sharkman

She is 'our' Queen. Constitutaionally speaking she is the Queen of Canada. The fact that she is also the Queen of England is a co-incidence. I thought she was no longer our queen. Perhaps I was mistaken. The school in question is not endorsing anything, but they are being politically incorrect, a sin worse than most in the eyes of the ACLU. If we continue down this road of banning anything that is objected to, how far away are we from book burnings? And who decides what has artistic merit, the ACLU? Education is the process by which young ones learn. To shelter them from any explanation or exposure to religions is to give them at best an incomplete education, and at worst set them up to fear or hate what they don't understand - religion. The whole Gay culture is being introduced and explained in the school systmem in a hope to avoid this very thing.

Uh, not all Canadians feel the need to have a burst of nationalism on this day. I'm a Canadian 365 days a year, and I don't need to get all national on this day. Actually I get emotional on Remembrance Day, what with all who gave their lives for us so we could live in peace and freedom, that's more of a Canada day to me.

Here's a link that shows the ACLU sticking their noses into where it doesn't belong once again. A portrait of Jesus hangs in the hall of this high school in West Virginia. It's been there for over 30 years, and the ACLU is suing. They think the picture shouldn't be there, and are willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars to do more legal arm twisting to have it removed. The ACLU thinks that having the picture there infers that the school has Christianity as its official religion. Maybe if they had a number of religious pictures, but just one? Further, aren't schools supposed to be the place where a free exchange of ideas takes place? No one saw the harm for 30 years. In Canada, we often have a portrait of the Queen up, but that doesn't mean the school is suggesting she is OUR queen since she's England's queen. Only fearful small minded people get bent out of shape over her portrait. At the end of the article you find out who exactly has their knickers in a twist. Two parents who don't want their children to so much as even see a picture of Jesus. What sheltered lives these kids must lead.

I'm afraid I can't make the jump from squeeqie kid problems to groups burning SUV dealerships. Destroying property is the same mentality that blowing up property is from. Dangerous and stupid.

Poor old guy, he shouldn't be held responsible for the emotional upheaval his relationship brings to a 14 year old. After all, she's still going through puberty, and you know how irrational young teenagers can be at this time - thats not his fault, now, is it? And what's with his wife leaving him? He has his needs, you know, and she should be more supportive of that, not judging him all the time. No wonder he's suicidal, all these women conspire against him. I think you miss my point Melanie. I am arguing for the new age of consent law, to protect from sad stories like this. My point being again that 14 year olds are too stupid to realize they are being used when they get into a relationship with a man in his 30s or whatever. They therefore need to be protected from these men and their own brains. The background of his marriage ending or him becoming suicidal was not to get alert readers to empathize, it was just window dressing. Any older man who preys on 14 year olds deserves what he gets. I thought that since I was arguing in support of the new law, this would be self evident. However, an innocent family that gets ripped apart because a 14 year old accuses sexual assault when none has occurred is ripped apart for nothing, and the 14 yr old is evil.

Gerry, you need to get your knickers out of that twist they are in. Other than that, I don't feel like commenting on the topic since there are three of them going at once.

I did comment on this thread in post 18, and we all know how you feel about it since you keep repeating yourself ad nauseam. Let me know when there's an actual scandal.

While we're quoting rules: NO TROLLING/FLAMING Do not post inflammatory remarks just to annoy people. If you are not bringing anything new to the argument, then do not say anything at all. I've posted one thread today, and as I've pointed out it's unrelated to yesterdays thread. You have a problem with that newb then hit the report button. Yes, well this is the third thread started on the same topic within a few days. Sound familar Gerry? Think back to last week. Think about some threads you started on Global Warming. Four in a week to be exact. This link here might remind you of Gary's thoughts on the subject.

Please consider these comments. You are saying if a 14 year old starts a sexual relationship with a 20 year old and part way through, starts to feel she is being taken advantage of, she could press charges. That is scary for so many reasons: 1)Her feelings WILL run the gamit throughout the 'relationship'. 14 year olds don't understand their feelings, the relationship, his feelings or anything else because they have the brains of a 14 year old, a huge disadvantage. 2)To base whether or not to press charges on a 14 year old's feelings is silly. They can easily be talked into feeling anything. This is why so many older men get charged for some kind of sexual trespass only to find out later it was because she was mad at him. Meanwhile, he's become a laughing stock and his wife left him and he becomes suicidal, all over a 14 year old's feelings. 3)14 year olds can easily be taken advantage of, and this new law recognizes that, and it's purpose would be to protect them from themselves, and from those who prey on them.

He took personal responsibility for dealing with it. In the end, all Liberal cabinet ministers were determined by Gomery to be free from blame or responsibility, and Paul Martin in particular was "exonerated for any blame for carelessness or misconduct". So, whatever. In the end, the Canadian people MADE the Lieberals pay for Adscam. Martin at first tried telling us it happened before he became PM and as Finance Minister he wasn't privy to what was going on. That went over like a Liberal leadership convention, so he 'took' responsibility as a grasp at straws. It didn't work either.

You cannot say the US has done nothing wrong simply because terrorists do worse. It is wrong for the terrorists to kill innocent people _and_ it is wrong for the US to imprison people without due process. What if they are P.O.W.s? I can't get away from that. I think they are, and the Americans have done nothing wrong to imprison them.

contrast with: We are currently emerging from this Little Ice Age. Temperatures started to rise about 1850 and rose fairly steadily until about 1945, when they began to drop again until about 1975 when they started to rise again. I personally remember articles in Time Magazine around the time of my High School graduation discussing this idea, back in 1975. This is not just some internet crank reminding us of the throught of stopping global cooling by blacking the ice caps. I'd never heard of this spreading of carbon black on the ice. But I know we are in a warming trend, and I can't wait for a cooling trend to make the Global 'sky is falling' Warmers quiet. Like I've said before, I guess even they need their hobbies.

I notice a common theme in your posts. It's the same theme that Harper is employing, which is to deflect responsibility away to another time and place. Paul Martin took responsibility for adscam. So what? That was then, this is now. Harper can't take responsibility, obviously. Not only will he not take responsibility, he's trying to claim all is well AND he's moaning about the Liberals. What pathetic, childish behaviour. I notice a theme in your posts gerry. You hate Harper and the CPC, and the horse they rode in on. But you're going to need patience, because the CPC ain't done nothing yet that warrents outrage. But maybe you could practice your outrage in the hope of one day actually having an outragous situation to be outraged about. Until then, keep your hopes up.

Oh look, sour grapes from a troll. How nice. Hah! funny thing hearing troll from one who started this, a troll thread. Come on: waaaaahhhhh, waaaahhhh? At least use some creativity in your trolling.

Look everyone, this is just simple accounting crap. They didn't declare some funds as they should have, and now they will pay whatever it is decided they owe. To compare this to Liberal thieving is delusional. If this is the worst opponents of the CPC can come up with, there's a Tory majority coming.

Ever wonder how many sccops the NYT has that are damaging to al-Qaeda? How about some of the extremist Muslims or what gets preached in some Mosques. You know, actual footage, grainy and shaky video because it's a mini cam inserted in some head gear. Of course it'll never happen, the NYT has a jihad going against their own government. How about a Supreme Court decision slapping a muzzle on the criminal activities of junk journalism. We can always hope.

The title of this thread is inaccurate to say the least. It's just that the MSM is not allowing voices in the scientific community to be heard, since with their bias, these opposing scientists must be wrong. In this link, many scientists who disagreed with Gore's movie were ignored while those who had an analysis approved by the AP got to speak! And they wonder why more and more don't trust the Main Stream Media.

I am not making this up: with songs of delusion praising suicide bombing and Holy war, these 'artists' are showing how far down the road of extremism some have gone. Have a look. If this doesn't illustrate that Muslim extremists can't be reasoned with, I don't know what would.

If you want some good jokes, I'm sure Dave and Leno will have it covered tonight.

I agree, Jerry you may not have noticed, but there are now 4 threads started by you (in the last week!) in this section, all on Global warming.

I don't know too much about the stuff, here's a link that says 20% of men over 40 have tried it. I would bet organizations that would like to see Rush fall from grace have been watching him like a hawk. This latest 'news' story is beyond silly. So the guy uses viagra. Big deal. He is also trying to be discrete about it so it wouldn't get blabbed all over the known universe. So they try to slime him with it. Liberals are sooo predictable.

Yeah, 'cause when you do she calls you "testy" or claims you're lying (re the Fifth Estate interview). She is pure mean-spirit entertainment for the right, nothing more. No one here is claiming she's perfect, but she can argue the issues with anyone, and inject witty one liners, kind of like Dennis Miller. Denis Miller VS Ann Coulter?? I will put my money on Miller. Note: Dennis is mostly conservative, they would get along just fine.

Sure, I've wandered in various threads and I understand that this happens quite a bit. I never bothered to respond to the "studies" (put up by the Catholic Church to absolve themselves of their criminal activity during a child rape scandal) primarily because I felt doing so would only push the topic farther afield than it had already wandered (not because I don't find fault with them). I'd be more than happy to debate the findings if someone wants to start that thread elsewhere, but I think this thread has now already morphed into something it wasn't at the start. But let me ask you this then... Even if every word of those studies are true, is the point of posting them to justify not treating gay people equally or is it merely an exercise in character assassination of gay people? Seriously, answer the question. I think each individual's behaviour should be the determiner of their character, not what they are. That being said, the gay agenda is to combat every law or organization that they feel restricts or opposes them. A problem arises for some when it becomes obvious they can see no wrong within their ranks whatsoever. The Catholic church has been made to look at it's faults and it has made some huge steps. The Gay movement has not and refuses to consider any accusations as anything but homophobia.

Yeah, 'cause when you do she calls you "testy" or claims you're lying (re the Fifth Estate interview). She is pure mean-spirit entertainment for the right, nothing more. No one here is claiming she's perfect, but she can argue the issues with anyone, and inject witty one liners, kind of like Dennis Miller.

No. It's a pedophilic organization, and a gay organization. It's men loving boys, not men loving girls. Believe what you will, but answer my question: what does any of this have to do with Somerville, SSM or civil unions? I really have no idea what the point of all this line of discussion is...? Is your point that because some gay people are sick pedophiles that all gay people are sick pedophiles? Or is it that because some gay people are sick pedophiles that it is a reason to deny an entire group's access to marriage or civil unions or that this has any bearing at all on the Ryerson issue? Nuthin'. Usually after the second page, threads tend to evolve. You've done some wandering yourself in other threads, haven't you? We've tackled the gay issue at large and I think both sides have scored points. For me the centerpiece was the post that found actual data on child molesters, gay vs straight. I feel this because no one could come up with opposing data, so they tried character assassination of the study instead.