tml12

That is what happens when you have a "catch-all" party...either everything is caught or nothing.

This phenomenon is called "playing both sides."

uOttawaman, You're back... I have a quick question about Ottawa that I wanted to ask you but you haven't been awhile... Does the law school offer civil law degrees like McGill and U of T or not??? BTW: Sens are going down tonight (I hope... ) Yep we sure do offer Civil Law degrees! Lol at the Sens game, I hope my Sens win, but i won't be mad if they don't . I like the Habs too. But haha... I was at the Sens vs Leafs game on monday, nothing better than seeing a bunch of yelling whining leafs fans suddenly get all sad. Thanks for the Ottawa info...I am thinking about doing a law degree but I want to make sure it is recognized in my home province (we only do civil law here). I HATE the Leafs (as you may imagine). I went to the Habs home opener against Ottawa and sat with some Sens fans. We all agreed on hating the Leafs. Not hearing anything from Leafs fans is quite priceless...I once got wrapped in a Leafs flag by drunk Leafs fans after a Leafs-Habs game IN MONTREAL. :angry: :angry: :angry:

Who had the first female leader? The Liberals? NDP? The anti-female Conservatives?

Harper will foster debate while his MPs respect the trading partnership. The Liberal rely on rhetoric and a war of words.

OK I admit it. I was completely nutty when writing that post. But I still maintain the position that the provincial NDP is about as similar to the federal NDP as the provincial Quebec Liberal Party here is similar to the federal Liberals.

It would be my pleasure...

I'm all for that. Jack Layton for leader of the Libs. Conservatives would be like the left in Alberta--impotent and terribly frustrated. And they could take control of government without another election. LMAO... I almost spilled my drink and wet my pants...a Layton government? Bubber, really...you are beginning to just be incoherent...this country would be so impotent after one day of that not even the political equivalent of 6,000 Viagra pills would raise the confidence of inv... Ah, hell nothing sounds right tonight...

You have to understand the nomenclature of religious politics. Here's a primer. "witnessing to lost souls" = abusing the shit out of people I don't like and ceaselessly demanding they stop being who or what they are in order to meet my religious beliefs "oppression" = disagreeing with me "anti-religious" = disagreeing with me "hateful" = disagreeing with me "righteous indignation" = when I do oppressive things to and say hateful things about people I don't like "traditional values" = whatever values from my holy book which match how I live today, especially if I can use them to bash people over the head (i.e. Leviticus on gays) "irrelevant" = whatever values from my holy book which condemn how I live today, especially if they make me look hypocritical (i.e. Leviticus on eating cheeseburgers, getting one's hair cut, lending money out at interest; Jesus's commandments on giving away one's money to the poor and not divorcing, etc.) "truth in love" = hate speech which is motivated by my religion "hate speech" = any words you say which disagree with my condemnation of an entire group of people "just and proper" = laws which force you and your religion to operate along my religious or spiritual beliefs "unprecedented violation of religious freedom" = laws which force me and my religion to operate along your religious or spiritual beliefs "deeply held beliefs" = silly, irrational and bigoted notions which would be laughed out of any normal discussion, except that I can call them religious and then demand you respect them "selfish" = people who were raped by the church and seek economic recompense for their suffering "spiritual leaders" = the church leaders who aided and abetted the systemic rape and are moving to block compensation of rape victims "moral authority" = what I have because I say so "immoral" = what you are because I say so "religious freedom" = legislating my religion and only my religion as the one true way "diversity of religious communities" = a few variants of my Christian belief who agree with me on 90% of what's said "satanic" = Muslims, Quakers, Jews, atheists, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs or any other group whose religious traditions are different from my own "broader faith community" = satanic people who happen to agree with me and my religious corporation on how things should be on a given issue, who I will grudgingly ally myself with until the issue is settled and then will turn around and bash again "let the people decide" = what I will say when Parliament or a court makes a decision based on established law with which I disagree "exercising profound leadership" = what I will say when Parliament or a court makes a lousy decision based on politics with which I agree "moral decline" = what society is going through when they let the people decide and the decision doesn't go my way That's a basic start YankAbroad, That is going in my political-science encyclopedia (it's really non-partisan...I make fun of and credit both sides). Damn, what thoroughness...here is to symbolically buying you a beer

They are CanWest too. I stand corrected because the Montreal Gazette is quite right-leaning and that and the National Post are the two CanWest papers in Montreal. I don't know if there is a Liberal editor for the Gazette, what with Josee Legault's separatist Boisclair-loving pieces (still can't believe she lives in TMR), L. Ian Macdonald, Norman Webster, and Don MacPherson are pro-Harper all the way, and Janet Bagnall rambles on about feminism in her "hear-me-I-am-left-of-the-NDP" pieces. Henry Aubin is the one who somewhat endorsed the Liberal gun registry but he only writes on municipal affairs.

First of all, your "sources" are not credible. World Net Daily? Fox News? Second, paedophilia involves adults being sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. How does this have anything to do with Homosexulaity? Give it up, this is a red herring argument/outright lie perpetrated on society by the fundies. These sources are just as credible as any other, simply because you don't like them doesn't mean they are not credible. It doesn't matter if you perceive a source to be biased as bias does not apply to corroborated facts, as established through multiple sources. A bias impacts on the level of factual selection and the point of view only. Simply claiming someone is biased or not credible does not eliminate the legitimacy of their information. Whats a 'fundie' Somebody from the Bay of Fundy, or what? That is true. I think she meant "fundamentalist" like Christian fundamentalist. You know? Those people that are taking over the world with the quest for oil and world domination?

He's not quite over the "shock" of it yet...

uOttawaman, You're back... I have a quick question about Ottawa that I wanted to ask you but you haven't been awhile... Does the law school offer civil law degrees like McGill and U of T or not??? BTW: Sens are going down tonight (I hope... )

Why 2,000 years? Seems a bit arbitrary to me, given that marriage has existed in various forms in various societies long before that. Of course, that would give lie to your claim that marriage is soley a religius institution... According to the law, the federal goverment has teh right to define the civil, legal instiution known as marriage. If you don't want to call equal marriages "mariages" that's your perogative. But at the end of the day, what other people choose to call their relationships has sweet F.A. to do with you and your relationship. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to imagine any gay couples being overly concerned with whether or not you approve of their union or recognioze it as "marriage". The only recognition that matters is legal recognition. You're right BD, absolutely right. Doesn't make IT right.

We thought so too but he said he wasn't running this time...

Oh come on guys. Landslide Annie is well taken care of. And if she ever needed money all she would have to do is wait for the Liberal government to come back to power and then, as chair of the "Option Alberta" group she can make some "hard earned" (read taxpayer stolen) money and get on with her life...

Satire and you are barely passing aquaintances, hey? "Eating babies" has become a lexiconal way of saying someone is evil. Now, I happen to think Dick Cheney is quite possibly the evilest motherf**ker in North America, which places him high in the rankings worldwide. But i do not actually think he eats babies. But I digress. Now why would I want to backtrack on a statistical fact? 80 per cent of Canada's population is concentrated in urban areas. The cities in the Lower Mainland and GTA are considered urban areas, which are defined as "(an area with) a population of at least 1,000 and a density of at least 400 persons per square kilometre, based on the previous census." In that case, then Harper DOES have MPs in urban areas... I agree Cheney is quite self-centred, wouldn't call him the evilest mf in North America, but quite arrogant.

McKenna will be the Liberal leader...I don't doubt it. High-profile CPC defectors like Brison and Belinda will sit this one out for sure because McKenna will kill their chances.

Leafless asked the question: "majority English provinces...should they be English?" That's a no-brainer...OF COURSE THEY SHOULD... And Ontario should be first, at least following Claude Morin's "Quebec will be as French as..." attitude in the late 1970s.

Possibly. But Graham was pro-Iraq and pro-missile defence and is quite a laid-back guy...you think the Liberals would put up someone who has been staunchly left-leaning and anti-Harper in the past...I dunno, like Stephane Dion.

Why not work towards fulfilling a promise in his platform during his first press conference as PM-designate? With your best friends, you talk about your problems. Even if you just had a big fight that someone else caused. The US and UK have been using these waters for years while the Liberals sat by and stuffed envelopes at semi-sketchy Italian restaurants in Montreal. I am sure Harper will talk to Wilkins. No doubt Wilkins would rather do that.

The Liberals will need an interim leader, someone in Parliament, in the meantime though, eh? Might be an interesting opportunity to see Belinda or Brison make a play for the Liberal leadership in the interim.

You should have asked BlackDog what the left's hero Castro has on the menu...

Don't you mean: "That damn Harper and his anti-Americanism blah blah blah..."? No doubt Harper will foster debate on this issue. If he plays into the anti-American card again to try and gain votes in the GTA I will lose complete respect for him. He will also be seen, like Martin, as a hypocrite because he (like Martin) ran on campaigns to improve relations with the Americans.

Equality is a "so-called" right? Since when? We're not arguing over whether gays deserve the same rights in a relationship, rather over whether 2000 years need to be disregarded to make that happen. Well put Hicksey. The left--especially the libertarian left--would like to think we can redefine the social code that our society has been living with for years. And they have, on social issues, overstepped their bounds by redefining their position on marriage and telling us they have the right to define marriage. Well I am sorry. My values do not change overnight and I cannot accept the argument that our elected officials overstep their bounds in endorsing such a proposal.