Left for life

I've never felt unsafe to begin with. Risk of a possible terrorist attack is part of living in a free society. I would rather not have 10k cameras and a million guards walking around limiting my freedom. People are too willing to give up their freedom for a sense of security. You can't stop terrorist attacks if they really want to attack so there is no point in worrying about it.

Yeah, they did that through massive cuts in healthcare, education, and other social services, all of which are in poor shape compared to other provinces. Saskatchewan has done well in balancing budgets but we don't have the same amount of oil money that Alberta has, it is because of the oil that you are doing so well currently. Without oil you wouldn't be doing as well as you are, or well at all.

Yes people often change their views as they get older or gradually over long periods of time. The problem with Martin is he is so obviously 'changing his mind' for the purpose of holding on to power. The problem is his statements were very black and white only a few years ago. They lead the people to believe he was solid and resolute in his stance on SSM. Now only a few years later he is solid and resolute on the total opposite side of the issue. It's dithering in it's purest form. The man has no principles. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well you cannot assume that, especially since it was quit a few years ago, and obviously he voted with the party to keep his position. Half of politics is about ignoring personal convictions and following the party line. It's a sad but neccessary part of politics sometimes. I don't agree that he has no principles, that is just silly to say that a person has no principles that they don't believe in Anything. Who cares if Harper believes that gay marriage is wrong and isn't a afraid to force that on everyone? That isn't an admirable trait IMO. 70% of Canadians don't have a problem with gay marriage in recent polls, so Harper is going to go not only against the constitution if he gets elected, but he will go against a majority of Canadians and against the provinces as well? And all of this just because he doesn't support gay marriage? The conservatives need to get rid of harper and pick a leader who is socially liberal and economically conservative, instead of the George Bush wannabe.

I don't support this. Kids at that age should be playing not worrying about being treated like crap by their boss, and don't tell me that the service industry doesn't treat workers like crap. They have the rest of their life to worry about work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> It is un-American because it hurts America and for some reason the American public and politicians believe that Business should be loyal to the country they started in vs being loyal to stock holders and profit.

and low pay for workers, and a lack of cost of living raises undermines the middle class which the business community, and the entire economy relies on for fuel for the economic engine. The Business world is destroying itself through poor business practices such as sending work overseas. Businesses get enough breaks in this country they don't need anymore. The liberals have struck the right balance of business vs the rights of people so far and I don't think they should follow anything that this group has mentioned because it would be detrimental to the people of Canada.

People change their opinions all the time. Heck 4 years ago I was a fundamentalist christian that didn't support gay marriage and now I am a weak atheist that supports gay marriage. It's a good thing when someone is able to change, but in this case it sounds like maybe martin just wanted to keep his cabinet post so he voted with his party, I have no problems with him doing that at all.

Those people live in a fantasy world.

Hah, well I believe that marriage is as much of a right as is having children. In other words it's up to the governments discression. There is no argument other than religious against gay marriage. Marriage is already a joke with over 50% of marriages ending in divorce, to argue that it would destroy marriage to allow gay marriage is silly. Marriage is defined by the society it is practiced in. Some societies allow for multiple wives or husbands, so what is wrong with a society that allows gay marriage? There is no economic or scientific argument you can make that has any validity against gay marriage. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There doesn't have to be an argument. You touched on it: when or if a society is ready to accept gay marriage, then the laws will reflect that. The question is whether we as a society are prepared to accept it. There is no argument as to why I can't have sex with and marry a pig, but that doesn't mean we are prepared to accept it as a part of our fabric as a society. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Obviously we are or there would be more outrage at the fact that this will likely pass next week, not to mention gay marriage has been allowed in most provinces already by courts decisions. If a majority of people don't have a problem with it then it is acceptable to society. I don't care about traditionalists and religious conservatives who are against gay marriage, they are a minority in Canada.

I grew up going to a fundamentalist church, now I am a weak athiest. All the good of religion can and has been duplicated in secular society. Religion is fine as long as it doesn't involve forcing others to follow your views. I don't agree with banning gay marriage, I don't agree with banning abortion. I don't agree with censorship of media of any sort be it video games, movies, or tv. It should be up to the parents and the individual to decide if they what to watch those shows, not up to some religious sensors deciding what is moral and what isn't. I have no problem with religion when it is benign, but most of the time it isn't.

Hah, well I believe that marriage is as much of a right as is having children. In other words it's up to the governments discression. There is no argument other than religious against gay marriage. Marriage is already a joke with over 50% of marriages ending in divorce, to argue that it would destroy marriage to allow gay marriage is silly. Marriage is defined by the society it is practiced in. Some societies allow for multiple wives or husbands, so what is wrong with a society that allows gay marriage? There is no economic or scientific argument you can make that has any validity against gay marriage.

Not in the next 50 to 100 years. Once oil is no longer the engine that drives the world Alberta will not be the rich province it currently is, plus you will have younger generations that get more liberal as time goes on I could see maybe several decades down the road, but not anytime soon.

Seinfeld, should the rights of a minority be decided by majority vote? Think what that means.Civilized countries have thought this idea through. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As much a Pauly has tried to make it into one, it is not a human rights issue. Marriage is not a human right, ask Amnesty. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> One organization doesn't have a monopoly on what is or isn't a human right.

1) Everything in science is a theory, because something in the future could change the facts as we know it. The whole evolution is just a theory so it shouldn't be taught as fact just shows your ignorance of what science means by theory. 3) No all of those beliefs allow others to practice their own beliefs without forcing theirs on others. In other words they allow for gay marriage, and allow for abortion, etc... they don't ban you or anyone else from practicing your religion as long as it doesn't try to stop others from practicing their belief system. You can even teach creationism in religious class which is where it belongs. Science and religion should not mix. 4) Banning advertistments would be against freedom of speech, people have a right to say what they believe and if a tv station is willing to accept money for a private organization to put a advertisment on tv then why should they be stopped? 5) You really don't know what you are talking about, you dont' even know the difference between tolerance and intolerance, and the idea of allowing others to express their opinions freely on both sides.

Ugh where to start? First off, there is no factual proof that non religious societies have higher rates off crime, infact the US has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, while several european countries that are very secular have low rates of crime. Second, religion is defined as 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. athiesm, or agnosticism doesn't fit the first or second definitions of what a religion is so you should not refer to either as a religion. It is a belief system sure but not a religion. Third, how do they spread hate? It has been the left of society that has worked for peoples right and freedoms, for black people to vote in the US, for gays not to be descriminated against. They have done nothing but spread the idea of equality in society. It is the religious people who have spread hate throughout history. Religion was used to justify slavery in the US, it was used to ban gays from being themselves, and numerous other horrible events such as the crusades, witch burnings, etc... Religion is the definition of intolerance, because you have a viewpoint that allows for only one right way and people who differ from that are wrong and shouldn't be allowed to practice their belief system. There is nothing wrong with being gay, there is something wrong with saying people can't live their lives a certain way when it harms no one. A gay couple doesn't harm anything or anyone, it only goes against christian and muslim morals, but who are they to tell others how they should live their lives when it harms no one else? As for using science to prove their points. Which points exactly? If you mean the fact that the earth is billion of years old and we evolved from monkey vs the earth is 6000 years old and the dinosaurs never existed and the earth was just created old, I choose the facts over some made up book and a bunch of people who are undable to think for themselves. It is a well known fact that religious people tend to live longer happier lives, that is because they believe in magical beings with super powers who created everything and watch over them. They think once they die they will become immortal and live with God in heaven, it's a nice little story but the truth is in front of our eyes. I could point out religious societies like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, etc... which are all religious societies and people are not happier, healthier and they don't live longer. Canada, and much of Europe define themselves as secular societies and they all live longer healthier and happier lives than these religious societies. We had our religious society back in the 1700's and 1800's and life is much better now than it was back then, for everyone. I think your entire argument is wrong and baseless.