daddyhominum
-
Posts
112 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by daddyhominum
-
-
I noticed you didn't mention anything about "Henry vs Henry" and the legal precedent that the ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada made.
Fact:
Far from not mentioning it, I gave an URL so all could read the actual case decision!
By the way if the divorce laws are so fair then why are an overwhelming majority of the men in arear? Seems either you are woefully out of touch with reality, or you have no idea what is really going on.Fact:
The majority of divorced fathers pay child support.
In the first place there is an epidemic of "fatherlessness" in both the US and Canada, please don't tell me the ex wives in questions have been pious, faithful little sweethearts.Fact:
It is technically impossible to be "fatherless" OTOH, it is very simple for fathers to be irresponsible about paying for the children's needs when divorced.
Men are losing not only their homes, financial assets, but also access to their kids as well.Fact:
Courts do not take homes for child support but the family home is part of the division of common property in marriage settlements.
Fact: Custody decisions are determined by the court deciding who is the parent best able to provide for the child's needs. Custody can be appealed again and again as circumstances change.
Would you like to tell me what is so damn fair about that?Fact: Fair is determined by a divorce court in assigning common property. Decisions can be appealed. That is fair.
Or , I get it you are on the side of the "radical feminazi" lobby thats been calling the shots since the late 1970s!Fact: Canadian law requires equality of opportunity without regard to gender which is the aim of feminism so all Canadians are feminists by law, including you.
I noticed you made no mention of the Bradley Amendment that is overwhelmingly unfair to men who for various reason find themselves unable to pay!! Get Real, pal!!Fact:
There is no "Bradley Amendment" in Canadian law. As the USA is considerably more backward then Canada with respect to gender and other equality issues, I can't imagine learning anything from discussions about US law.
Btw, why do you want your children to live in poverty without a loving and supportive father? Those kinds of restrictions are similar to the manner in which one raises puppies to be viscious watchdogs.
-
Henry vs Henry just passed by the Supreme Court of Canada "Retroactive Child Support Bill" makes it mandatory for a man to report any changes to his income to his ex-wife. Failure to do so can result in massive retroactive payment which can go back 3 years! This law is bound to impoverish if not criminalize thousands of men in Canada.
The Bradley Amendment makes it a federal offence not to pay child support and no excuse will be accepted
e.g Bobby Sherrill a Gulf War veteran captured and held as a POW for almost 5 months was arrested upon returning from Iraq for failure to pay child support for 5 months!!!
Now what kind of insanity have we in Canada and America that criminalizes men due to unjust rulings passed down in our increasingly pro-feminist courts.!!!
You make so many errors of fact that it is hard to know where to begin. For the sake of brevity I will list some facts that you can research on the net to correct some of your errors.
1.The decisions of a court are not "bills".
2. Decisions of a court apply only to the case tried although the reasoning in the case may be offered to influence later court decisions. Usually called 'precedent'
3.In the case you cite, the decisions were based on the existing "Divorce Act" and the "Parentage and Maintenance Act”. There is no act or bill regarding retroactivity.
4. Child support payments are assigned to the caregiver to offset costs of raising a child and are not for the use of the caregiver. Payments made to a support former spouse are called 'alimony'.
5. Failure to follow a court order is a criminal act without respect to gender.
6. The laws of Canada apply equally to men and women with respect to court ordered child support.
7. An Internet search turned up zero cases of men jailed in Canada for failure to pay child support. (That needs to change)
8. Child-support payments are determined by the ability of parents to support their child so that as incomes rise so do child-support payments.
After all the errors of fact you believe, it is no wonder you cannot reason successfully about the matter of child support. Perhaps after you have done some research and accepted the true facts about child support, the courts, gender neutral laws, we might be able to discuss the morality of society requiring parents to support their children instead of non-parental taxpayers.
You may read the report of the court decision in the case you cite at: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2006/2006.../2006scc37.html
After reading the case, any reasonable person would agree that the fathers in this case behaved abominably toward their children and their society. Punitive damages should be allowed to the custodial parent where the other parent is so irresponsible and unfeeling toward the children, IMO
-
Harper was able to do this because the PC party _did_ melt down and most of the moderate right of center people joined the new party. This shifted the balance of power in the party away from the extremists that dominated the Reform party.In fact, Harper's success has been credited to his ability to stifle the element bent on social reform of the country. And I think that is one illustration of how leadership can make a successful government even when large parts of the party have agendas not shared by the majority of electors.Do you think Layton or Rae could manage a similar move to the center, shifting power away from the extreme ideologues and the unions?
A move to the center might make the NDP a reasonable alternative to the Conservatives and grab some of the votes lost by the Liberals in the last election?
-
They never did find out what was the motivating factor for Columbine. The early suggestion was the two were driven into murder by bullying, but that apparently, after investigations, turned out to be untrue. They really weren't bullied much at all.
The shooter's classmate, Brooke Brown, wrote a book in which he stated he believed bullying to be the motivation. Dr Elliot Leytons study on serial killings puts bullying as an first factor in a killers profile. Barbara Colorosso's book does the same.
See:
http://www.amazon.com/No-Easy-Answers-Behi...e/dp/1590560310
What has changed? When I was a boy guns were very common place but pistols were unknown. To get an automatic rifle, you bought a semi-automatic and filed a pin down on some guns. As it only held 16 rounds they were gone before you could hit anything.
If you had trouble, academic or behaviorial, you left school and went to work
Dr. Skinner suffered broad approbation for his seminal work on human behaviour and his ideas were not experimentally developed and proven until well into the 1970's and work is still progressing. Konrad Lorenz, Nikko Tinbergen and the study of animal behaviour was limited to a few unknown scholars and no attempt to relate evolutionary behaviour to man had been undertaken.
Children who committed crimes were believed to be monsters, witches, or possessed and were treated like adults by the courts. Nonetheless outstanding murder trials captured the public interest as when Leopold and Lowe were tried in Chicago.
Recognition of serial murder and/or mass murder as a special category of behaviour was not even speculated about. People died, disappeared and there was no national linkage of police or crimes. Criminal investigations lacked almost all the forensic tools they possess today.
There was no sharing of records; no collating of data. No one knew what happened in the next province. I remeber when a young man killed his parents and siblings in Alberta in the fifties and all of the prairies trembled in fear they would his next victim. Hitchhikers regularly killed people who gave a ride to the wrong guy.
Everything has changed about solving and treating murder. Not much has changed the numbers of murderers.
-
Can one be certain that is the case?
In most recent events involving the representative of the crown in disagreement with the elected commons, the commons has won. While the LG may have a formal constitutional role in approving legislation, I think that the common law requires that the LG take the advice of the government.
Secondly, the LG in Canadian Provinces represents the Governor General, head of state for Canada. It is likely that any legislation passed by the Quebec legislature would include cutting the link between the Head of State for Canada (GG) and the Head of state for the province (LG). So the bill declaring independence would render the power of the LG as it exists null and void.
The LG is just not a player in the separation of a province from Canada because the LG is Canada symbolically and Canada will be gone from the affairs of the province.
Well, I'm relatively certain that's the case. Though the vice-regal almost always follows the advice of his or her ministers, this is simply a convention followed to ensure the stability of government. The Queen or her reps can refuse that advice in extreme circumstances, and have done so in the past: one example being Lieutenant-Governor of Alberta, John C. Bowen, who in 1937 refused to grant Royal Assent to three bills passed by William Aberhart's Social Credit government on the grounds that they were unconstitutional. The passing of a new Quebec constitution would be regarded as a unilateral declaration of independence, which the Supreme Court has already decreed would be illegal. Thus, it seems very likely that, on those grounds, the L-G of Quebec would refuse Royal Assent to the bill, thereby thwarting Quebec's unconstitutional secession.
Certainly the L-G is appointed by the Governor General (on behalf of the Queen, who is actually the Canadian head of state), but he or she acts as the representative of the Crown in the province, not as a rep of the federal government. It's also true that a Quebec ministry could (and most likely would) write in a clause eliminating the Crown (and thus the L-G) from Quebec. But, until that theoretical Quebec constitutional bill, regardless of its contents, receives Royal Assent from the Lieutenant Governor, it will never have effect, and thus the L-G remains representative of the Queen in Quebec.
As I said, the Quebec cabinet could "declare" the constitution valid without the granting of Royal Assent, but such an act would still be illegal.
The GG and all the LG's do represent the Queen but like the Queen they no longer have any effective power over the legislature.
Can the Canadian courts make rulings about the legality of a province declaring its independence? It may breach some Canadian laws but doesn't international law recognize a right to self-government that would be a higher law then Canadian law?
-
You want some evidence of collusion of radical feminists and other "special interest groupd"? Go to AmericanWomenSuck.com , CoolToolsmen, AngryHarry. Visit these places and come back and lets exchange notes! I am quite sure you will be quite "enlightened!
While I am at it want to tell me why the suicide rate for men and boys are much higher than that of women? If things were so rosy then why again are there so many "Mens'Rights" and "Fathers Rights" groups all over the place?
To read the same opinions from those who share your line of thinking is not evidence.
If anything, the title of the first website you reference is, primae facia, evidence of prejudice and the last url you give has reason specifically omitted by its name.
Facts that support your claim is the evidence we need. Not more opinion from angry people unable to observe or reason because of the hate clouding their intellect.
-
The thought of the NDP in power gives me the willies, my hair stands on end. All you have to do is read the convention proposals, and you get a pretty good idea of what they have in mind for us.
As someone else has already pointed out there is a successful NDP government in Manitoba right now. There have been many successful NDP/CCF governments since the 1950’s.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, all Canadian parties currently support the same general social democratic principles the CCF, precursor to the NDP, first introduced into Canada. The most successful expression of those principles is the Canada Health Act, which has become a central focus for Canadian national goals and national pride.
But it is seldom recognized that NDP governments have also been the most successful at managing provincial finances as well as being among the worst: Roy Romanow in Saskatchewan as the best and Glenn Clarke as the worst. (Note the difference in that Roy was a lawyer first and Glenn was a union official)
So it is hard to understand your fear. There is no doubt that the NDP can govern successfully so what, specifically, in their platform gives you the willies?
What about Bob Rae? If nothing else I hope he becomes leader of the Liberals. Will be much easier to win another round if that happens. Ontarians loathe the guy.
That is a problem for him. But he has seen the light on balancing the tax rate and the social program equation so I would like to see him take another run at governing. Bu, like GlennClarke in BC, he won't ever be forgiven for his past stupidity. No reason why he should be. There is lots of talent in Canada.
-
There is a big difference between provincial politics and federal politics - the BC Liberals have more in common with the federal Conservatives than with the federal Liberals. The NDP at the federal level is coalition of social activists who care more about ideology than policy. It simply does not attract the competent middle of the road people that would be required to form a sensible gov't since the NDP has zero chance of forming a gov't. Left leaning people who are competent enough to run a gov't will choose to enter provincial politics or join the federal Liberal party.As someone else has already pointed out there is a successful NDP government in Manitoba right now. There have been many successful NDP/CCF governments since the 1950’s.That said, a complete melt down of the federal liberal party could bring a huge infusion of middle of the road people into the NDP that could make it a viable governing party. However, if that happened it would no longer be the same party since it would no longer be dominated by left wing ideologues.
You are certainly correct. But such variations seem to exist within the other parties as well. In fact, Harper's success has been credited to his ability to stifle the element bent on social reform of the country. And I think that is one illustration of how leadership can make a successful government even when large parts of the party have agendas not shared by the majority of electors.
I don't think Mr. Layton has the necessary skills to manage the extreme left of the party, present a delectable platform, and manage the country. But mostly I don't think he has a viable economic platform. On the other hand if Layton were to move closer to Bob Rae's position on the economy, he could look a lot more capable.
-
Thwart peace? Yes. Like placing irrational conditions on counterparts' actions for example: demanding the PA control fringe factions.
The PA was an elected government that never put a single attacker of Israel on trial or in jail. Even after Israel caught them and turned them over the the PA, no action was taken.
On the other hand, Israel even put General Sharon on trial to satisfy allegations about his behaviour in Lebanon.
The rule of law works in Israel but not in the PA controlled territories so Israel must mete out punishment directly.
Like building illegal settlements on lands that it must return to the Palestinians. Like persistent acts of collective punishment, e.g. house demolitions.What is illegal about a group of people buying up land in PA territories and establishing a community there? We let people do that in Canada and other countries.
And let us not even mention the unreasonable final Oslo conditions which would have made Palestine a mock-state under Israeli hegemony.The PA accepted the proposals and then Israel complied and the PA didn't. The unreasonableness came from the hawks in the PA territories who refuse to stop using violence against Israel.
People who truly fear for their survival would at least seek a just peace, don't you think?
Israel does seek peace. A just peace is in the eye of the beholder.
I would like to buy your car for $100. That would be a just price for me. Please forward the necessary paperwork. Fortunately for you I will not follow your reasoning and engage in violence to obtain your car for a just price.
-
As for The Republic's "agenda", everyone has an agenda. The Republic's agenda is fighting against exploitation and hegemony, looking after the little guy, and exploring the kinds of opinions and ideas that most corporate media won't countenance.
Your saying that the agenda is to shout slogans rather then attempt to understand the facts and base editorial opinion on those.
Pointless waste of time, init?
-
Here's one example of a sovereignist view: A PQ government is elected promising to hold a referendum. The government organizes a "national" commission to consult with all regions and then write a constitution of an independent Quebec. The government then presents the constitution to Quebec's National Assembly for adoption.
Once adopted, by the legal representatives of the Quebec people, the Quebec government declares independance and asks the people of Quebec to confirm this through a referendum.
The Clarity Act gives a negotiating point to the federal government. It will be harder for the Quebec government to obtain international approval.
It can't be adopted, though, until receiving Royal Assent from the Lieutenant-Governor. The process by which that "constitution" lands on her desk, as described above, would be deemed illegal under the Canadian constitution, which Quebec is still bound by. Thus, it's very likely that the L-G would be forced to refuse Assent. If the PQ government went ahead anyway, and declared the Quebec constitution ratified, and Quebec independent, on their own accord, they would likewise be acting illegally. What the consequences of that would be? I don't know; but I imagine they wouldn't be pretty.
I think the Clarity Act simply enhances the federal government's negotiating powers. The guidelines pertaining to the succession of a province from Canada were already pretty narrow, but the Clarity Act just makes them narrower, though more defined.
Can one be certain that is the case?
In most recent events involving the representative of the crown in disagreement with the elected commons, the commons has won. While the LG may have a formal constitutional role in approving legislation, I think that the common law requires that the LG take the advice of the government.
Secondly, the LG in Canadian Provinces represents the Governor General, head of state for Canada. It is likely that any legislation passed by the Quebec legislature would include cutting the link between the Head of State for Canada (GG) and the Head of state for the province (LG). So the bill declaring independence would render the power of the LG as it exists null and void.
The LG is just not a player in the separation of a province from Canada because the LG is Canada symbolically and Canada will be gone from the affairs of the province.
-
To prevent the Iran from enriching euranium is europe's only hope......
Their only hope of getting a market for enriched uranium in Iran ?
-
Just read the papers and go before the "Ontario Human Rights"
You continue to make claims that males are mistreated but never give any evidence of that actually happening. You cannot say that something is a true fact without presenting some factual evidence to establish that truth. Your statement is not proof and additional statements to the same effect are not proof.
In one message, you posted that “they” are making laws that take away freedoms and rights. If that is true, you can find a copy of the legislation on the Internet and make a reference or a quote of the law to support your view.
It seems that many of us believe you are wrong. Could it be that you have no evidence to support your statement? Can you be right if you cannot give any evidence to support your statements?
It is if you are accusing your neighbour of a murder but are unable to demonstrate any evidence that a murder ever happened.
-
The thought of the NDP in power gives me the willies, my hair stands on end. All you have to do is read the convention proposals, and you get a pretty good idea of what they have in mind for us.
As someone else has already pointed out there is a successful NDP government in Manitoba right now. There have been many successful NDP/CCF governments since the 1950’s.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, all Canadian parties currently support the same general social democratic principles the CCF, precursor to the NDP, first introduced into Canada. The most successful expression of those principles is the Canada Health Act, which has become a central focus for Canadian national goals and national pride.
But it is seldom recognized that NDP governments have also been the most successful at managing provincial finances as well as being among the worst: Roy Romanow in Saskatchewan as the best and Glenn Clarke as the worst. (Note the difference in that Roy was a lawyer first and Glenn was a union official)
So it is hard to understand your fear. There is no doubt that the NDP can govern successfully so what, specifically, in their platform gives you the willies?
-
You made this thread stale. I'm unsubscribing!
-
That said, I think this is again a reminder why we need gun control and why people should not get access to guns. Yes I appreciate people who hunt to feed themselves have a good reason for a rifle. I just think we need to make sure only certain kinds of rifles are purchased....they are stringently controlled and people who own hunting rifles are of legal age and demonstrate they are hunters.
I would even say yes have a law that says people in NON rural areas or who live in cities over a certain size
can only have access to their rifles during hunting season and otherwise these rifles must be stored in government licensed and controlled hunting clubs and the conditions for using the rifle is limited to a specifically licensed hunt with specific conditions as to the days and hours it is used.
No one should ever be allowed to own a hand gun. You want to use one for target practice, then have government controlled gun clubs that own the guns and you are only allowed to use them at the club and the club owner is under strict conditions as to how he stores those hand guns.
I liked everything you said, Rue. I only cut your post for the sake of brevity.
Like you, I strongly oppose the ownership of guns in a society. Unlike other means by which people may be killed, a gun is manufactured for the sole purpose of killing. In the 18th and 19th century, killing creatures for food and other resources was still a necessary function. Today it seems unlikely that plays any role except in the remoteness far from supermarkets.
However, agreeing with you about guns, does not deal with the essential question about why this young man behaved the way he did and what can be done to ameliorate those causes. Because the shooter might as easily been an arsonist responsible for many more deaths or a bomber or the driver of a car mowing down people as they sat on the grass having a last smoke before class, controlling and outlining guns may not solve the problem of people "going postal".
Of course, I have an idea.
I have spoken to many young people over the years who have expressed extreme anger and hatred toward their fellow students and have dealt with many who have acted out that emotion who might well have killed if a gun had been placed in their hand. Usually that anger passes quickly and two students in an angry fight at lunchtime might be the best of friends at the end of the school day.
In my opinion, for some, the insult to their person is continuous, as they are bullied and disrespected, disdained or mocked without let up. Most of them live with a deep depression that soon colours all their thinking and spins scenarios of revenge and dominance in circles around their brain to the exclusion of all else. Once out of control, the individual is sort of captive to the depression which must be acted out, usually as suicide sometimes as revengeful suicide as in Montreal yesterday.
So, the solution is to treat the depression. The best treatment is prevention. The schools have come a long way in the past ten years in improvement of instruction with respect to bullying and respect for others. Hopefully in the future, depression will be better understood, treated and tolerated by the depressed person as a result of the changes in schools.
That is the prologue.
Political change is also an important element. As we witness on these forums, many Canadians view others disrespectfully because of differences in skin colour, culture, ethnic origin, ideological commitments and so on. It is probable that for everyone who speaks openly in such a manner, there are hundreds and, perhaps, thousands, who behave in such a manner toward others.
For some the solution is total assimilation of all citizens into the dominant WASP culture that was Canada in the 19th century. But the fact of the Quebec Act and the fact of continuous immigration have rendered that impossible.
The only solution left is to enforce the requirements of the Charter of Rights far more vigorously and push the voice of the disrespectful behind the barrier of good law and good enforcement.
I listened to Dr. Elliott Leyton(http://www.mun.ca/marcomm/gazette/2001-2002/feb21/books5.html) being interviewed on CBC just a few minutes ago. He observed that Canada had only three of these mass murders, Lepine, and Fabrikant, and now Gill all in Montreal, all immigrants or children of immigrants. He called on the intellectuals of Quebec to set aside any bias and examine why the society of Montreal and Quebec produces these men. He opined that something was not working right in that society.
I think he is on to something. But is the rest of the country better off? There are deaths of children in Vancouver that can be traced to the same factors of immigrants or their children and isolation and ghettoization of immigrant populations.
-
How do I get rid of threads I have lost interest in?
The "view new posts" command gives me a list that includes threads that have become uninteresting to me. How do I get it to stop listing those threads?
Similarly, the mail notification command. How do I cancel that choice when the thread has lost its flavour?
Help a drowning man!
-
Are the NDP ready to govern Canada? My answer is short and simple- NO. Why? Many reasons. First off, far left social democrats have proven to be disasters in power. You cant have a socialist party in charge, its like giving Hitler the Tora to "take care of". Reason 2, their foreign policy. The last thing we need is to make enemies with Big Brother America, who is taking care of us at the moment- if we were attacked whos gonna help us? His view on Afghanistan- I quote: "We need to look for peace through negotiations with all sides including the taliban"- CPAC RESPONDS: "SO we should negotiate with terrorists?" JACK LAYTON ANSWERS: "I didn't say that"....
So the Taliban are not terrorists? Al quadea are freedome fighters u say???
Bull!!!!
I would rather see a (God forgive me) Liberal majority then an NDP minority! Obviously im a Tory (U all know by now
) so I would like to give Stephen Harper a majority.What do you guys think about the NDP running Canada?
There is a difference of opinion on what kind of political program the NDP is presenting to the Canadian voter. You agree that the platform is characterized best as 'social democrat' rather the 'communist' , for example.
Assuming you agree with the description of social democracy as described in Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy that states;
<Begin quote>Social democracy is a political ideology that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th century. Modern social democracy emphasises a program of gradual legislative reform of the capitalist system with equality of outcome as a goal. However, social democratic parties intially included democratic socialists.
The term social democracy can also refer to the particular kind of society that social democrats advocate. The Socialist International (SI) – the worldwide organisation of social democratic and democratic socialist parties – defines social democracy as an ideal form of liberal democracy, that may solve the problems found in unregulated capitalism. The SI emphasizes the following principles: Firstly, freedom – not only individual liberties, but also freedom from discrimination and freedom from dependence on either the owners of the means of production or the holders of abusive political power. Secondly, equality and social justice – not only before the law but also economic and socio-cultural equality as well, and equal opportunities for all including those with physical, mental, or social disabilities. Finally, solidarity – unity and a sense of compassion for the victims of injustice and inequality.<end quote>
Many nations have adopted the goals of the social democratic philosophy as outlined above into the general platform of every political party. The differences arise between modern parties only with respect to the means by which the first principle is best achieved.
The early approach to social democracy was to achieve the goals through state ownership of all the 'means of production' which, it turns out, means everything, including workers private homes. After world war 2, Europeans, particularly Sweden, tried to reach the goals by reducing state ownership to the natural monopolies, like electricity, and to the health and welfare service: all of which paid for through taxation of the earnings from a free market in everything else.
The first approach has failed miserably as you have stated. Complete ownership of the economy by the state destroys productivity by removing initiative and self-responsibility.
The second approach is still in the gun sight of every platform of nearly every party. The arguments left are about the best balance between taxation and state Vs private services.
A local example is the provision of daycare services in Canada. The Conservative Party has chosen to give a direct subsidy to consumers of childcare for a portion of the costs along with added support to low-incomes while the other three parties favored complete provision of daycare services to all consumers regardless of income and relying on taxation classifications to reduce the subsidy to those who didn't needed. In both cases the provision of daycare is directly supported by the government and varies only in degree and method.
It appears that the method used to obtain revenue to support a social democratic government is significant. The USA, which by and large provides far more services to the needy then does Canada or the European social democracies, has experienced economic growth and productivity growth in spite of high cost social programs and extremely high cost military programs. The argument that is made is that lower taxes result in higher productivity which provides more revenue to fund government services visualized by social democracies. The Conservative platform was based on changing the Canadian financing of social democracy to that methodology.
There is very little argument left that getting the correct balance between taxation and government services is the key to a successful economy. That is how Bob Rae is able to justify his swing to the Liberals. He no longer believes the NDP model of ownership and taxation being the key to achievement of a social democratic nation but feels he can establish a better balance then the Harper government.
To sum up, I believe all developed and most developing nations have accepted the principles of social democracy and that only political parties supporting those principles can win elections. All Canadian parties accept the principles of social democracy. Canadian parties differ in the methodology they propound for achieving social democracy. I believe that current economic research and observed economies favor the freest markets and lowest taxation possible to provide the state services required by the principles of social democracy.
-
As the Pope is God's voice on earth, it makes you wonder how well God understands the idea of one law for all.
My idea, which I have posted on Rabble under another screen name (link), on April 26, 2004 (thus a different cast of characters) is as follows:
Same sex marriage is a hot issue both in the US and Canada. The proposals are typical watered down Republican/CPC fodder. Bush's toadies like it that way.The right way to do this is to allow any group of up to four mammals to marry, regardless of gender, species and age, as long as one is a human over the age of 14. Only the tired, reactionary tories and George Bush want to seem to be fighting gay marriage and would settle for two-male or two-female marriages.
The people should have the right to choose, for example, to marry a goat, sheep, etc. Don't be stampeded by Bush/Harper, Bush/Martin, they're all the same.
I get lost on this frggin invision and only read your post today. It seems particuylarly apropo as I just read a post about a Sudanese man forced to marry a goat.
Are you ready to enact a law and have the RCMP enforce it? LOL ! That would make Canada the envy of even the Dutch and Danes!
-
The issue was not marriage itself but that some citizens were excluded from the benefits of Canadian citizenship.
It IS the issue of marriage itself! THEY wanted to change the DEFINITION!
I have always agreed that THEY should be allowed to have their own definition of a union...with all the protection and benefits of any married couples.
The outrage is not about whether they can openly and legally shack up together in a union.....the outrage is about the changing of the definition of marriage!
The court hadto decide if a benefit was received by married citizens that homosexuals were denied . Then the court had to decide if the denial of the benefit breached the rights of citizens who were denied marriage under the law.
The court did not rule on the definition of marriage.
-
The issue was not marriage itself but that some citizens were excluded from the benefits of Canadian citizenship.
That is an outright lie and you know it.
Homosexuals wanted 'marriage'.
They declined other options or alternatives.
BTW- It's not over yet.
Homosexuals wanted equality and the court found that denying them the benefit of marriage under Canadian law breached their rights as citizens.
Ther is no 'right' to marriage so marriage was not the issue at court.
Please advise me on where I lied.
-
It may be that Iran may attck a neighbour or Israel or the USA some day. It may be that Iran will launch a nuclear attack against another nation some day. But I don't think you can attack some one for what they may do at some indefinite time to some indefinite nation.
IMO it's far worse than that. The "indefinite nations" are either Israel or Sunni Arab countries in the area. The real danger is it makes them invulnerable to conventional attack.
Japan was a rare case where offensive use of a nuclear weapon could work, because of the concentration of people and industry on Japan's East Coast. In most cases, nukes are more for creating an insuperable obstacle to a conventional attack, as was their use in Western Europe during the Cold War. I do not think an unattackable Iran is in anyone's interest.
Then Iran has a right and a duty to defend itself by developing the best defensive measures it can. That right is assured by tradition and coded in the UN Charter.
If we can't find a way to make Iran secure by negotiation , it will make itself secure by nuclear missiles capable of reaching everywhere on earth as provided by that right.
There have been plenty of negotiations with Iran. If we need to bomb it into the stone age to keep them away from nukes I'm okay with that. And no, it won't particularly bother me if that means a million dead Persians.
You should have noticed that the attack in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon did not result in deaths only to one side.
How many Canadian deaths are you ok with resulting from an attack on Iran.
? Another million?
-
Huh? Do you know Canadian history?Being that the Liberals will not be very popular in Quebec no matter who gets in as leader, the language issue then is a little less compelling.The Liberal Party will be popular in Canada - French and English - but its leader will have to be bilingual.
Chantal HebertGoing in to the debate, the campaign to succeed Martin was basically a three-way race between Dion, Rae and Ignatieff in Quebec. Yesterday's exchanges firmed up that configuration.....
As for the seven other candidates, they came as political tourists and left as such.
....
In a party that had a paucity of qualified bilingual candidates, Gerard Kennedy or Scott Brison's French might pass although Ken Dryden's would not, even in those reduced circumstances. But in a party that offers a perfectly fluent trio of top-tier candidates, aspirants whose second language turns to gibberish under pressure simply don't make the grade.
She's right. The choice is between Dion, Ignatieff and Rae. The question now is to whom the others will slide.
I don’t think Rae can win at a Liberal convention. In fact, I don’t think he can get enough votes to gain any significant influence in the party.
Secondly, I don’t think Ignatieff can win an election in this country. He is too closely tied to the USA and the current Republican administration.
That leaves Dion. I am currently of the opinion that he will win the leadership in a walk-away in the Convention.( Ignatieff will return to academia. Rae will hang on in the House and get a cabinet seat if the Liberals win)
This opinion is subject to change without notice.
-
Republic Article on Israeli Pathological Narcissism
Israel in the bubble world
Because of delusions and fantasies, Israel and the US both miss the real solutions to their existing problems
By Dan Adleman
Pathological narcissism occurs when an individual’s psychic horizons close in around him to form an insular, almost opaque bubbleworld. The mostly reflective surface of this glossy bubble provides a peculiarly obfuscated view of the outside world, which the narcissist looks to only to feed his all-pervasive pattern of self-inflating fantasies and behaviours. At the most extreme end of the narcissistic continuum, narcissists display what Freud referred to as “magical thinking,” a process whereby the narcissist is so convinced that the world revolves around his little bubble that he comes to believe that his petty thoughts and fantasies hold mystical sway over not only other people but also the very fabric of reality.
It could be argued that Israel, which acts with absolute arrogance and antipathy towards both its neighbours and the Palestinians, is the ultimate political bubbleworld. While outside of the US, most everyone in the world recognizes that the Middle East is an absurdly fragile equilibrium that’s constantly adjusting to Israel’s and America’s impositions, the Israeli government has long been content to run roughshod over anyone who opposes its will. Israel has worked in concert with its partner in crime, the US government, to transform the entire Middle East in order to make the Jewish state’s intrusion more palatable. But recent events have illustrated that there are limits to how much the bedevilled people outside the bubble are willing to collude with plush, gated communities that not only explicitly exclude them but also treat them with callous disregard. Just as the bubble-headed Bush administration has recently run headfirst into brick walls in Afghanistan and Iraq, Israeli narcissism has discovered an insurmountable obstacle in the form of Hezbollah...
The "Republic of East Vancouver" certainly has an agenda. The authour of the piece rewrote history, ignored facts and assigned motives to all with out regard to any evidence available.
For example, he says, "Israel’s attempt to mount an American-style whack-a-mole War on Terror on Hezbollah does not mesh with the reality on the ground." completely ignoring the fact that Hezbollah initiated the attack and stated its goal was to crush Hezbollah for good so that it didn't have the continued "whack a mole" attacks from Southern Lebanon.
The piece is a biased waste of time consisting of slogan shouting and repetition of the errors of others. The only value is that it reminds one to always check the facts offered in support of any argument.
Did the Pope Slander Islam?
in Moral & Ethical Issues
Posted
http://tinyurl.com/j7uuh
or
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict...ensburg_en.html
Read the actual speech that has angered Muslims around the world.