Boges

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57510951-503544/did-the-u.s-apologize-for-the-cairo-embassy-attack/

You mean who's Secretary of State apologized for an independent movie?

I think he's referring to the likes of Ghadafi, Mumbarak, Assad etc. Also the west backed the Mujahadeen movement in Afghanistan when they were fighting the USSR. The thing about Secular dictators is that at least they don't persecute people based on their religious beliefs like the Mulsim Brotherhood types.

Yeah but Christians deserve it. Muslims are oppressed people.

So we should treat a large portion of the world like children that can't control their anger? I'm not defending what this guy did. All I'm saying is the blame for these deaths are the fault of the rioters and the rioters only. We saw this whole thing before with the Danish cartoons that caused similar reactions.

That's on the people that did the killing not the film mater. No matter how reprehensible this film was, it doesn't justify this. People make insulting "art" directed at Christians and Jews all the time but this never happens. I bet a great majority of the people in these protests have never even seen the video. They just hear "Insulting Mohamed" and the riot switch turns on.

LOL at having it on when it's 17 outside. I bet during the winter you have your heater on above 23.

I'm not sure, I've never seen the curriculum nor do I have a school-age child. I agree that it would be very difficult for a school administrator to predict when a teacher would inject politically sensitive discussions into their curriculum. That doesn't mean it's wrong if they do it. For example if a teacher decides to say that people who commute to work are bad people that want to kill the planet, I'd say that's a bit offside. I don't have any evidence that happens but it would be an example of something a parent might oppose.

What classes would you teach it? Catholic Schools have Religion of the World classes but many on this site with the Catholic School Board would just go away. Otherwise Elementary curriculum is pretty straight forward. 3 Rs and Gym. There is some debate about teaching children sex ed. Many parents were upset about that and forced the Premier to backtrack on it. I don't think simple sexual education would hurt IMHO but it's definitely a hotly debated issue. Again, in what class? My parents never taught me much about religion and was never taught it at school. I ended learning a lot about it on my own when I was 15.

I think in this instance we're talking about children under the age of 10. I don't think it's an elementary public school teacher's place to be discussing any moral or ethical issues relating to religion. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that public school should be absent of religious discussion but then endorse a teacher taking a position on religious issues in the class and defend it by saying the teacher is teaching critical thought.

I heard the gentleman in question on the radio. I think his position is that he wants to actually be told what his child is being told above and beyond the set curriculum. Or when the teacher discusses issues that could be up for a moral debate. For example a teacher could present the issue of abortion and where life begins as stated fact, where as we all know there's a lively debate about that. Or even that homosexuality is choice or a genetic predisposition. A teacher has a great deal of power in influencing the ideas of a child. All this is anecdotal as there is no one set method of teaching, but to deny there are teachers with political agendas is to be naive. I've heard on the radio people say that school send notes home with children saying wrapping a lunch with a sandwich bag isn't encouraged. Stuff like that goes beyond what one would expect from a teacher. Who's to say that a teacher wouldn't use their influence to try and tilt a students opinion away from the faith his/her parents are trying to foster. My memories of high school were that issues of faith and morality weren't treated as if there were sets of settled opinions on a varied amount of hot button issues. That could have changed in the decade plus since I've been in public school.

You should run for office then.

So there's a mandatory minimum here? The judge find him guilty and fine him and not turf him from office

Well that's the maximum punishment for the crime. Conflict of interest can be far worse than this. If Ford pocketed donations from lobbyists that wanted preferential treatment in let say a condo development, you know actual criminal activity, maybe call for his impeachment may be warranted. Both are instances where the cover-up is worse than the crime. Had Ford not voted on the issue we wouldn't have this court case. Had Clinton admitted to getting his knob serviced no one would have looked to impeach him. You get different results from different sources but it seems he has a core support of around 40% http://www.torontosun.com/2012/07/03/mayor-fords-approval-rating-slips-poll-finds

That the only thing you got McGuinty doing wrong? Tax cuts? I can think of many ways he's increased taxes for the average Ontarian in his reign (HST, Hydro, Health Premium, Fees on Licenses) I think many would say the reason Hudak lost last year is that he didn't distinguish himself enough from McGuinty. He ran on being a McGuinty Light which meant that there was no reason to pick him over McGuinty based on policies alone. Harris got two majorities running on right-wing policies. A person like you might think making Harris this big boogey man might be an effective tactic but considering the waste exhibited by this McGuinty government I suspect there may be an appetite to go back to that kind of fiscal responsibility. As an NDPer I suspect you to totally disagree with that sentiment, but that's why we have elections.

Well that's why even a Ford opponent has to look at this as purely political and not say Ford somehow committed some sort of major fraud against the people of Toronto. Ford's guilty of being arrogant and negligent on this issue. But again to turf him from office for this would be very heavy-handed. It's why I compared him to Clinton. Clinton was doing a pretty good job at being President but a totally separate indiscretion almost brought him down. It was the blind hatred from the right that caused it. We see a similar blind hatred from the left here. Ford's approval ratings have stayed around 40-50% his entire term so in a three-way race (many of the past mayoral races end up being that) he stands a good shot at being re-elected.

It was a bi-election this doesn't indicate that NDP are set to form another government in Ontario anytime soon. Hopefully during a general elections the Liberals general shittyness will be more on the spotlight and not the single issue of the teachers. It's interesting a guy who's party has 18 seats and not a single one in a large suburban riding until now talks that much junk after winning one seat. What's your evidence that the PCs are lazy BTW?

I'm familiar with that story about him being a hero. Doesn't change the fact he fell asleep on the job and didn't get punished by his employer.

Just because the guy died doesn't mean we can't use him as an example of how Public Servants are treated very differently than people who have to actually justify their paycheque. Yeah he died months after the incident and perhaps what killed him was a factor in him falling asleep on the job, but if that's the case then why was he on the job? The TTC can hide workers than can't do an actual job in token booths but still pay them very well. BTW back to the issue of the thread. Only the Vaughan voters are idiots. In K-Dub the Liberal candidate got complete destroyed. The Dippers put in a star candidate and was rewarded for that. McGuinty orchestrated these bi-elections to happen at the same time as the teacher issue so people wouldn't think about all the horrible things his government has done. He ultimately failed in his efforts so that's a good thing. I agree that Hudak is trying to be to much like a Liberal, he needs to move to the right, who cares if the Public Service Unions don't like it, they won't vote for him anyway. Last October his campaign didn't really offer the PCs are a solution to the Liberals.

Well all those things have government warnings on their labels or are highly controlled. My conventionally grown produce does not.

So why haven't they been banned?

You've never seen the movie "To Big to Fail" have you? Credit is what our society is built upon. Small businesses need credit more than big evil corporations. You stop banks from borrowing to people then next food won't be shipped to the stores. Causing the financial system to collapse won't hurt the 1%ers they have all the money already. But it sounds like your more interested in a French Revolution style up rising, with Guillotines and the like.

You're just throwing them away, using them as garbage bags. Several smaller grocery bags is a lot more plastic than one large glad bag. Also it's nice that you find a way to reuse them as lunch bags, but a reusable lunch pail or paper lunch bag is obviously better, right?Frankly, I'm not militant about it. My wife carries two reusable bags in her purse that fold up small into pouches and we try to always bring grocery bags into the grocery store. There are occasions though where she doesn't have the reusable bags on her and we get plastic bags if we can't carry the stuff we've purchased. I think the ban is really effective at getting people to stop getting bags for small purchases. I worked at a bookstore for awhile and I would always ask customers if they wanted a bag. You wouldn't believe how many people are averse to carrying a single paperback out of a store. "Yeah, give me a bag. I'm going to be walking around," they would say, as if holding a single paperback book is such a chore. The ban on bags will be wholly unnecessary when people begin thinking differently about bags and realizing that they're not a necessity and they can really manage without them. I think a lot of the resistance is just due to habit. Banning the bags force people to form new habits. Charging people for helps do that too. My municipality picks up non-recyclable garbage every two weeks so it's nice to have smaller bags so they don't stay in the catcher that long. Plus considering I have compost and blue bin recycling most of the stuff I'm throwing in the plastic bag is other packaging like plastic and styrofoam. That being said packaging for meat can start to stink pretty quickly. People who bitch about having to pay for grocery bags are daft BUT I would find it troublesome doing Christmas shopping and having to bring canvas bags for every store I go into. "You have to carry that sweater around the mall without a bag sir because the government says you do." BTW the Toronto plastic bag banning doesn't ban all bags, you can still get paper bags which, I'm told, have a larger carbon footprint. I reuse paper bags as well in the green bins.

Not if only one silly City Council does it. Mississauga is thinking about it though. Charging people is better because it gives people an incentive to bring in their own bags and it allows the company to generate income. I use plastic grocery bags for lunches then when I'm done I keep them in my trunk for when I have to buy groceries. On garbage days I use the grocery bags for as garbage bags. 5 cents a grocery bag is a lot cheaper than Glad garbage bags so I save money. Who do you know that hordes them or just throws them away as they come home?

True but he's done many of the things he was elected to do. I think that's what matters most to the people that did vote for him.