tml12

Because allowing heterosexuals a state-issued marriage licnse while refusing teh same to homosexuals is discriminatory. Canada doesn't have a formal separation of church and state. Religious definitions and civil (legal) terms are apples and oranges. People keep equating the two, but they are not the same at all, something recognized in the provisions in the Equal Marriage Act that allow religious institutions to define marriage on their own terms. The precedent has already been set. State unions=marriages. If you have issues with the semantics, well, that's unfortunate, but I fail to see why you can't just render unto Caesar what is Caesar's etc. But suppose you have a case where you have a polygamous or polyandrous relationship where all the participants are consenting adults? Quite frankly, I doubt there's a lot of gays who give a rat's ass about getting "validation" from homophobic institutions like the R.C. Church. The point here is equal treatment under the law. no and why should they? Catholic homosexuals do not need "validation" from their church to be married. They can get a civil union or, decide whether their sexuality or their religion is more important, and make a decision from there...

"Well, I'm, talking about U.S. conservatives, which make our Cons look like Maoists." Conservatives in general, regardless of what country they are in, speak for the same thing. American conservatives are hardly different from Canadian conservatives. The only reason they seem different is because the American neo-con minority claims to speak for the moderate conservative majority. There are many Canadian neo-cons, including many within the CPC, but they do not claim to speak for Canada's governing Conservative party.

As Harper supporters, we can be critical of the PM. I, for one, will not sit here and argue that Harper made the right decision. I was critical of Belinda and I am critical of Emerson. As my signature may indiciate, there generally is no loyalty in modern politics. Yet, that doesn't mean individual politicians should not strive for loyalty. Emerson screwed up and he looks bad because he did wrong. Harper communicated this thing the whole way. This whole thing played out terribly because of stubbornness. Hicksey is right that if Harper hadn't said the bar so high we'd be less critical. How was this a good move? It can't just be about representation? That all being said, the best man for Canada is still in 24 Sussex Drive and we must not fully evaluate Harper until he is finished governing. This government is far from falling...

From the Pope to Chirac...

tml12 Results: October 2005: Economic Left/Right: -1.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.18 tml12 Results: Feb. 2005: Economic Left/Right: 3.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 4.15 Wow I keep moving to the right...

Good call. There was a guy on here recently (he seems to have disappeared) from, I believe, Norway, telling us that it is good for the state to raise your children. He was a reasonable guy but I am always surprised at how Europeans always look to the state to guide them--especially with Europe's 20th century history of totalitarian ideologies like Communism, Nazism, and Fascism. I can just imagine a young impressionable kid after the CBC got through with them... Daddy, can I get my balls waxed when I get older? Daddy, can I get meat hooks put in my back so I can swing from the ceiling? That looks like fun! Daddy, after watching today's gay marriage video, I gave Timmy a big kiss on the lips. I'm progressive! Daddy, I learned about the President of the United States today. He's a monkey. Daddy, can you buy me some spray-paint cans so I can express my inner feelings on private and public property? LOL!!! Well put...

Finance Minister Martin? Centre-right. PM Martin w/NDP support? Centre-left...a bit more left-wing.

I practice brokerage politics and it seems like I am playing both sides I guess. I tell it like it is and back up my views and statements with facts. Some of those views (i.e. the death penalty) anger a lot of people (Boru comes to mind) but they are true. I also acknowledge when I am wrong. I like a good political fight and admit I may be aggressive about some issues. Rest assured I respect your right to be whatever you are (left, right, and centre) as long as there is no hypocrisy involved...

LOL!!!

BlackDog, The modern conservative movement is very complicated. Bush may be part of the conservative movement, but the conservative movement is not Bush. Bush is a "neo-conservative." Neo-conservatives make up an element of conservatives but do not make up the conservative movement. I am moderate and I always have been. I voted Conservative not because I think every word that comes out of Harper's mouth is equivalent to that of God's. Why I supported the Conservatives is they were the only party running that promised to put Canadian values and positive Canada-U.S. relations first. Find me another major party that was willing to do that and I would have voted for them. The U.S. does not need Canada, Canada needs the U.S. And we need a U.S. government that will find room there for Canada. That will remember Canada when they remember their own country. Only the Conservatives promised to stand up for Canada in that fashion. I'm not a neo-con, in fact, far from it. Definitely fit the bit of a neo-liberal mixed in with a bit of British class toryism. Neo-cons make up a very small amount of conservatives... in fact I'd say they only exist in the US and a little in the UK. It's too bad GWB Jr. is giving the rest of us a bad name. I also disagree tml, the US/Canada relationship is needed by both countries. Geoff, Yes i agree with you and Fleabag that it is needed by both countries but to a different degree. The U.S. does not need Canada now as much as it will in 50 years or so. And that is more than enough time for our relations to get better so the U.S. can work out a postive agreement with Ottawa over freshwater, etc.

I call B.S. Further, the reverse of this statement is set to grow stronger. I would have voted conservative this time around but the MP in my riding is contemptible. However, I agree that some 'conservative values' need to be strengthened, and US relations have to be handled with way more tact. Fleabag, If you are referring to freshwater, you're right. But that is the main reason we need to have better relations with our cousing to the south. I respect your voting decision...

That's how I view it too.Too much of a price to the city hosting the event. The problem with a lot of these facilities is that it takes big bucks to keep them in shape. Once built on a massive scale it also needs lots of upkeep and $$ for international competition standards. It becomes a money pit in maintenance costs. The Oval in Calgary needs millions today to put it back to standards, just as the Big "O" in Montreal. One location for the Olympics would allow expansion to existing at one site without having costly rebuilding everytime a new Olympics comes around. Where does all the revenue from advertising,media etc. go? and how much is made? Never did see numbers from the IOC. In efficiency your right. In keeping with the concept of the games, your not. It's not like these cities are having the olympics forced upon them. It's their choice and there is always 4 or 5 contenders. So let cities spend if they want to, its their choice. tacpayers though too...

Not me, I was just quoting Betsy. Marriage is a legal definition, and the right to perform marriages is granted from the government to clerics within a religion, justices of the peace, Elvis impersonators, etc. "And now, by the power granted to me by the Province of Manitoba, I pronounce you..." okay but the state is not a relifious insittution...

Marriage is a religious term and you said it yourself when you recognized that it takes a church to validate a marriage. You'll find marriage defined by almost every religion. "Marriage is not a religious term...." is simply wrong. agreed...

The Liberals? Moderate/Centrist Libertarian???

credibility down the toilet. agreed there cyber

I am saying those shows exists because gov't fund ensures there is a critical mass of talent in Canada that is willing to work on those kinds of shows. Without that critical mass of talent the chances of producing a successful Canadian show would be next to zero. so then government needs to put money to produc shows canadians will watch but canadians will watch american TV anyway??? then what's the point???

Newbie, Give an exape of those receipients I might be surprised by...I am not sure i understadn

OH NO!!!

Those shows would not exist if the gov't had not developed a domestic entertainment industry through subsidies. It takes many failures to produce a few successes. Look at it another way: the majority of Silcon Valley startups go bankrupt, but the ones that succeed owe their success to the concentration of expertise and capital in Silcon Valley. so you're saying these shows ONLY would exist because of gov't funding???

Ya I meant right on economic issues. sorry I'm a Social Libertarian it's cool... is there a test on that website???

True. The CPC is more induvidualistic than the Liberals. But thats all they got going for them in the struggle to the right. I would still assert that the CPC is more centrist than the PC's were in their hayday. Maybe...but it is time we stopped thinking that right of centre was a bad thing...

What are you talking about Canuck? The Big O, here in Montreal, was paid for long before the Olympics even took place in 1976! :angry: Stan's got a point there, it does seem rather wasteful. However, these facilities are used constantly afterwards, its not just a two week game. The olympics are what gave Calgary infrastructure, without them, we would be so screwed right now (worse than our roads and transit already are)! You thik your roads are bad... No but I didn;t disagree with him... My point was that although the Olympics are a great honour they also come at a great price...

Geoffrey, You know I think you are "THE MAN." But I think the Libs are centre-right and that the CPC is just a little more right-wing because they support the freedom of the individual more. This is not a bad thing...just in my humble opinion...

Wow dude, there isn't anything more right than a Libertarian. Political spectrum Found this neat quiz ealier; a bit long but fun. But libertarians are left on social issues... Dude the political compass includes left, right, top, bottom...libertarians represent the bottom of this spectrum...