Mad_Michael

Canadian NASCAR circuit? I didn't even know we had one of those! It is new? Or has it always been invisible?

God didn't 'create people to kill in His name.' That's people's doing. Nice try. I never said anything about creating people to kill in his name... I was asking why he created a people who do kill in his name. Any idea? There are dozens of questions like this that Christian apologists don't like addressing. How about the one about the Garden of Eden and the fruit of knowledge... why does God punish humans for seeking knowledge? Does God prefer humans to be ignorant? Again, this one doesn't draw much in the way of response.

Um... the retailers INVENTED Father's Day. Mother's Day began as an international day of protest against war. The retailers didn't like that and turned into some Hallmark crap instead (since war is generally profitable and popular with the big business set).

The only rule Israel respects is the rule of force - their own. And it has been longstanding Zionist policy to eject all Arabs from Jewish land since the origin of Zionism going back some 75 years now to the Balfour Declaration. And it has been a Palestinian/Arab policy to demand that the State of Israel be disbanded. They are made for each other. Unfortunately, 'peace' is not what either side is looking for. Both are looking for 'unconditional victory' of their own side (and the utter destruction/anniliation of the other side).

post in error

I'd vote firmly against any republican crap. Better the devil we know than the one we don't. At least our Head of State doesn't embarrass us on a regular basis and it costs Canadians practically nothing. Creating an elected Presidency with its own palace and expenses plus a fat travel budget. And what do we get from this that we are not already getting? Just another symbolic issue to waste money on and argue about.

They want to appear caring and concerned, but don't want to face the music with middle-to-upper class voters. Also, land costs may be a legitimate obstacle to integration of poor people. Social Housing as we know it, should not exist. Why warehouse poor people? Rent supplements would seem to be more effective - then people can reasonable choose where to live. Here in Toronto, there is a relatively high vacancy rate. Why should the taxpayer pay for rent subsidies for poor people to enable them to live in one of the most expensive cities in the country? That policy is even more absurd than warehousing the poor in 'large public housing estates' that are second only to prisons themselves for inculcating a criminal culture. The more the 'poor activists' activiate - the more 'poor people' we end up with. Kinda like those 'homeless activists' - the more activists, the more homeless!

Few people live within the range of the pollution, maybe 20,000 tops. Small amount compared to the many millions that live within the toxic cancer cloud that hovers over southern Ontario most months of the year. I wouldn't be too worried about us. While we have a terrible GHG emissions record, we're pretty clean in all other ways. In case you are curious, multiple (and reputable) studies have found that somewhere between half and two-thirds of Toronto's summer smog is a gift from the Ohio Valley Generating Authority - where they burn coal for electricity.

$16.9 Billion of which will go to Toronto, no doubt. Meanwhile, the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor was built in the 20s and Windsor has spent a considerable amount of money having Sam Schwartz develop a real workable plan for the city and the border. I highly doubt Ontario would even allocate $1 Billion to the project (which would significantly improve cross-border trade). $17 Billion, ha! Why not just promise A Gazillion Dollars to healthcare too? It's not like you can believe that it will happen, they might as well make up imaginary numbers. $17 billion for transit in Ontario? Like in who's lifetime? And you can be sure if it comes from Queen's Park, the majority of that funding (if it exists) will go to everyone in the province equally - just like every other Provincial funding program. Queen's Park runs on the same principle as Ottawa - Toronto is a milch cow for subsidizing the suburbs, the hinterlands and anything else the politicans favour. Btw, for anyone who is even remotely curious, the Toronto Transit Commission receives the lowest amount of public subsidy for a public transit service ON THE PLANET. The TTC runs almost entirely off the farebox. No other tranist service on the planet even comes close to this. The majority of public transit services receive the majority of their funding from tax revenues.

Your premise is based on false assumptions. The USA certainly has scale on such matters, but is not the most religious or moral/immoral western nation. Hell, Norway has state sponsored religion with 80% membership (but they are not that religious). The traditional statistical measure for 'religiousness' is the rate of weekly church-going. According to this measure, the USA is the most religious nation in the west (by a large margin).

Americans have the worst morality of any western nation?? I'd like to see what information you're basing that statement on. Republican party talking points. Ann Coulter. Rush Limbaugh. Dinesh D'Souza. They are the sources from which it is understood that the USA is a cesspool of immorality.

I hate statistical obfusication. 1. Atlantic Canada is the smallest population region in Canada with the smallest economy. Ergo, the gross amount of subsidies in Atlantic Canada is going to appear relatively small when compared with Quebec for example. As a percentage of GDP, subsidies in Atlantic Canada are among the highest in Canada and that's the real point. 2. Subsidies to private interests are highest in Quebec, then the Atlantic provinces. And which provinces have the strongest system of political patronage (i.e. corruption)? And which provinces are at the top of the list for receiving equalisation payments eh? They are one and the same.

Check the preamble for your Charter of Special, Arbitrary Rights and Such Freedoms as PM May Give on that one. The preample of the Charter has no legal force all by itself. It is merely colourful verbage.

I base my logic pertaining to man's advancement in the civilized world enforced with the beliefs of Christianity. Do you actually believe that the progress of Western man would advance without creationism and Christianity? Maybe you don't and maybe I don't, but it is obvious many people do as been proven by the moralistic breakdown of an increasingly orderless, valueless, materialistic bent Western society with third world leeches snapping at our feet, trying to position themselves to take control of broken Western society. It seems to me that, according to the title of this thread, Americans are more religious these days. And yet you are saying there is a breakdown of morals? You raise an interesting point. The USA, arguably speaking, shows the most 'orderless, valueless, materialistic bent' of any Western society - and yet the USA is the one Western country with the most religious belief. That is to say, the one country with the worst morality apparently is the one country with the most morality. Curious phenomena that.

You are at least making it clear to me that you are unserious and unworthy of discussion. I can't be (and won't be) bothered to reply to anything else you post.

Right. And the Liberal Party has a strong pro-US military tradition too. Hey, if you want to dream about McKenna as Liberal Leader, that's fine. I'm not saying he isn't a decent fellow - I'm saying that McKenna will not run and that's categorical. No politician ever considering future political ambitions in Canada would sign up for a paycheque from Carlyle - simple as that.

You are missing the early years starting 1904. Just because they didn't call it 'equalisation' then, doesn't mean the game wasn't being played. My only point is that Alberta has benefited from equalisation, not that it is a basket case or receives them now. There was no recession in Canada during the mid-1980's. 1986 in fact marks the high point of the traditional cycle. Canada was in recession in 1981 and in 1991. The greed of private corporations is legendary. Good gosh this is silly. How has Alberta's oil production been doing since 1980? I respectfully submit that oil output has been steadily increasing. Crocodile tears over the NEP is pathetic and makes Alberta sound like Quebec - a rich whiner (which is waaaaaaaaaay more annoying than the Maritimes traditional poor-whining). Would you like to listen to Ontario whine about being poor and screwed by the country? I suspect it would annoy everyone for being trite and insulting.

Please explain how McKenna's Carlyle connections would not be noticed by the activists of the Liberal Party? Or how that Carlyle connection could or should be overlooked? As I've said repeatedly, this Carlyle connection categorically ends any federal political career for McKenna. I'm quite sure that McKenna was aware of this when he signed up for a paycheck from Carlyle. Carlyle is filled with 'former politicans', not future ones.

You are conveniently forgetting all the equalisation payments that Alberta has received over the years - compliments of the Ontario taxpayers at the time. And Alberta's 'cycles of downturns' are entirely a product of the oil resource they are so dependent upon, not any government act. The NEP didn't cause a recession in Canada or in Alberta. This is true. As I noted above, Alberta has been rather well governed lately and it shows in the extensive growth and development of tertiary manufacturing facilities. Actually, like Ontario, 90% of all debt in the Province of Quebec comes from the building of those hydro and nuclear power stations (and all the corruption and inefficiency Hydro Quebec and Ontario Hydro are famous for). Quebec has equally good access to the big US markets and more resources than Ontario. Yet Quebec is the number one receiver of equalisation payments in Canada and Ontario is the only Province in Canada to be a net-payer of equalisation payments for every year of existence. The difference between Ontario and Quebec can only be found in the quality and efficiency of governance in the two Provinces. Quebec has very high taxes, endless red tape and is addicted to subsidies for their favourite corporations. This harms the Quebec economy and turns it from prosperity to equalisation beggers.

Right - federal jurisdiction. However, Alberta has been rather well governed over the last twenty years or so. Their build up of tertiary manufacturing in Alberta is remarkable and a sign they are well governed in diversifying the economic base of Alberta with high wage manufacturing jobs. This makes a striking comparison with BC (for example) which has always been very badly governed and is being overtaken by Alberta. BC used to be a net-contributor to equalisation - now they are not. That is poor governance. Likewise with Quebec. There is a Province that ought to be as rich as, or richer than Ontario. They have every advantage of Ontario plus the added benefit of the best sources of hydro-power in the country. Quebec, if it was well-governed, ought to be a net-contributor to equalisation. It is not and is entirely addicted to public subsidies. I don't mind my tax dollars helping the unfortunate, but subsidising ill-governance is stupid and a major economic drag on the properous parts of the country.

Interesting to note that Ontario and Alberta have the lowest corporate taxes, with economical and manageable public services and the least amount of subsidies to private business of all the provinces in Canada. In other words, half the problem with the 'poor' Provincial governments is government incompetence in those Provinces with their noted passions for high corporate taxes and public services beyond their own means and high levels of political patronage and subsidies to private business. This fits the maritimes to a 't'. Why should Alberta and Ontario taxpayers be forced to subsidize such ill-governance in a way that penalises themselves? And wiping out provincial debts is the worst possible policy proscription since it creates a 'moral hazard' of govenment's getting out of responsibility for their own acts. They will then have every incentive to load up on debt and try to spend their way out of their problems with other poeple's money - again. I'm sure the Maritime provinces would love it.

The Carlyle connection makes McKenna's leadership of the Liberal Party categorically impossible. No matter how much you like him, he cannot run for the Liberal Party leadership. Ignatieff hasn't won any election ever. Winning once as an MP in a Liberal safe-riding doesn't count for anything. Besides which, Ignatieff ran the last time for leadership as the 'annointed son' of the party establishement and the clear favourite going it. He was unable to close the deal. That leadership convention was his to lose and he lost it. That is a major political failure. And the public polling doesn't support your assertion regarding Rae.

The Liberal Party has NEVER tolerated a leader that doesn't win an election. You get one shot - if you lose, you're out. Paul Martin and John Turner provide clear examples of this phenomena. So, if Harper is returned with a minority government in the next election, Dion will be deposed whether he likes it or not. That's the way the game is played in the Liberal party of Canada. And rightly so.

The "Truth" eh? That is only the alleged word of God and thus holds no rational validity over me, or our government.

I wonder why they don't allow the ten commandments, or other religious symbols in public buildings, or prayer in schools, but yet money and the pledge of allegiance are allowed to endorse the Christian religion? Because putting the ten commandments or other religious symbols in pubic buildings or prayer in schools is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment regarding the establishment of religion since public buildings and schools are government institutions. Most importantly though, prayer or the ten commandments are elements of a specific religion. Thus, any application of them by the government is a violation of the 1st Amendment prohibition against establishment. The term of 'God' appearing in the Pledge or on US currency is entirely non-denominational in context - no establishment is established - and thus, the 1st Amendment prohibition is not violated.