tml12

The age is too low as is. Shouldn't be a difference, it just shouldn't be 14. I still say it shouldn't be based on the age, rather we need to make sure 50 year olds aren't screwing their 14 year old neighbour. I think justice is best served when it is based on both age and difference in age. What to propose though? Maybe a min age at 15, but not allowing anyone 25 or over to have sex with anyone more than 10 years their junior where the junior is between 15 and 20 years of age. I know it may seem complicated but maybe someone can think of a better way. I could most definitely accept a proposal like that.

Normanchateau, "You seem to have conveniently forgotten your original point." Okay, we'll see if we can run through this again... "Earlier in this thread you argued that Harper should fire Martin-appointee McKenna simply because he represented the old "Liberal Dynasty". Notwithstanding that he's a proud Tory, Segal is also a Martin-appointee." 1) I argued Harper should fire McKenna because he is supposed to renew Canada-US relations and McKenna was appointed by a government that was unabashedly anti-American. 2) Segal was appointed to a Senate position by Martin who, like Trudeau, appointed members of other political parties to the Senate. "And do you believe that Segal should have run Harper's campaign while receiving a six figure salary from all Canadians instead of being on the CPC payroll? Obviously Harper sees no problem with this but integrity never was one of his strengths. " I admit it does appear to be conflict of interest, but Segal never hid his loyalty to the Conservatives when he accepted the Senate position. I should add that as long as he does his job in the Senate then I think all will be well.

I have lots of friends from South and Central America. When their governments were oppressing those people and the United States government was supplying those governments with arms, they started hating the United States for helping with the oppression. The United States then played hero and tried saving them from the militaries they were funding, so they could be the hero. Well all those games backfired on them. Orwell's quote from BlackDog's signature correctly describes U.S. foreign policy in the South and Central American region and yes, what they did was very wrong. Sponsoring Pinochet was very wrong and a nasty political move by the US and UK. However, at the time the world was a much different place and action had to be taken to ensure that Communism was stopped at all costs. I do not justify such actions, rather I say that you need to look at the world as it was then.

Concerned, "Have you any idea how long it took just for women to get the vote in this country ?????" I am well aware. I am also aware it is one thing to have equal rights and another thing to make the system easier for some at the expense of other, such as affirmative action (read: reverse discrimination) systems. "As an aside, since you insist on using hearsay opinion to validate yours, I would be interested to know what rolls your aunty may have taken in male dominated worlds ? Did she have a career? Who were her piers in that career? Did she ever "get ahead" or try ?" My aunt was a top management executive at a computer company where she oversaw the jobs of many white men. She started at the bottom, worked her way up, and was very proud of doing that with less help from the system then she would have gotten if she was still working today. She also made more money than most of the men in my family. "Did she play any sports or have any extra curricular activities outside of the home where maybe the majority of the people participating were not women ?" I am unaware whether or not she played sports but she has been a tireless community activist working with many less fortunate people for years. "Was she active in politics?" My aunt considers her integrity higher than political office. Yet she has volunteered time, money, and written many letters on behalf of the conservatives whom she hopes will restore integrity to the political office and bring back family and personal responsibility to the forefront of the political agenda, rather than political correctness.

Newbie, Keep those absolutely hilarious jokes coming...

Read the previous posts and figure it out. I'm not in or from Canada or left-leaning. It doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about. At all. The only post I find from you says "yeah you think they are racist." So where are you from if not Canada or the States. And yes as someone who has lived in both Canada and the U.S. and worked with immigrants from both countries, I will gladly tell you that many immigrants are proud and good people, while others are not loyal to their new country and do not respect it.

Come on look at those kids...they are the FUTURE of this country and they don't look so bad to me...

And maybe that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world...it'll benefit both countries.

Since when did women ever have an easier road than men ? She said "if we begin to..." she never said woman did have one. They never did and they never will. Particularly with guys like you around. You crack me up that I can tell you. So you attack me for a position that was proposed and supported by a woman (because you know, we can't attack them) because I agree with it. Making the situation easier for people and guaranteeing them a certain right does not foster equality. What it does foster, and I would go even further and say, CONFIRM is that women need assistance because they are not as good as men. What nonsense...I think my aunt's position is the most honourable for women.

Personally I'm going for Preston Manning. Now there's beauty. Oh, and that lovely Mr. Harper, there's another looker ! Somehow it doesn't make a difference to anybody what THEY look like .... On another note, you gotta love a dad who shakes hands with his kids when seeing them off to school. Oh he's all heart that Harper, Mr. Warm and Fuzzy. No feminine side to that guy !! Did he miss that whole "sensitive guys of the nineties" movement ???? http://static.flickr.com/23/25496120_b72663e1d8_m.jpg He can serve ice cream and not make you feel guilty about eating it...

Since when did women ever have an easier road than men ? She said "if we begin to..." she never said woman did have one.

I don't think Harper was very specific about electoral reform other than saying it "may" be of interest to the party. Which means I doubt anything will come of it now. If he brings it up, the Bloc and Liberals will likely vote against it and with Harper having support now from every province I think he'll bench that idea.

So like, uh, what's the age of consent for a blowjob? Have you ever been IDed before getting a blowjob? Like you came home from the bar and he/she was like, you must be [insert age here] before I can do this, may I see your ID. Another reason why I think we need to move above and beyond these age issues, especially when it is really an issue of maturity more than anything.

I believe this "tough new Harper standing up the American policy" is a Conservative plot to try and show that Harper can be "tough" in dealing with the Americans. Yes the situation in North American is that bad where we judge a PM's worth based on how well they "deal with the Americans." I can only hope the situation does improve because we need Harper to turn things around here.

I was spanked by my parents and my father always tells it to me like it is (maybe that's why I hate bullshit). I haven't lived with my parents in a long time but I still think about the positive effect their raising had on me and how I believe it has helped me to become a better person. Parents who allow their children to take advantage of them in public are insecure in their parenting.

I guess there is a lot of truth in that. I have always said that I respect a person who tells me upfront that they don't like me and don't fawn and cajole me. That kind of person is the worst kind because they take advantage of you and deep inside themselves they lack a respect for themselves.

It's against the guy code to speak ill of beautiful women, so it must be made clear that, though she is attractive, she is not beautiful and is therefore open to criticism. I would agree that she is attractive but I have seen more beautiful.

And Nancy Pelosi is anti-union. WHAT HAS THIS WORLD COME TO???

I'll be begging for Duplessis... OK never mind...

I had no idea that the Labour government was getting so politically correct over there. That is unbelievable. I think you are right. We live in such a diverse world...how can we expect people to respect every decision we make and every opinion we have. I often encourage people who disagree with to criticize me and change my mind. It doesn't often work but I like my views and my opinion on the world to be challenged by others. Constructive criticism is important, preventing people from uttering racial slurs is also important. The obvious problem with a "right not to be offended" is that it draws no distinction between the two. As for, "the right to feel secure," that often is a right (read: responsbility) we need to take upon ourselves.

I agree...we need some tax relief here too...we are looking for a GST cut soon.

My aunt is a woman and she says that she doesn't support mandatory female cabinet ministers and mandatory female MPs because she feels it is degrading to women. "Other women may think this is sexist," she said, "But if we start giving women an easier road then man, it is almost like we are admitting we aren't as good as them and as a proud and confident woman I resent and am personally offended by this." I think she makes a good point.

That is, I would argue, a very respectable position.

I agree...Britain, for example, stands out as a strong country in Europe because Blair's reformation of the Labour Party means the Party embraces the power of the free market. France, as another example, sends Chirac around complaining the EU Costitution is anti-social programs while Chirac dismantles government services at home. It is a tough system for sure...but we need it.

I don't know the answer to your question but Chretien was Prime Minster at the time and I suspect he required that the Liberal Cabinet voted as he wanted them to. Once Martin became Prime Minister, the Liberal Cabinet voted differently. Perhaps Chretien was homophobic. Martin and the entire Liberal Cabinet did vote for C-250, the bill to make gay bashing a hate crime. Harper and most of his party voted against C-250. Even Chretien supported C-250. You'd have to be remarkably intolerant not to. That's not what C-250 was about and you know it. Its been explained over and over again, guess he isn't reading or chooses to ignore what 250 is really aboutl Hopefully this will help people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C-250