tml12

Except for the violence part this did happen. Religious people are often offended by slurs against their prophets, and they have every right to express that. Christians were offended and protested The Last Temptation, Robert Mapplethorpe's work, and most recently Chris Ofili's dung splattered Virgin Mary. The Mayor of New York called it 'Catholic bashing'. Said slurs are protected in Western countries, but what is the point of them really ? They're facile and immature sideswipes that do nothing but inflame extremists on both sides. Thoughtful people forged a peace between religion and the state in the 18th century and for them the issue has long been put to rest. Michael Hardner, Much truth in that...

I think Cheney is a politician and he misfired...

A lot of Canadians talk about how much they love "Corner Gas" and "This Hour Has 22 Minutes." But would they be willing to join together with other Canadians to pay for these programs??? I tink this is an interesting question indeed...

Newbie, how exactly was I being a bully? I really don't understand that at all. "Scarascof" AKA MapleSyrup/Mockingbird who came here in December? He called you that name and you got really pissed. Greg banned him ASAP.

Geoffrey, 1) I didn't know Harris was gone, so forget the party's PC roots... 2) The CPC is right-wing, not very right-wing, but centre-right...the way (I think...IMHO) it should be. 3) Since there is no "top" or "bottom" per the new definition of the political compass, it is very hard to include libertarians in here.

EDITED BECAUSE I CAN'T POSITION AS I WANT IT: So if -100 is 100% Left-Wing and +100 is 100% Right-Wing: Communist: -75 NDP: -45 Liberal: +15 Green: +20 Conservative: +30

Shoop, Of all the people on this board you must take the most abuse (Snoopy and Sloopy Bully come to mind first). But you can take solace in the following...when your opponent makes comments like "She jumped from a Conservative party that was increasing in popularity, to a Liberal party that was going to be thrown out of govt. in 48hrs." knowing damn well Stronach is the only reason the former Lib government survived, you know you've got him beat...

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:

Indeed good sir, indeed. I think of it as a civil service myself.

Ignatieff is smart, I'll give you that. But he's even more ambitious and the Liberals aren't really a failing party. It's not like they were reduced to 2 seats. Right now he's looking for support like a fat kid looking for smarties. If he finds enough, he runs. I think it's that simple. But I still think there's an outside shot the Liberals force a quick election and Martin pulls a Trudeau coming back for the next election. Ignatieff can't govern like an "we don't need an army" intellectual. He needs to be a pragmatist. Intelligent people are smart...but others of them can't get out of the library. The real world isn't about when final exam week is or where the guy with the oxycontin is so you can stay up the week before studying. The real world is about being able to perform a trade, establish social connections, and fight for what you believe in at whatever cost. There is no pragmatism in intellectual leftist idealism. Thats the great thing about this guy, he's not a leftist idealist. While an intellectual, he's not some Chomskey, he's actually quite hawkish, more so than anyone has spoken of in the CPC. Here's an interview with Evan Soloman on CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/ignatieff.html I do get the impression that he holds one (old school, 1700's) conservative view, the white man's burden type idea. Because we hold the power and money, we've got an obligation to protect those lesser than us. While I personally agree with this, I think this may be a stumbling block with the majority of Canadians that enjoy the whole splendid isolationism. EDIT: To be fair tml, there is no pragmatism in the intellectual right idealism either. Make me admit it...the right isn't always correct!!! Seriously though I have never argued that extremes were correct...everything in moderation, like the Greeks always said!!!

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.

Good call, there will always be people though with little self-control/self-respect. While they might seem to be a good person (ya know how well you can judge after a few drinks and 10 minuites talking to them), that doesn't mean everyone they've been with is on the up and up. Definitely alot of people blaming others out their for their own ignorance and irresponsibility. It's too bad that so many people have to die because of it. High risk lifestyles come with high risk consequences. Not to say I haven't brough girls home... ...Rest assured they slept on my couch, not in my bed...

Ignatieff is smart, I'll give you that. But he's even more ambitious and the Liberals aren't really a failing party. It's not like they were reduced to 2 seats. Right now he's looking for support like a fat kid looking for smarties. If he finds enough, he runs. I think it's that simple. But I still think there's an outside shot the Liberals force a quick election and Martin pulls a Trudeau coming back for the next election. Ignatieff can't govern like an "we don't need an army" intellectual. He needs to be a pragmatist. Intelligent people are smart...but others of them can't get out of the library. The real world isn't about when final exam week is or where the guy with the oxycontin is so you can stay up the week before studying. The real world is about being able to perform a trade, establish social connections, and fight for what you believe in at whatever cost. There is no pragmatism in intellectual leftist idealism.

Hicksey, I couldn't agree more. AIDS is the easiest disease to beat. Now I'm sure someone will bitch and complain saying that poor black people don't have access to contraceptives (which are free in our society by the way), or that gay people are 'discriminated' against by this disease. But I think its time to stop being politically correct on this and get to the core issues. Rampant sexual permiscousness and deviant sexual practices are behind AIDS. Stop these things, and AIDS ceases to exist. Stop IV drug users from using drugs too and AIDS cannot possibly spread further. People, both genders now too, have completely responsibility to use protection. And get tested if you've had any 'accidents'! It's FREE! There is no excuse for either a) having AIDS, unless it was a medical mixup or B ) giving AIDS to anyone else, which should be an imprisionable offense (whether you knew or not). I agree. AIDS is caused by sharing needles (probably from "shooting up" drugs...something you shouldn't be doing in the first place) or by having unprotected sex with a partner whose sexual history you don't know. Although bringing home a hot girl from a bar after she's had a few might seem like an exciting and fun evening, you don't know where she is from or how much sex she has had. You have got to keep things in perspective. You have got to be smart. Don't have sex with someone unless you're in a committed relationship with them. If you're going to take a chance, make sure you have some condoms on you. They aren't expensive and, while not completely risk-free, are the best bet if you are taking a chance.

It's funny how when we talk about Canadian entities like the CBC, it's defenders immediately juxtapose George Bush and American realities on a uniquely Canadian situation. From the PBS website, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting receives $300,000.000.00 from the American government, which translates into about 15% of it's total funding. The balance comes from corporate donations, huge endowments and from viewers like me. The CBC receives upwards to $1 billion from the Canadian government plus money received as advertising revenue. Big difference in the way funding works and bigger difference in the delivery of programming. PBS offers documentaries and news programs that provide alternatives to the mainstream outlets. On the other hand many programs have a flavour that cater to the viewership because if they didn't they wouldn't receive their donations from the public. I've said here before, that the CBC receives it's government stipend regardless of the product it delivers. The CBC operates with no accountability to it's viewership and listenership. How about this. Using the accepted scale that the Canadian market is 10% of the US, we cut CBC's government contribution to $30,000,000.00, solicit contributions from corporations, endowments and give me the choice to make a financial contribution to support programming. As Peter Mansbridge and Julie Van deusen are asking for my after tax dollars, they can convince me why they are deserving and why they are the paragons of Canadian unity, so many are willing to claim. This piont has already been covered earlier. That the CBC should operate on public donations is impractical as in Canada we have only a meer fraction of the population that American broadcasters like PBS have to draw donations from. In regards to your problem with the programing, Im curious as to what you would like to see. Are you not interested the following:Life & Times, PassionateEye, Correspondent,Fifth Estate Funding for CBC should be cut, it should not be privatized completely. Funding from the government should be higher than in the U.S. for the reasons you mentioned Hollus. However, having CBC as a government tool endorsing government views is not apprpriate, IMHO.

Agreed...she would need to immediately craft a domestic platform out of nowhere. I don't think she would be interested in the job anyway.

Layton apparently disagreed with the decision according to today's Montreal Gazette.

Agreed. If CBC gets way too conservative for you, you must be at the leftist fringe of the NDP...

Searched for this information for an hour and found nothing on topic. My understanding is that Liberals have much more to lose than either the CPC or the NDP, in fact corporate money for the Tories and union money for NDP are a surprisingly small percentage of their overall campaign donations. Both rely heavily on small individual donations under $500. Maybe someone else can confirm this. That is true.

I agree that there should be more order in the trial...

We all know Harper has his hands tied when it comes to major foreign issues, it just makes too good of a story for the press and the opposition. He'll be limited to NATO and UN peacekeeping. But Ignatieff... this man could lead us into battle, pulling that "trigger." Canada needs at least one term of a "semi-hawkish" leader to regain our appearance as a country willing to fight for peace and defend peace at all costs in the world. We once were a world leader in peacekeeping (see: Pearson) but now we are an irrelevant player on the international scene. Call me a blind nationalist all you want, but I want to have pride in the fact that my country takes a stand for those less advantaged than us. I know that won't happen with the Conservative Party, just too much at stake for them. Though with Ignatieff at the head of the Liberals, Canada would have a chance to regain our international respect and prestige. After two terms of Harper rule, I think Ignatieff would be a nice transitional piece! We do have to go back to the national ruling party sometime, might as well be with a competent international-minded leader! I think he'd be better suited to take the helm after the next leader fails. This lets him put at least one person between him and the scandal. I would also like to address apologies to Biblio Bibuli for not embracing Ignatieff sooner like he suggested! Wow thi could ensure a CPC majority but violently splitting the Liberal/NDP vote!!!

We can also look at the possibility of the CPC engineering a defeat sooner, before the leadership convention. Then the Liberals are running under either Martin, who will be the biggest lame duck ever, or Bill Graham, who has so much baggage even Toronto might not elect him. Is Bill strong in French? If I was Harper, I'd pass my GST, pass my Childcare, pass my Accountability Act, pass my health care times, pass the crime bill, and pass armed border guards. Then I pull the plug around say, October, of course making it look like the Liberals/Bloc were to blame (as these seats are the CPC targets). And presto, we have a majority government by the end of November. I don't disagree but how would you justify two elections in one year to the Canadian public? How would yuou pull the plug?

Or he is trying to "turn the table."

The problem with your statement is that it opens the doors to discrimination on any conceivable basis - skin colour, ethnic origin, religion, gender, age, even hair colour. The government shouldn't have to tell anyone to treat all people equally - I'd like to see it just being inherent in each of our personal value systems. Government interference is too much...that some of its impractical rules are costing businesses unnecessary expenses. But then, that's for another thread. The one issue the left and right should agree on is...GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT INTERFERE IN RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS. If the left's view that government should not ban abortion because of separation of church and state is correct, then the same view that government should not be able to define marriage is correct because marriage is a religiou institution...

Emerson is becoming a liability. Harper needs to get this guy in check, shut him up, and issue a statement about his decision before CBC starts any more leftist rants. What, exactly, is Emerson bringing to the CPC table? There has to be an upside somewhere in this debacle. According to James Travers of the Star, a softwood agreement is largely accomplished, therefore Emersons negotiating skills can't be the reason. A voice for downtown Vancouver? Voters here are livid over his action and feel disenfranchised - will he give voice to those concerns? Harper did not help his cause when he was quoted, "I expected that type of superficial criticism", in response to the uproar from voters in the riding. What arrogance. This from the man who promised new ethics in government. If Harper could redo this episode he would not touch Emerson. Harper could have made a better response and Emerson should stop prancing around saying "I'm flabbergasted" and the rest of that "I didn't even think one person would object to this" bullshit criticism he has been offering us.