 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It seems that Ben has been in hibernation for a few years doesn't it KH? |
Since before the time of Pope Gelasius I if his ideas of church and state re:Rwandan clergy are anything to go by.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06406a.htm
Letter of Pope Gelasius to Emperor Anastasius on the superiority of the spiritual over temporal power: The pope's view of the natural superiority of the spiriitual over the temporal power finds a clear expression the following remarkable letter of Gelasius I (494 A.D.).
"There are two powers, august Emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, namely, the sacred authority of the priests and the royal power. Of these that of the priests is the more weighty, since they have to render an account for even the kings of men in the divine judgment. You are also aware, dear son, that while you are permitted honorably to rule over human kind, yet in things divine you bow your head humbly before the leaders of the clergy and await from their hands the means of your salvation. In the reception and proper disposition of the heavenly mysteries you recognize that you should be subordinate rather than superior to the religious order, and that in these matters you depend on their judgment rather than wish to force them to follow your will.
If the ministers of religion, recognizing the supremacy granted you from heaven in matters affecting the public order, obey your laws, lest otherwise they might obstruct the course of secular affairs by irrelevant considerations, with what readiness should you not yield them obedience to whom is assigned the dispensing of the sacred mysteries of religion. Accordingly, just as there is no slight danger m the case of the priests if they refrain from speaking when the service of the divinity requires, so there is no little risk for those who disdain - which God forbid -when they should obey. And if it is fitting that the hearts of the faithful should submit to all priests in general who properly administer divine affairs, how much the more is obedience due to the bishop of that see which the Most High ordained to be above ,ill others, and which is consequently dutifully honored by the devotion of the whole Church. "
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gelasius1.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
And call me. I'd like to watch.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Campbell had to kick-start the moribund BC economy, such that we are no longer a have-not province, as we became under NDP administration. |
What is it with Conservatives like you? WHy do you lie so much? Why can't you accept the facts.
FACT: When the NDP were in power, British Columbia was a "have" province. After the Liberals took power, BC became a "have-not" province.
FACT: The BC economy grew during the entire time the NDP were in power. In 2000, the BC GDP grew by 4.8%.
FACT: When the Liberals took power the economy collapsed. For the first time in 20 years, the economy shrank.
FACT: In less than three years, the Liberals have squandered more money and created a larger public debt than the NDP ever did when they managed the government.
BC people were better off with an NDP government than they are under the Liberals. The BC economy performed better with an NDP government than with a Liberal government.
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
As for the massive deficits in Campbell's first two budgets, more than half of the deficits come from offloaded NDP responsibilities.
|
Bullshit. I challenge you to provide facts about "offloaded NDP responsibilities."
You won't be able to because you're living in a fairy tale just like so many Conservatives do.
The NDP produced two surplus budgets, as confirmed by the Auditor-General.
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, Campbell incurred larger deficits through tax cuts, but he did so with the longer goal of eliminating the structural deficit, rather than keeping it at 2 billion dollars.
|
You need to take a basic course in economics because you're not making any sense.
Do you really think that the way to eliminate a $2 billion deficit is to cut revenues by $2 billion? Do you not realise that this will increase the deficit, not decrease it?
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
We will be better off in the next 4 years, then we would have been with a structural deficit of 2 billion a year incurred by the NDP's commitments.
|
Repeat after me: The NDP produced two surplus budgets, as confirmed by the Auditor-General.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:34
|
|
The views of a guest columnist do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:34
|
|
I've heard a lot about what happened to BC. I've read it in the paper. I've heard it from relatives who live there. I have a hard time believing that it is all conservative hooey. Maybe, but I doubt it.
btw, it's not just defecits that do in an economy. Governments effect things through taxation, policy, and sometimes just PR.
http://oldfraser.lexi.net/media/med...1/20010320.html
quote:
The underlying cause of much of the economic malaise currently facing British Columbia is bad public policy says a new study, Returning British Columbia to Prosperity, released today by The Fraser Institute.
"The last decade stands in sharp contrast to BC’s historical economic performance. Given the province’s natural resources, access to foreign markets, educated workforce, and traditional level of economic performance, the last decade has been ruinous for our economy, and the results are unacceptable to most British Columbians," says Jason Clemens, director of fiscal studies at The Fraser Institute, and co-author of the study.
BC’s Growing Prosperity Gap
British Columbia began the decade with real per capita GDP $367 greater than the national average, and ended the decade $3,471 lower. While Ontario and Alberta experienced tremendous growth in real per capita GDP, 16.7 percent and 26.7 percent respectively, British Columbia languished with a mere 2.1 percent increase in real per capita GDP over the 1990s.
British Columbia’s performance is even worse when disposable income is assessed. The province began the decade with real per capita disposable income $743 above the national average, within close range of both Ontario and Alberta. It ended the decade with real per capita disposable income $768 below the national average and substantially below Ontario’s and Alberta’s levels. Over the last decade, BC actually experienced a contraction of 5.9 percent in real per capita disposable income, while Ontario and Alberta experienced modest growth of 1.0 percent and 3.8 percent, respectively.In other words, average British Columbians had less real disposable income in 2000 than they did in 1990.
"In terms of per capita income, whether measured by GDP or disposable income, British Columbia, over the course of a mere decade, has gone from a position of economic leadership and prosperity in Canada to a position of mediocrity," says Clemens.
"External and internal forces both weigh on the economy. However, since British Columbians cannot influence what happens in the outside world, it makes sense to direct attention to the domestic policy and institutional environment," says Jock Finlayson of the Business Council of BC, writing in the foreword to the study. |
If not the Fraser Institute, I'm inclined to believe the people who obliterated the NDP in the last election. They screwed up. They paid the price.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-07-2004 04:14
|