermath of it all. Who is the most likely to govern with the interests of most of Canadians at heart. It was a slight nod to the Cons, as they stated that the NDP is too stuck in their ideology to be fit to govern. And there you have it. The NDP is unfit to govern, because they are stuck in their ideology, and is not centrist enough to appeal to the vast majority of Canadians.
15 years ago @ rabble.ca Canadian fed... - Lament for a nation · 0 replies · +1 points
15 years ago @ rabble.ca Canadian fed... - Lets ask good question... · 0 replies · 0 points
The NDP is the same old same old, and little different than the Liberals. Both are in need of more than a facelift. They both need to reinvent themselves and pick some broad platform issues that have the most appeal to average Canadians. The problem with Layton is that he is last election's leader, and using the same type of left leadership and rhetoric that has never seen the left make anything but a dent in National Elections. Canadians deserve a progressive alternative. Right now there is none. I am afraid we will see more of the same type of leadership from Harper as we did before the election. The opposition does not have the means or what it takes to truly stand up to him and his agenda.
The secret is that the Cons have a plan. They have money. They have reinvented themselves and they are intending on pushing their vision, and besides that, many Canadians share in that vision.
What is the vision of the left, the left off centre? Other than constantly harping at the excesses of the right!? It is time for the left to reorganize, and reinvent itself, just like New Labour did in the UK. It is also time for a leader to come forward who is progressive, and centrist, who is the a prime ministerial alternative to Harper. Dion wasn't. And forget Layton. I wouldn't want Layton running the dog pound! Someone new and visionary with a broad appeal in a platform that Canadians can view as an alternative.
If the NDP do not reinvent themselves, they will go nowhere fast. The Liberals just found that out. We will have to see what happens. The Greens? Perhaps they can merge with the Progressive Canadian Party, as they are both fiscally conservative, and have a similar platform. The only similarities with the NDP and Greens are the issues like the environment, defense policy, and a few other issues. Or will we ever see the day when the Liberals and NDP join forces, and become the Liberal Democratic Party of Canada? If they ever want to see the reigns of power, they will have to consider it!
15 years ago @ rabble.ca Canadian fed... - Apathy Gains Majority ... · 0 replies · +1 points
Canadians elected the minority government for a reason. Canadians do not trust their futures to parties that like a free reign with a partisan agenda. Canadians want some kind of accountability by the people they elect to office. Canadians want to see transparency and accountability, in the same fashion that we are held to account in our everyday working lives. For too long our politicians have had a free ride, and as long as they follow the party line, and not the wishes of their constituents, then they are safe until there is another election. That is four years without a "job review!" Sweet. Imagine a job like that one!
I would love to see some kind of electoral reform that includes the ability for review and recall, as well as changes to how the House of Commons does daily business, where ordinary MPs have more clout than just echoing and sanctioning what their party leaders tell them to do. Enough already! We have a real democratic deficit, and politics as they are currently conducted no longer work. Not that they ever did! It has been the same old parties running the show, and getting away with it since 1867! Time to modernize! Time to catch up to the new millennium!
Proportional representation, is desperately needed, as well as those things already mentioned. Of the twenty-two people I polled at the office, only ONE voted (I believe them when they tell me they did not vote). They ranged in age from 20 to 50. The one who voted, did so at the urging of his girlfriend. The others stated the following reasons.
1. They did not like any of the leaders of the major parties.
2. There were not enough choices.
3. They did not like the platforms of the parties.
4. They liked a local candidate, but not the party he belonged to.
5. They liked a party, but not their local candidate.
6. They see nothing noble with the notion of voting, as a vote means nothing about democracy as all a vote does is sanction a candidate. After the vote, there is little to nothing for an individual to do in the democratic process.
7. The system is flawed and out of date. One past the post is archaic and needs to change.
8. The democratic deficit also needs to empower MPs to not be held hostage to the party leader or bound to the party ideology.
The results were as predictable as the weather this time of year, and I know full well that my "voting" would have done nothing to change the results, or address the democratic deficit and that is why so many chose to not participate in the sham we call the voting process! What a waste of $300 million dollars! They should have used it to fix the damn system, where our votes actually mean something!
15 years ago @ rabble.ca Canadian fed... - Angry Greens call for ... · 0 replies · 0 points
The electoral system needs to be changed. Until it does the Greens will see nothing come out of their campaigning and voting.
The other problem is that the Greens just like the NDP are viewed as parties short on substance, and are viewed as holding very few substantial policies on their platform. The name itself tends to marginalize some of the other good parts of the Green platform, such as its defense policy.
In this campaign, the issue was not letting Harper get a majority. That is what caused all this to become what it was. If the Greens had stuck to issues of priority, rather than the environment and sustainable development, the Greens could have scored more points on the economy and job creation, as well as other parts of their platform.
When a party is viewed (perception becomes reality) as a fringe party, which both the Greens and the NDP are perceived to be, then no one really pays much attention to them. Layton is a joke, and enamored with the sound of his own voice. The NDP needs to start distancing itself from its past, and start to present cost effective measures that make sense economically, and also ways and means that makes government work, and needs to reinvent itself, much as New Labour did in the UK, or it will continue to remain on the radical fringe.
Parties need to develop better platforms based on solid economics that benefit all Canadians. Neither the NDP nor the Greens have that going for them. They will continue to remain on the outside looking in.
The last ten days the Greens got caught in the rhetoric of stopping the Conservatives. Harper presented his platform with six days left, and no one took him to task and tore the platform apart. That is why the Greens suffered as they did. At the end of the day, no real alternative was presented to counter Harper, and Harper rose to the challenge of being the best possible leader to direct the country through the economic crisis. No one challenged him on the economic issues we are now confronting. That was no way to wage a campaign, and that is why this is so obvious and odious.
15 years ago @ rabble.ca Canadian fed... - Learning from ... · 0 replies · +1 points
There is nothing smug or self righteous in my comments. I am a realist and know human nature quite well. The current three main parties are not in a power sharing mood and they are not about to change a system that opens it up to other parties and allow changes to procedures and how business is done if it affects their ideology and agenda, and that is what makes the current form of democracy in this country a pathetic joke. There has to be change to how it is all done from top to bottom, and it will not happen without some leadership from the top, and especially from the provinces, so that real change can happen, and that is constitutional change. Yours and my vote has no effect in any of that. It will take the existing order to realize the system doesn't work and the need to fix it. So your vote and my vote does indeed mean dick!
15 years ago @ rabble.ca Canadian fed... - Learning from ... · 1 reply · 0 points
I chose to not vote and will never vote again until the very system we are talking about is changed. Until then we do not have a real democracy.