BHS

Done. Sort of. (I mean, unless you're looking for a rabbi to come right out and defend Islam specifically without regard to or mention of his own predicament, which you have to admit is a bit much to expect. ) Read the whole article, but I refer specifically to the penultimate paragraph. Please note that Sharia has already been in use since the NDP enacted the Arbitration Act, and the current hubbub pertains to the request by the Islamic community to create a sort of Sharia Law Society of Ontario or somesuch. Taken in this context, it seems to me that McGuinty's decision to outlaw all religiously based arbitration is like swatting a fly with a howitzer. CTV

You'll never see that kind of accountability from the Donk sacks of crap that run Lousianna and New Orleans Parish.

So, BD, what do you think of Bush's taking responsibility? So much for your finger pointing nonsense. I'm sure you and your own "hive mates" (because really, the left is the original home of groupthink whether you like it or not) will have plenty of crowing to do about how Bush is merely admitting his own "obvious" short comings. I wonder when your Donk heroes will have the personal convictions to admit their own failures. But then, I guess the Left is never wrong.

I don't know. He got 3 back to back majority governments, had 7 back to back balanced budgets, kept 78% of their red book promises, introduced the Clarity Act, signed on to the Kyoto protocol, initiated the Romanow Commission on health care.... Seems to me he didn't just sit on his hands. The biggest thing the critics complain about is that he didn't get rid of the GST. Well, in actuality and in reality, the GST has been responsible in part for Canada's prosperity. Chretien a failure? Don't think so. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> - 3 majority governments, squandered swanning around playing "da liddle guy from Shawinigan" schtick to the national audience and Emperor of Canada to the international audience (ski vacations permitting) - 7 balanced budgets, not too hard if you take in the bulk of government revenue and your only spending obligations are items on which you've already slashed spending and refuse to make increases (eg. national defence) - Which Red Book? And how do you come up with a ridiculous figure like 78%? Sounds like fudging - The Clarity Act, AKA the question following the answer, AKA giving in to the idea that the citizens of one province have the right to break up the country on nothing more than a referendum. Here's what should have been the entire text of the Clarity Act: "No F***ing Way". Instead, we've codefied the idea that a simple majority of Quebecers can decide how and when the country should be disolved. For shame. -The Kyoto Protocol isn't worth the biodegradable paper it's written on. If you'd care to read the text, you'll discover that it is in no way intended to change the amount of fossil fuel being consumed by humans, only where on the face of the planet it's being consumed. With a few extra clauses to ensure that first world nations are obligated to pay enviro-danegeld former Soviet bloc countries every year. -And like all commissions before it, the Romanow commission was shelved. That's what commissions and inquiries are for, to take pressure off of the government to actually do something about a problem. That's all you've got? What a great list of accomplishments. I see now why we were the only industrial country not to send a head of state to the King of Jordan's funeral - he really, really needed that ski vacation.

Right....so now the president of the most powerful country in the world, the man responsible for overseeing disasters of national significance, he was just powerless. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey buddy, here's a clue for you: the US isn't a dictatorship. I know that's hard for you to swallow, seeing as you have so much time invested in posting horsecrap about Bush being an evil dictator an all. Go ahead and roll your ignorant eyes.

Thanks. I read over your post. I've been watching the news, though, so I actually have a clue as to what's going on. I think most of the people posting about this matter made up their minds before the hurricane made landfall.

The fact that there was a hearing means that he was impeached. Look it up in the dictionary.

Who cares? It's the NDP.

Don't be surprised when the inevitable inquiry into this mess finds that the bulk of the blame in this matter lies with the State of Louisianna and the municipal government of New Orleans Parish, despite every attempt by the Deaniac party and it's sympathizers to blame the whole thing on Bush. I'm also amused that the whole "Bush is a racist" meme still has legs. When I started posting to various forums earlier this year I encountered a LOT of sentiment coming from the left that Colin and Condy were "house niggers" (I quote verbatum) and not representative of Black America (whatever that means) and therefore did not count as evidence that Bush was pro-diversity. To hear the same people now stating without a hint of irony that Bush is a racist, based on the flimsiest of pretexts, is just HILARIOUS. You all make me laugh. I can't wait for the 2006 elections. It's going to be interesting. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Dear BHS Actually speaking of Powell it wasn't until he spoke out and criticised the federal government's response that Bush fired "Browie you're doing a hell of a job". 1171 Cheers <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Once again, you make no sense. What the hell are you talking about?

Who cares? It's the NDP.

I completely disagree with your first paragraph. Mulroney did a lot of good things in office. Chretien will be remembered rather well and poor Mr. Dithers. Two straight minority governments (as a best-case scenario) then retiring means history will vilify him. Mostly agree with the second paragraph. Canada will be better off in the long-run for rejecting Meech. I truly hope Quebec does stay in Canada. What I think it will take is another lost separation referendum, followed by a provincial Liberal win in Quebec. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What on Earth did Chretien do to be remembered well? If getting elected is the only accomplishment that counts, then I guess he was fabulous. If doing something, anything, to give the country a direction to grow in is what counts, then Chretien was an abject failure of herculean proportions.

Dear BHS No one has any beefs about your religious beliefs as long as you keep them to yourself. You know private between you and your God as others here don't give a rat's ass about your religious beliefs. The problem is though is that you don't keep them to yourself and that is where the problems lie. So if religious people can't shut up about them they will continue to get hammered because a lot of others think they are gobblygook, and why should we have to be subjected to such absurdies. 172 Cheers <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You are so terribly, pathetically ignorant. I hope it's nice for you.

Don't be surprised when the inevitable inquiry into this mess finds that the bulk of the blame in this matter lies with the State of Louisianna and the municipal government of New Orleans Parish, despite every attempt by the Deaniac party and it's sympathizers to blame the whole thing on Bush. I'm also amused that the whole "Bush is a racist" meme still has legs. When I started posting to various forums earlier this year I encountered a LOT of sentiment coming from the left that Colin and Condy were "house niggers" (I quote verbatum) and not representative of Black America (whatever that means) and therefore did not count as evidence that Bush was pro-diversity. To hear the same people now stating without a hint of irony that Bush is a racist, based on the flimsiest of pretexts, is just HILARIOUS. You all make me laugh. I can't wait for the 2006 elections. It's going to be interesting.

Catholic schools are the exact same as public schools, with masses and religion class. I don't think they should be converted to public schools however they should lose all public funding and be solely private. Of course, if they do that, those schools will probably become public anyway so they can still get public funding. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Catholic church has the right, under the British North America Act, to collect taxes in order to provide education services. Changing this would require a constitutional amendment. And good luck with that. Let me first reiterate that I am not a religious person; I would describe my religious leanings as agnostic in a pinch. That being said, I don't understand why people on this forum are so quick to characterize decisions informed by religious sentiment as illogical or incorrect, while at the same time accepting at face value arguments informed by convictions which are no less arbitrary. It happens in every argument where religious conviction comes into play, and I find it extremely irksome. Political arguments by their nature are often based more on emotional convictions that substantive facts. This doesn't make the political process any less valid. Why should opinions rooted in one form of established moral framework (religion) be any less valid than those rooted in others (environmentalism, humanitarianism, etc.)? Why is a marriage dispute arbitrated by a religious authority any less valid than a marriage dispute arbitrated by a secular arbitrator, if no laws are broken or rights trampled on in the process? Saying that the secular authority has more legitimacy in this matter is like saying that a Justice of the Peace is better suited to perform a marriage than is a minister. I would think that rather than banning religious arbitration (and driving it underground, where it will persist completely outside of the scope of legal review) it would have been better to provide a defined set of legal boundaries for religious arbitrators to follow, and provide the periodic random review of cases to ensure that the law isn't being broken. Would that be harder and costlier to impliment than the cost and difficulty of bringing all of these disputes into the court system?

eureka, there is a lot of things I disagree with you on, but I'm 100% in agreement of your sentiment on this. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I concur.

Hmm. And now we're just rolling in that cheap, sweet crude. Thanks BD.

Bull. This is by far the tamest forum I've ever seen. You must post at the liberal backpatting societies like DU.

I don't even think subsidies and tax breaks are necessary. Just make it so that ifIf Landrex or whoever wants to rip up prime farmland or pristine wilderness for some shitty stucco housing project, they must pay the full costs of servicing their projects (roads, sewers and other infrastructure). Problem is, there's a distinct lack of political will in most communities to stand up to developers. Anyone who does is usually tarred with the "anti-growth" brush, a label that is like kryptonite to local government officials. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm guessing you don't live in Southern Ontario. There hasn't been "pristine wilderness" here in 100 years. An interesting point to add: all that prime farmland was once pristine wilderness. I guess having a private backyard isn't as important as having fields of weeds when the farrming becomes commerically unviable.

You mean someone who goes after the people you whine about instead of you.

What a load.

Wha?

Hmm, now let's see if I got this straight. Clinton came in after twelve years of Republican presidents who left him with record budget deficits, high unemployment, and increasing crime. So he initiates the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993, putting America on the road to fiscal responsibility leading to the end of perennial budget deficits. This on top of having inherited a $290 billion deficit in 1992, President Clinton's last budget was over $200 billion in surplus. Add to this the lowest level of unemployment in decades, and reducing crime to lowest levels in a generation. Pretty hard to top that B.Max. I don't like to compare, but how's Dubya stacking up: record deficits, illegal invasion of a country, lies to justify illegal invasion of a country, flys away when America faces disaster, a tad indecisive (comatose response to being told, "We're at war"), goes golfing when biggest natural disaster in America occurs... I don't know. To me it's obvious, but then I'm just a normal guy who leans a little to the left and relies more on logic and reason than on a party telling me what to think and who to hate. I'm afraid to tell you, but Mr. Clinton was not the worst president in history. That may very well be reserved to the man currently sitting behind the sign, "The buck stops here." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Regan still holds the record for a single year deficit. The intervention of Iraq wasn't illegal. Bush has never lied about his reasons for the intervention in Iraq. Bush didn't "fly away". This nonsense about being "indecisive" is refuted by his overwhelming record of decisiveness. He was already on vacation when Katrina hit. Your statement implies he left to golf after the catastrophe. "The Buck Stops Here" was the motto of Harry Truman.

What no one has brought up in this thread yet is that the same people who are up in arms about a man in his twenties knocking up and then marrying at girl in her early teens (or tweens, whatever) with parental consent are the same people who are more than happy to protect another 13 year old girl's right to "privacy" and allow her to have an abortion without parental knowledge or interference. Double standard, no? They seem pretty keen to protect a girl's right to "choose" unless she chooses to have the baby and get married.

Particularly amusing given Pat Robertson's recent indiscretions and the howls from the Left that followed.

Anyone in favour of putting an export tax on oil to recuperate the $5 billion owed?