Leafless

IOW you're talking out of your ass. Change "homosexuals" to "darkies" and this reads like a Klan leaflet. Racist policies??? I didn't know homosexuals were a RACE. Read it as it is and that is "mental defect" not "defect". Do you have a link to prove your not talking out of your ass? Sure sounds like it. Change "homosexuals" to "darkies" and this reads like a Klan leaflet. Well I suppose if we go changing words to suit our agenda we would be able to have anything read anything. Brilliant BD, brilliant.

Here are some ideas. Tax penalties on gas guzzlling vehicles and tax breaks on fuel efficient and ULEV vehicles. Financial incentives for fuel companies to offer E85 ethanol at their stations. Reinstate EnerGuide and rejoin Kyoto. Create legislation forcing all appliances to meet minimum efficiency standards, like what has been done in California. Adopt California emmisions standards in Canada. Provide low interest loans to people who will buy efficient furnances, appliances, windows, geo-thermal heating and cooling systems, etc. Increased transit funding. Stop subsidizing old industry and rich industry like the oil sector. For example the two billion we give to the Canadian oil sector could be spent on any number of environmental projects. We can add strings to auto sector subsidies like the vehicles produced must be flex fuel vehicles, ULEV vehicles, hybrids, etc. Hybrids don't actually idle, they shut off. The economy is always in transition. Those damn automobiles drastically decreased the number of black smiths and wagon makers. Also, vehicles aren't going anywhere. They are slowly evolving towards zero emission vehicles but they will still be made and sold. Also, as we increase the number of trains and busses in use more workers are required to build them, drive them and maintain them. Tax penalities on gas guzzling vehicles means less revenues for federal and provincial governments and that means less services. E85 ethanol is expensive to produce and could easily take one gallon of petroleum to produce that one gallon of ethanol which BTW in Canada is NOT to my knowledge adjusted for volume which means you don't drive as far with one gallon of ethanol compared to one gallon of gasoline since it produces less BTU's. Creating legislation to manufacture energy saving appliances results in only minimul savings like turning down your thermostat 10 degrees saves you about 5% on your total heating bill. We don't need California emmission standards because their is hardly any place in Canada where pollution creates the same HEALTH risk as in cities in congested Calaifornia, we don't have 36 million people in any one province like what California has. We have to continue to subsidize the oil industry as it not only creates jobs and wealth but there is virtually no replacement at present to replace the oil industry. IMO there is only one way to reduce pollution and that is CONSERVATION by utilizing solar energy which includes wind power, hydro power and biomass generators with conservation with our fossil fuels (petroleum and coal). Even hydrogen cars produce not so friendly tons of water vapour that troublesome greenhouse gas and takes an equivlent amount of energy to produce that hydrogen. So until countries can establish a line of practiable defense relating to enviromental polluton it appears TERRORISM outweighs GLOBAL WARMING as our most serious threat.

Don't tell me tell the moderator. I am on track with links to causes of 'homosexuality'. But I know what your getting with those who post nonsense in an effort to justify or legitimize homosexuality as being on par with heterosexuality.

Well, I noticed that you nor 'gerryhattrick' offered not ONE suggestion on how a government would go about CORRECTING the enviroment. There are many forms of pollution but the main one I think that worries you is the 'greenhouse effect' with water vapour being the main greenhouse gas increases with population. Ever consider how much heat is given off on a hot day by thousands of vehicles idling in 'parking lot conditions' on the main motorways including hybrids and trapped in the lower atmosphere and heated even further by the sun's rays. Ever consider what would happen if you removed ONLY HALF the vehicles on the road to-day? You would almost immediately encounter mass unemployment from thousands of lost jobs related to the automotive industry and you don't need any statistics telling you what this would do to the economy. There are many other forms of pollution that are extremely problamatic also but also some being controversial concerning playing havoc on world wide weather. According to some scientist even if current levels of pollution were maintained at the present level temperatures would continue to rise for DECADES as the damage (ozone layer) is already done. So let's hear it. What would you do if you were prime minister in the way of implementing some sorts of enviromental controls???

Global warming and terrorism are both serious threats but are completley different. One is associated with the enviroment and population growth and the other associated at the present time MAINLY to Islam, Muslims and their religious beliefs pertaining to acts of terrorism involving and including suicide bombers and associated spirtual rewards for their dastardly acts. Of course Mr. harper is right at identifying the most SERIOUS and IMMEDIATE threat as terrorism as it has the ability to seriously disrupt world order which it already has done. It also presents a very problamatic almost chaotic condition with countries who harbour Muslims due to their unpredictable nature concerning potential terrorist attacks or other forms of violence within that specific host country.

You quote from a site that promotes the book: "The Agenda: The Homosexual Plan to Change America." Kinda blows your credibility. My credibility is 'heterosexual' credibility' and traditional values. And this is what the "Agenda is really about" " THE AGENDA describes how homosexual activists plan on recruiting your children into the lifestyle; how they’re undermining traditional marriage; and how they will eventually criminalize any public criticism of homosexual conduct. (It’s already happening in Canada where the gay agenda is well advanced.)"

True. How can you have a mental condition without a brain? Your right. I guess homosexuals don't have a brain as they are the 'doctors' who eternally perpetuate the 'homophobia diagnosis' directed at any heterosexual who denies their god given genetic makeup and normal lifestyle.

Did you even read the article? Certainly did read the article. And here is another one that says homosexuality is an 'ADAPTATION' not an inborn trait and has nothing to do with genetics. BTW homophobia is a NON-EXISTENT mental condition. http://traditionalvalues.org/urban/seven.php

I've always had an inkling that could be the case.

Surprise, surprise. "Don't ask, don't tell", homosexuality is a mental disorder in the U.S military says Pentagon. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6061901026.html

There were Quebec FLQ terrorist that imprinted initially the demands that lead up to 'Official Languages', Multiculturalism, official federal bilingualism, the repatriation of our Charter and changes to our Charter that benefit and cater 'mostly' to Quebec ideologies and the French Languages Service Act'. You are wrong as Quebec 'terrorism' as done it's job and the federal government backed down from initially treating terrorist activities and Quebec with the arm of the law rather than caving in to terrorist demands with soft socialist policies especially during the Trudeau era. To-day Quebecers and the Bloc are 'political opportunist' thanks to the previous actions of the FLQ and all those Quebecers who always keep the separation issue alive with about 50% of Quebecers agreeing with that notion and keep the separatist flame perpetually burning. To label Pemier Ralph Kline as a would be terrorist opportunist is nonsense as the medicare issue is troublesome in many parts of the country and most premiers are fed up and want the thing rectified. Ralph Kline had complained for years how they were being ignored and isolated by French PM's all from Quebec while Quebec recived a multitude of constitutional goodies. If there is anyone tolerent I would say it has to be Ralph Kline as one of the most tolerent. No, I won't shadup and be tolerent (as your sef rightous tag line indicates) as tolerence has it's limits and Quebec was treated IMO exceeded many times over it's share to what is considered it's piece of the constitutional pie with other provinces scratching their heads and left wondering how they were initially screwed by Quebec's Trudeau and his Liberal henchmen.

Yup! His wife 'Winnie' Mandela was involved 'neck deep' in corrupt activities. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/2863807.stm

Rue You wrote: "It wasn't that long ago the vast majority of Canadians supported a supposed left wing pinko Trudea in implementing the War Measures Act which was no different then the state of siege legislations promulgated in so many South American regimes we thought we were "better than"." I support the 'War measures Act to-day' not the 'Emergency Act' and am no fan of Mr. Trudeau. I would hate to see the confusion in Canada to-day if Canada was rocked by some sort of terrorist attack with everone protected by some 'right' making it virtually impossible to launch a government counter offensive without the government being held responsible for hurting someone's pinko left wing feelings.

Your last sentence is idiotic. I say that because to equate your disapproval of bilingualism and people tring to enforce it or promote programs for it is one issue, terrorism is another and when you make such statements you seriously make a mockery of just how serious terrorists with bombs are. Man I know plenty of Israelis and Palestinians that would trade places with you and put up with your language problems rather then live where they are living. I could say that about a lot of people in a lot of conflict zones. Then there are the victims of terrorism whom I am sure would equate your anger with bilingualism as more serious then the death of their loved ones or guts flying in their face. Man I would love to see you in the midst of a terrorist attack bleeding with your bowels coming out and some French speaking medic working on you. You think you would give a sh..t at that point if he was French? I doubt it. Why do people like you reply with veiled threating dialogue when the topic is pertaining to racist sentiments concerning CSDCSO that you are supposed be addressing. Are you suggesting if the English don't agree with the French fact that Quebec will turn into a province of terrorist and attack other provinces? Not everone is like you who agrees with Official Languages, Official Multiculturalism and associated federal bilingualism, French Languages Services Act in Ontario who have had all this imposed on them in a very undemocratic manner mainly by the federal Liberals and it is Canadians democratic right to oppose what can be viewed as fraudulent discriminatory language legislation.

The French Language Services Act says: "Municipalities do not have to provide French-language services, even in the designated regions. They are responsible for deciding whether or not to provide their services in French." Whatever that means democratically speaking. http://www.ofa.gov.on.ca/english/FLSA.html

IMO the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applied at the federal level gurantees the interpretation of to many rights and is cumbersome to applying the law of the land aspecially in cases such as this one. This particular issue is extremely serious and with the kind of evidence secured so far these 'suspects' should be kicked out of the country. If their lawyers are successful and if I read this right the 'suspects' can actually apply for permanent residence. This is part of (PRRA) Pre-removal risk assesment, part of security certificates. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN AN APPLICATION … … is approved? Most people who are found to be at risk may apply for permanent residence. If an individual is inadmissible for reasons of security, serious criminality, involvement in organized crime, or violation of human or international rights, or was denied access to the refugee determination process, a positive determination will result in a temporary stay of removal. … is rejected? People who receive a negative decision must leave Canada as required by the removal order they were issued. CIC will make removal arrangements. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/irpa/fs-risk.html http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/newsroom/factsh...rtificat-e.html

August1991 You wrote: "Canada accepts immigrants now in three broad groups: family class, refugees, skilled workers. First of all, any suggestion of limiting immigration just means refusing skilled workers. The family class and refugee groups are basically out of anyone's control. At most, the bureaucrats can delay the processing. So, simple calls to "restrict immigration numbers" is no solution." You are wrong putting the onus on 'skilled worker' when they represent 48.10% of total immigration. And as a matter of fact skilled workers fall under the 'Economic Class' which includes skilled workers-48.10%, Buisness immigrants-9,764 or 4.14% and Live in Caregivers-4,292 or 1.82%. Total Ecomomic Class Immigrants= 133,746 or 56.71% Then you have Family Class- Spouses, parents, children and other immigrants=49,,514 or 21%. Then you have Protected Persons which are Government assisted Refugee Immigrants=7,411 or 3.14%. Then you have Privately Sponsered Refugee Immigrants=7,411 or 3.14%. Then you have Refugees Landed in Canada Immigrants=15,901 or 6.74% Then you have Humantarian and Compassionate/Public policy immigrants= 6,945 or 2.94% Your emphasis on skilled immigrants is not reflective to the actual need. In other words many companies don't want to pay substantial wages for the skilled help thus the artificial requirement for skilled worker immigrants in many cases.

As if Canadian citizen have a say in immigration policies. This is nothing more IMO than to fulfill a Liberal legacy MULTICULTURALISM and I think there is more to 'excess immigration' than meets the eye , although this is not the thread to discuss that aspect. To discuss the merits or pitfalls of immigration at this time does not really make any sense until the NEW Conservative government of this land leads the way and tells Canadians point blank if previous Liberal immigration numbers are fraudulent relating to the number and type of immigrants required in Canada. For instance I cannot believe the bulk of Canada's immigration is required in the GTA while certain jobs throughout Canada go begging with the need of additional temporary workers to fill the demand. Something is drastically wrong and the onus is on the Conservatives to level with Canadians.

To me, it became obvious during the first election campaign as a provincial liberal leader, which he lost through very subtle means, not at all visible for non-francophones. He carefully mis-used certain words and concepts which lead to the liberals defeat. [After all, going from federal to provincial politics is often seen as a demotion. And then going from conservative to liberal is incredible; whatever forced him to make this unwanted career shift is responsible for Charest becoming overnight a closet separatist.] Charest is no idiot and he is after federal dollars rather than waste time with more constitutional talks. " As outgoing premier Landry pointed out, voters ousted a government that a majority of them thought had done a decent job. Still, pundits tell us separatism is dead, and that Quebecers have grown weary of big, interventionist government - and of confrontation with Ottawa. There is some truth in all that, but I think there is more. Just like an annoyance over putting the cap back on the toothpaste tube can escalate into a divorce, Péquism had begun to irritate Quebec voters. Péquism is a mix of idiosyncrasies, among them: overusing Latin words such as referendum, status quo or consensus, calling everything that is provincial "national," and always being right on issues - and sorry for those in "the population" who fail to realize it. " I don't know how you can say " going from federal politics is often seen as a demotion. And then going from Conservative to Liberal is incredible." "When was the last time Quebecers elected a premier who knows Canada well, understands it intimately, and speaks English like any other premier from Ontario or Alberta? Bernard LANDRY, Lucien BOUCHARD, Robert BOURASSA were, more than anything else, students of European institutions, and recipients of the French cultural heritage taught at their collège classique. Jacques PARIZEAU looked, thought and harrumphed like an Oxford leftist, while René LÉVESQUE was fascinated by the Americans, their politics and their institutions - his English was Yankee slang, much more than Westmount proper." I don't think the PQ has anything new to offer Quebecers and Charest is making inroads with Stephen Harper and his Conservatives. "A great many people in Quebec see themselves as citizens of the province first, then as North Americans or citizens of the world. For many Quebecers, being, acting, thinking, feeling Canadian is an incidental part of their identity - something that pops up to the surface when national athletes shine, when they travel abroad, at tax time, or when Quebec's "traditional demands" get turned down. This stems more from cultural estrangement and bad political habits than from indifference or outright hostility. In politics, this somewhat schizoid identification is even more clear-cut: waving the Maple Leaf is the job of federal politicians. Provincial politicians are there, as the cliché goes, to "defend Quebec's interests" - being understood that these are, by definition, threatened in Canada." PQ election results from 1970-2003 are not all that impressive in recent years compared to the Charest Liberals in 2003 Quebecers may not always know what they want, but they sure know how to get it. They have elected Charest's Liberals with 76 of the province's 125 seats. Election results General election # of candidates # of seats won % of popular vote 1970 108 7 23.06% 1973 110 6 30.22% 1976 110 71 41.37% 1981 122 80 49.26% 1985 122 26 38.69% 1989 125 29 40.16% 1994 125 77 44.75% 1998 124 76 42.87% 2003 125 45 33.24% My guess is Jean Charest will once again be Quebecers choice. "The PQ now is very much where Britain's Labour Party was before Tony Blair came along" and will need new ideas to win the next election. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=M1ARTM0012465

[Actually they don't "go in." They blow every living thing up from a safe distance, then go in--five-year-old girls be damned.] You keep forgetting Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the fate of his own people and possibly all others who became victims in this war by 'NOT SURRENDERING' when he was given the oppurtunity to do so.

newbie You wrote: "It's too bad August you don't understand satire." This is not satire it's anti- Americanism.

theloniusfleabag You wrote: 'I have no link yet, but I heard on the news this am that the gov't wishes to re-define terrorism as 'any act of violence driven by political, religious, or ideological grounds'. Phooey, I say, there already is a definition of terrorism, and this isn't it." That definition is along the lines of Wikipedia and they did a good job with their definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

Argus You wrote: "Natives are the only true Canadians because, like, they were here first." That's the definiton of an 'aboriginal' which they are. If we are born in Canada we are considered 'native Canadians.'

Charles Anthony You wrote: "I believe that Canada will ultimately let in more people who value their freedom to counter any terrorists. However, racism and bigotry does not help and it should be denounced -- whether it is from born-Canadians or immigrants." Here we go again. Pulling out the old bigot, racist, hate card. Objection to the current Muslim associated terrorist problem has nothing to do bigotry, racism or hate. It has to do with personal values, beliefs of one race imposing imported beliefs on a host country's who's national values conflict dramatically with that of the imported values. Terrorist acts is the common method used by aggressive cultures to force their beliefs on to others. Sometimes this works as in the case of Quebec and the FLQ who pulled off a similar stunt thus forcing their nationalistic values and lifestyles on the rest of Canada and at the same time forcing Canada to support those beliefs and values. I believe the Muslims are trying to do the same and that is force the world utilizing fear tactics to forcefully impress their beliefs including here in Canada. Islam is a very dangerous religion in my estimation as it is not only a religion but a political system in which certain aspects can lie dormant for years but pursued at any particular time as the Muslim population increases to eventually fully installing Islamic beliefs on the host country. We as Canadians have every right to object to intolerant aggressive Muslims just as we do have the right to object to intolerant and aggressive Quebec nationalism.