Mad_Michael

Is it possible that there may be hope for Africa? Our "aid" is designed to keep Africa dependent. A dependent Africa is very profitable for Western and African elites.

No doubt a good friend of a fellow I know of on another forum called "PaulPaul" who has an obsession for the Illuminati .

I should think this device has been long in circulation, judging by the remarkably effective results.

Our governments routinely use arbitrary standards for law enforcement. For example, marijuana is classified as a "narcotic" for the purposes of law enforcement. This is entirely arbitrary as marijuana is not a narcotic substance. Our police, courts and governments all collude with this fiction. I could probably fill this entire thread with examples such governmental arbitrariness. On this basis, I'm suspect of any specific argument against 'arbitrariness' that does not apply to all such arbitrariness. If it doesn't apply to all, then the argument is suspect.

And before any pedants get antsy, I'm perfectly aware that I'm misspelling McGwinty's name. It seems appropriate since it is hard to take McGwinty serious about anything, including the proper spelling of his name.

That is the most outrageously absurd thing I've heard in a long time. You are telling me that a "big Mike Harris supporter" would vote for McGwinty???? That's hilarious. If you are actually being honest and not just making this up (as I suspect), then I'm sure you are the only one. That's like telling me that Harper is going to cross the floor to the NDP... Really? How about all those hospitals that were closed in such a hurry? Many of the ones that didn't get bulldozed have be reopened due to the mass shortage caused by the closings. And the cost of the forced hospital mergers have far exceeded any presumed fiscal benefit of the closures. Same thing applies to the forced amalgamation of Toronto. The total cost of government and the size of the city government has actually increased under Harris' forced amalgamation. As a citizen of Toronto, I will continue to suffer for this decision for decades to come. And how about those environmental regulations that Harris gutted? Ontario now has the lowest levels of environmental protection laws in Canada, putting us on a par with some of the most polluter-friendly states in the USA. And any resident or visitor to Toronto will tell you that in the last five years, smog has become a HUGE problem here. Ah yes, seems like you are softening your position here. It is one thing to say Harris did an "okay" job, no worse than others - and saying he did a "great job". I'll agree that Harris was not the worst Premier in Ontario history (Rae apparently holds that distinction). However, Harris did some good and some bad. On the whole, they cancel each other out and leave Harris' legacy as just a polarised electorate that hates two-tongued tories. On that basis, Harris has to be judged a failure for the same reason Mulroney was a failure. If your party gets trashed after your reign, you didn't do good.

Unions aren't in the public interest either. Should they be 'banned' too? Show me a socialist and I will show you an aspiring tyrant.

Because marriage is a 'civil union' and a 'civil union' is a marriage. They are one and the same. The undertone of your suggestion is to create two classes and that is exactly what the gay-crowd will not accept. As the Americans have already shown, "separate but equal" doesn't work (i.e. segregation). There is no equality is separations and distinctions. Funny you should mention this as this is I understand the format of the same-sex marriages that the Byzantine (Christian) Empire performed and recognised in the 8th and 9th century AD (under the rubric of 'brotherhood' - a legal combination of marriage and adoption). The status quo in Canada allows same-sex marriage, however, the State prohibits blood relations from getting married.Your example is a poor one since the legal status of being brothers already address several of your asserted 'goals'. You need to use to unrelated 'straight' persons for your example to have much meaning. One of the key 'rights' that gays seek with marriage is the hospital rules about visitors and decision making for incapacity. As it stands, hospitals are legally required to favour the blood family over any non-married 'partner' of an incapacitated patient. This same law places the married partner above blood family in such matters. With gays, this issue is particularly salient due to often poor relationships with existing blood family. The other key issue is that of inheritance. Court cases have shown that a determined blood family can get a will overturned if that will favours a homosexual relationship. Overturing a will that favours the survivor of a legal marriage is almost impossible. Indeed, one cannot understand any 'gay' issue without reference to the context and background of 'gay' people's long-standing victimisation by straight people.

I cannot countenance your calling Harper and idiot as such language is not justified. That being said, I very much agree that the issue of same-sex marriage has nothing to do with marriage or same-sex. It is all about rights and powers that the religious groups feel they've lost and are seeking to regain. Control over public institutions (such as marriage) is always the goal of religious groups. If you can't beat them with a holy book, use your electoral clout to get the government to force the agenda. Seems pretty simple and straight forward.

"Save"??? Marriage has always been a governmental concern, a concern that long predates Christianity. Thus, you are not proposing anything "traditional" here - rather you are proposing something that sounds even more radical than same-sex marriage. Funny how in the defense of tradition, conservatives are willing to be extremely radical and revolutionary. I guess consistency of principle isn't important - as long as you get what you want.

Good gosh. The mass media decides what is news and tend to influence what people think about those same issues.I can't wait to see the next 9 points...

Well, I've got over 20,000 posts at political forums over the last 3 years or so and I'm a member of four different forums, of which I'm a moderator at two of them, so I've seen a few things around out there. I'm a new member here (joined today) and believe me, if I thought half the crap in this thread was true, I wouldn't be here today. I can be arrogant and condescending, but usually only to those who attack first, ask questions later. In these cases, my backhand is usually quite effective. Otherwise, I pride myself on being civil at all times. We are Canadians after all!

I don't know how 'out-dated' these stereotypes are. I just met - yet another - young gay Albertan who's moved to Toronto and calls himself a 'refugee'.

And the reason was that Ernie Eves couldn't (or wouldn't) live up to what conservatives had come to expect from their party. As much as people love to trash Mike Harris, his government set a conservative agenda and stuck to it. Under Eves that all fell apart. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And it was that 'conservative agenda' that was completely rejected when Eves was defeated by a moron like McGwinty.Indeed, we are still paying for the damages caused by Harris. That's only fair though - we are still paying for the damages caused by Rae and even still paying for the damage caused by Bill Davis and his 1967 educational 'reforms' and 1976 Catholic school funding decision. Without a doubt, I judge politicians by how much damage they cause. Good politicians cause less damage.

Good gosh, you must be kidding. If it isn't in the Charter or any other relevant constitutional document, as a right, it doesn't exist until otherwise stated.

Oh my gosh! You mean the Americans who wrote the US Constitution (ie. the "Framers") wrote the Canadian constitution? Would that be 1867 or 1982?

US institute of Insurers has just released a report (sorry, I don't have a link since I read it offline) stating that cell phone users operating motor vehicles are four times as likely to be injured as non-cell phone users. On this basis, it is only a matter of time before the insurance industry starts pushing for regulations - or applies a substantially higher premium for cell phone users. Previous studies have indicated that the instant you start talking on a cell phone while driving, your reaction times drop to those equal to a 70yo man.

Mike Harris? We're still paying for his damage. Thankfully he's gone. There's a reason his chosen successor got trashed at the ballot box by an idiot.

Given that republican goverments have a really bad track record in turning tyrannical, and the British constitutional monarchy has a remarkable record in creating democracy, I really have to wonder at the agenda of those who favour removal of our perfectly functional constitutional monarchy. One need not hardly mention the fact that to be rid of the monarchy in Canada requires an ammendment to the Constitution - and to open that can of worms right now with Alberta and Quebec would be madness and possibly destroy the country (as appears to be the goal of many).

Harper is making me homesick for Preston. Anyone who can make Preston look attractive to an urban intellectual from Toronto, really is a poor electoral choice. And I do have somewhat of a history of voting PC so I'm not just dissing him for being conservative. Bottom line is that if you can't sell Harper in Toronto and Southern Ontario, the Conservative party is doomed to remain a 'regional rump' party and by the same token, four more years of Liberals in Ottawa.

One thing is certain - teaching people to think is not in the best interests of our governments or in the corporations who run them. Good points, though the recent 'test questions' Martin submitted does push the envelope a bit... Canada is the originator of the 'new' legal principle of 'reading in', so, what you say here is not quite true. Not really. The language regime in Quebec stands only with Section 38 (Notwithstanding Clause) which is temporary (and renewable). In this respect, language rights haven't really changed in Quebec pre or post 1982.

From a legal perspective, I can't imagine any possible reason that a Native might be needed on the Supreme Court. In other words, this 'imperative' is purely political window-dressing. Typical crap. What about Hungarian homosexual immigrants with bad eyesight? Does the Court need one of those too? Victim politics is really bad policy.

Who cares which freakin' town any given Justice comes from and how that is relevant is beyond me. As for this "democratic deficit", that is a topic I'm deeply interested in. Can anyone tell me how the issue is related in any way, shape or form to the issue of the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice?

While I don't dispute the general stupidity of the Canadian Government, but by any reasonable measure, the Canadian Government is miles ahead of the vast majority of governments on this ill-governed globe.

How is this in any way different than the present status quo? I see none and therefore must ask, why bother with the word change if for no reason?