Mad_Michael

Ignatieff was the insider's choice of Liberal Party (Chretien wing). The Chretien people all supported Ignatief and most of the Martin people supported Rae. And the (corrupt and arrogant) Chretien faction needed to be destroyed once and for all. Yes, a possibly apt analogy, though Dion has NEVER shown half the abilities of Joe Clark. Joe Clark's problem was that he was a very competent and capable man who just happened to look like an idiot. No one has managed to show that Dion is anything but the idiot he is perceived to be. Which is why I don't expect Dion to last long. The sooner Harper calls the election, the sooner Dion can be replaced with Rae and Harper won't stand a chance.

If you are the government, a chartered bank or a very large corporation you can do exactly that. They take (or seize) first then send the lawyers afterwards. Law is all about WHO you are. It should not be this way, but it is.

The really silly part is that it apparently took the government ten years to figure this out. Just about anyone in Ontario could have told the commission that the Federal Department of Native Affairs, the Premier of Ontario and the OPP (with a healthy assist from the Canadian media establishments) were entirely guilty of killing an innocent man for their own political purposes. Like, who is surprised by this? Perhaps the politicans and the police might be a bit surprised to actually see themselves NAMED as the cause when the normal course of affairs is just to 'whitewash' such unfortunate incidents. I for one am quite impressed that the Commission was not a 'whitewash' and actually gave an honest report. Apparently, there is still signs of hope in Canada.

How is that any different than major policy being changed in a way most voters dont want because a " majority " government has all of the power? Very simple, the majority of the voters may vote out that majority party - quite easily in the next election. THere is a direct link between policy responsibility and the political party. No such link or line of responsibility is available with a variety of obscure little parties holding the balance of power in a coalition (where the deal is secret). Bottom line is that proportional representation (or hybrid systems) have the effect of reducing the electoral responsibility of the politican to the voter. In our present system, that line of responsibility is clear cut and obvious all the time. Anything that interferes with this is anti-democratic in reducing political responsibility to the voters.

Like calling gravity "magic" for example...

Try finding these "hate" stories....... I only have 'off-line' hardcopy newspaper copies to cite for your satisfaction. I actually live in Toronto and that's where the story was referenced and that's where I see the Jewish community newspapers. I don't go around searching for this crap on the net.

According to the logical test known as Ockham's Razor, how can you hold that theism (i.e. supernaturalism) is rational? According to the application of Ockham's Razor, supernaturalism can be logically deduced as being irrational.

What a load of horse shit....... In this month's Canadian Jewish News...... Nazi collaborators lose citizenship By DAVID LAZARUS Staff Reporter Sela’s goal to bring Israelis home By SHERI SHEFA Staff Reporter Jewish Agency studying new ways to boost aliyah By PAUL LUNGEN Staff Reporter Filmmaker takes heat for film on Jesus By PAUL LUNGEN Staff Reporter I don't take kindly to being accused of "horseshit". Last copy I saw was last week's issue - first 8 pages had 'hate' stories from around the world, starting with the front page. Like I said, I was shocked to see it.

Rae's the one who could have won and would make Harper very, very nervous about calling an election. My money is on Rae winning the next Liberal leadership thingie. He'd eat Harper for breakfast in a General election and Rae polls very well in every province across the country (only weak in Ontario, but that is easily addressed and not likely to be a significant obstacle).

After the election, the Liberals could very well be in government considering where the Tories are in the polls. Dion will not be winning any elections. To do that, he has to win a big chunk of seats in Quebec and win a few in Ontario that the Liberals lost. I can't imagine Dion adding a single seat in Ontario. He'd be hard pressed to hold the ones he has. Harper would likely return his minority if he goes to the polls right now.

I think that is what they said about Chretien with his paralyzed face and French accent. Must have stung when he was able to win a few majorities with that. No. Chretien's bad English was plenty enough to keep him out of Sussex Drive. However, the Progressive Conservative party self-destructed, split in two and put people like Preston Manning up against Chretien. That is why Chretien won three in a row. If he had even one valid opposition party, I doubt he would have won so easily given that he's roundly considered one of the alltime most hated politicans in Canada. Now Harper is going to get a free pass because the Liberals have put up Dion. And no one could make fun of Chretien's horrible sounding English because he had a medical reason for talking out the side of his face (he was afflicted with Ball Palsy). That's the reason for any backlash against an attack on Chretien's English (or French for that matter). If you have no medical excuse for poor English, the media can make it open season upon that topic. No backlash. Dion is an easy target. So, how long until the Liberal Party dumps Dion and replaces him with a real leader that can win?

Get with the program Dion. If Parliament is in recess, the politicians can't do as much damage as they are normally accustomed to do.

One word - Dion. Milquetoast. Boring. Can't speak English. Looks like (and talks like) a bureaucrat. Uninspiring. Claims to be a technocrat but has no accomplishments to speak of. In short, you are right - the Liberals ought to be rising in the polls right now. Dion is the reason they are not. The question is, do the Liberals dump and replace Dion now or do they wait until he loses the next election and then do it? Stephen Harper must have thanked his lucky stars the day Dion won the Liberal leadership convention.

And how do you reconicile all of the evidence of marriage existing and long predating your Scriptures? How did all those people get married a 1000 years before God announced this invention of marriage?

When refering to anomalies I was strictly refering to behavior. Being a genius, rich, beautiful etc. may be a rarity, but just because one has a lot of money or a good learning capacity does not mean they will necessarily behave differently. By the way, beauty or "good looks" is in the eye of the beholder, so although we could agree that it's also a rarity, it still depends on the individual. I wouldn't classify ideal kids, marriages, gov't as rarities... it depends on "how good" it has to be to be in this upper category. If you're pretty inclusive, then it's not that rare, if you're very exclusive, it's an impossibility (because no marriage, kids, gov't is perfect, and neither are we, understanding that perfect means doing absolutely no wrong and doing everything that is right). Your reply fails to address the question. Looks like a rather lame attempt to dodge the question. How is homosexuality to be considered an 'anomoly' while genius, intelligence, good looks, wealth, prosperity, peace, good government, happy marriage, good kids, are equally 'anomolous'. What is this gibberish?

Yes, the protesters seem to be a dedicated band of warmongers. Quite belligerent with their slogans and comments for onlookers. If you really want to be shocked - pickup a Jewish Community newspaper - it will be all about hate - pages and pages of it. Quite remarkable. I never knew the Jewish community was impassioned with their own propaganda.

Agreed. Then how can you defend neoconservativism if it is entirely discredited and based on false premises? Seems rather absurd.

Public healthcare ought not to be denied to people on the basis of moral judgements about their behaviour. If one were to do so, perhaps single out fat people or smokers (to use the best examples), then one ought also to disqualify those who drive cars (general pollution and dangerous accidents) and of course children who have a high tendency to injure themselves with reckless behaviour. Drinkers of alcohol or those who smoke pot, rock-climbers, parachutists and skiers should also be banned from public healthcare as all of these people, by their own choices, cause themselves to need healthcare. The list is endless. Indeed, if one applies the rule consistently, no one in Canada ought to be covered by public healthcare. So that's the choice with having a public healthcare program - no one, or everyone is covered. You can't just pick and choose which ones meet your moral standards and preclude those that don't.

Proportional representation has a tendency to substantially increase the nunber of very small parties in parliament. Europe provides numerous examples of the phenomena. The result is government by coalition. This means back-room brokering by leaders of tiny parties (with only a few seats and single digit public support) calling the shots for the nation's policy. This has the ultimate effect of locking in policy. No major public policy can ever really be substantively changed/reduced or canceled under coalition governments as there is always one tiny part of the coalition that will refuse to go along. Single-member constituencies are the only form of parliamentary responsibility and democratic representation. I don't want to see anything introduced that could water this down with 'lists' of appointed MP's who have no direct constituents to which they are directly responsible. I see NOTHING in the proposal that is likely to increase or improve government or democratic representation in Ontario. I see only things that will make Queen's Park even more remote, more stagnant, less efficient and less functional. The present system is not perfect, but proportional representation (or hybrid mixtures) are a dog's breakfast. I don't like back-room political deals to hold the government. Our present form (de facto) requires that these 'back-room' deals be front and centre where they can be seen by the voters. With larger coalitions of a dozen parties, the deals are always hidden and secret.

There is only ONE question for the Liberal Party right now... Do they try to replace Dion as leader now, before the next election? Or do they wait until they lose the election and then do it?

This is standard boiler-plate political rhetoric of every opposition leader in every election for the last century or so. I'm sure Mulroney and Chretien both gave the same speech on the campaign trail. Heck, G.W. Bush ran for election in 2000 calling himself a 'uniter, not a divider' - and talked about bringing clean government to Washington - his administration is now setting records for partisan enmity and new heights in corruption. In other words, NOTHING any politician says while running for election has any substantive bearing upon how they actually will function once in office.

Does American theocracy make the world a safer place, or is it driving a wedge between people and nations? No where in your quotes does it state that McKenna calls the USA a theocracy. That accuasation appears to be yours, not McKenna's.

My critique of 'so-called neoconservativism' is that this motive is base and immoral. No nation has the right to force their choice or form of government upon another. Externally imposed revolution is insanely dangerous, destablizing and a fundamental threat to all democratic liberties and freedom everywhere. Indeed, if such action is morally just, is it not morally just for a fascist or communist nation to seek to impose their choice or form of government upon us via externally imposed revolution? Alternatively, liberty and democracy cannot be imposed. It can only be fostered or encouraged. Ergo, the US neoconservative faction is dangerous to everyone. They are like a bull in a china shop. Democracy is a fragile thing. It must grow naturally or it will not grow at all. The greatest danger is to bestow the honourable lable of 'democracy' upon that which clearly is not. That debases the currency. Neocons are guilty of seeking this.

Hammurabi's Law Code of Babylon (circa 1760 BC) gives many references to marriage. The Babylonians were polytheists. This predates the Mosaic-God 'invention of marriage' by at least five centuries... notwithstanding the references to marriage in the Epic of Giligamesh (original circa 3300-3500 BC) - predating the first reference to any monotheist God by literally thousands of years.

Like Black was the first to be honoured after that law was passed... it was a personal feud. Like Black wasn't the first, eh? Try Roy Thomson, Lord Thomson of Fleet, and Max Aiken, Lord Beaverbrook..... I'm not sure about the status of Beaverbrook's title in Canada, but I know Thompson's title is fully legal in Canada - it has an official exception or something. Black had to give up his Canadian citizenship to take his title.