MightyAC

I don't understand your question? Are you asking if Ontarians should buy more Ontario produced big 3 vehicles? Ontarians and Canadians in general are buying Ontario produced Toyotas and Hondas in record numbers.

Every large city has a poor area that is scary and dangerous. East LA, East Vancouver, Jane and Finch in Toronto, anything outside of downtown Chicago, etc. I'm sure Glasgow has some nice spots but it obviously has a larger problem than most cities...it was labeled the "most violent city in the developed world" for a reason. It seems to me that poverty and lack of opportunity are the root causes of many of our problems. Marginalized people with no opportunity seem to seek refuge, safety and a purpose in collectives. When no other opportunities are available those collectives can be gangs, cults, militias, terrorist organizations, etc. If people had opportunities and something to loose shady groups become less attractive. Most of us have something to loose...a job, a family, kids, friends, wealth, freedom, etc. Strip all of that away and then imagine scrambling to access decent food, shelter and security. Once in a state like that long enough why would any of us have any regard for rules and laws? For many of the poor jail or a juvenile detention center is a step up from their current life. So with nothing to loose even the toughest sentences are not a deterrent. Thankfully, the police in Glasgow are taking it upon themselves to counsel young mothers and provide hope, education and opportunity. It will take a few generations but they will make a difference. Also, I'm glad they have such strict gun control. Those gangs could be far more dangerous to the rest of the city if they were armed with more than knives.

Let's see we have radical Muslims suicide bombers. We have Christian priests raping and torturing children. Televangelists are using the bible to get wealthy and fat off of the poor. The KKK is using the bible to justify their hatred. Jews are killing Muslims and Muslims killing Jews for a dried out piece of dusty land. Catholics and Protestants bomb each other for who knows what. In general Christians, Muslims and Jews all use the bible as a reason to hate homo-sexuals. That's what's current. In history religions have slaughtered, maimed and exterminated for land, power, money, artifacts and redemption. Jerry you're on to something here. Religion is dangerous...maybe it should be outlawed? What's your plan to stop evil deeds done in the name of a religion?

IMO it just comes down to the level of commitment to a black and white belief system. Religious or not people who are very committed to a belief system that preeches a definite right or wrong and leave little room for grey area scare me. Often level of affluence and education tend to lower the commitment to a belief system but that's not always the case. Americans are more affluent than Canadians yet they are more religious.

What I don't undertand is, while they might prove they are tough by having the snot kicked out of them......but being one of 12 or 25 doesn't especially prove how brave they are......it seemed to me they were all cowardly pieces of shit. I agree.. It was also mentioned that many of the clashes still relate to territory and what not. I have a hard time believing they would choose not to use guns if they were available. I think they must be doing something right in regards to gun control. Maybe we should look at what they are doing. Maybe there is something to be learned. I understand that being an island helps keep guns out vs having a large border with the largest gun toting nation in the world..but still free knowledge isn't a bad thing. I always hear guns don't kill people, people kill people... but it seems to me that people with guns kill very effectively...people with lesser weapons kill much less effectively.. So the solution to gang violence seems to be tougher sentences to make victims feel better, gun control to minimize the collateral damage, social programs to help minimize the participation and poverty control to also help minimize participation by creating opportunity. Sounds expensive...is it worth it?

I wonder why they weren't shooting each other? Does anyone know if Scotland has tough gun laws? How do they keep illegal weapons out of the hands of gangs? At least that was one positive... maybe Canadian lawmakers should look into that..

I saw the piece as well, very well done and very scary. I like that they displayed that gang violence isn't race related it is a symptom of poverty and lack of opportunity. I also liked the quote from the police officer who explained that tougher sentences don't stop gang violence. He said in the heat of the moment it comes down to us versus them and they don't think about the consequences until afterwards. His solution was to teach young mothers how to break the cycle, so in other words a social program. I think it helped to illustrate that right wing tougher sentences and left wing social programs should not be mutually exclusive. Tougher sentences will help victims and their kin feel that some sort of justice is served afterwards, which is good. However, to stop the problem long term the social programs that provide education, help and opportunity are required. To borrow a tag line from someone on this board....It takes a left and a right wing to fly a plane.

If there weren't free markets in India, there wouldn't be water shortages because people would be too poor.You are arguing that people spend too much money on books and so there isn't enough to teach people how to read. Free markets rarely benefit citizens of less developed countries. Western multi-nationals routinely rape and pillage the resources of poor countries. In this example Coke is harvesting and filtering the water of India with (likely) little benefit to the Indians. European companies harvested endless plane loads of Nile Perch out of Lake Victoria in Africa while those that live on its shores starve. Child labourers along with overworked underpaid South Asians are used and abused so that we can pay a little less for t-shirts and Nike shoes. All of these examples are depressing but I still buy DaSani, Nike shoes, cheap t-shirts, etc. Is it wrong for Coke, Pepsi, Nike, etc to sell these products if I'm willing to buy them? No, of course not. Am I a bad person for buying items I know hurt others so I can save a few bucks? Probably... Should Westerners in general live in a manner that hurts others and kills our environment simply because we can afford to? Probably not... but how do we change that? As I see it the United Church is trying to just that, by using it's influence to change the tastes of consumers. If consumers decide not to buy bottled water or cheap t-shirts or Nile Perch then the market will respond and companies will produce less of those commodities. Large organizations issuing orders to its followers can be another moral problem itself. Massive Christian groups in the US use their influence to exert pressure on companies for all sorts of reasons they consider to be moral. One group boycotted Ford vehicles unless Ford vowed to stop advertising during so called immoral television programs like Will and Grace and Ellen. To me the anti-gay actions of that religious organization are immoral, but to them it is an ethical cause. So what could I do to counter act the (IMO) evil deeds of this organization? I guess I could buy a Ford, or I could help build a large organization of secular, puppet, activists to counter act the actions of groups that I think are immoral. Either way the system works. So I guess what I conclude from my ramblings here is that the free market works just fine. If there is a demand for a product it will be met by somebody. If enough people have concerns about the product or how the product is produced then demand will erode and people will stop supplying it.

You're either with us or against us. God bless Canada. Sounds familiar...

Very well said. I find it hard to believe that McGuinty has any supporters left. An endless string of lies, raising taxes in the name of healthcare while simultaneously delisiting some services, blaming previous governments 3 years into his reign...c'mon Higgly how can you back this guy? The only positive I can think of is the fact that he got the ball rolling on electoral reform in Ontario. Provided that he doesn't add some ridiculous threshold to the referendum next October I will at least thank him for that.

It will be hard to forgive Dalton and the Libs for their endless list of broken promises. Also, that new $900 annual healthcare fine, which does not even go to healthcare, while delisting services like eye exams and chiropractic care was a tough pill to swallow. The only real positive thing Dalton did, IMO, is he got the ball rolling on electoral reform in Ontario. Next election we will likely have a referendum on whether or not we should reform our current flawed (IMO) winner take all, first past the post system. I am pleased he kept his word on that. One day our votes may actually count. Anyway, John Tory seems like a well spoken, pragmatic, capable leader. He also has big business leadership experience running the CFL and Rogers. Right now I'm leaning towards John and the blue shirts but a year is a long time in politics...I'll see how I feel next October.

If it was human error it was a big one. Considering, the UN called Israel 10 times in a 6 hour period telling them the bombs were close to their post. Each time Israel said the bombing would stop.

What would you call it? An accidental-laser-guided attack? Yeah exactly. A well known post is hit by precision bomb... the odds of it being accidental are very, very slim. I wonder what Harper will have to say about the attack. My guess is nothing. Wait a minute...are we sure the UN post was actually hit and a Canadian was actually killed? This could be the left-wing media inventing a story to smear Harper and the pro-Israel crowd.

Really?!?! According to the big blue machine anything negative said about the Cons is media bias or a media campaign against Harper. Who is whining? Sometimes I like our PM and sometimes I want to beat him with a bat. He is decisive, which is a good thing...provide the right decision was made. In this case I think his "measured response" comments were decisive but wrong. He should not have chosen a team...especially when one side is a terrorist group and the other is slaughtering innocents to get at the terrorists. IMO, the right decision would have been to condemn the violence on both sides.

Thanks for the laugh this morning. I usually like wittier comedy but on occasion stupid, Sandler/Schneider funny hits the spot. Argus calling a community racist....hey kettle it's the pot calling. So a community is racist if they vote for a candidate of their own ethnic and religious background? It couldn't be they feel that candidate has their best interests at heart could it. My MP is an aging, white. conservative Christian, socon and he received a lot of his support from the white Christian community. Would the fact that the vast majority of the white, Christian community voted for a white Christian make that community racist? of course not... Also, in your example 99% of 20% of the riding voted for one candidate. Not all of that 20% would be of voting age, or would actually vote so let's be generous and say they represent 15% of the vote. Unless every other party in that riding is well supported and the vote is evenly split several ways, that candidate would need a hell of a lot of support from the non-Muslim community as well. With that in mind I'd guess that candidate is a Muslim that represents the entire centre-left, not just his “tribe”, and that riding is primarily centre-left.

We could have a windmill attached to every single power line transmission tower. The towers are ugly to begin with anyway. Oh, but think of all of the jobs that would be lost if we converted to free electricity sources! I was looking into, and asking around about this idea because it like I said before it sounds brilliant... however, I have come across some potential stumbling blocks. I'm not at all an expert, so if any engineer or electrician could comment that would be helpful. From what I understand electricity meant to travel any distance over wires is sent at a high voltage and low amperage to reduce the power losses. The electricity produced by windmills is typically lower voltage so it would have to be converted (I'm not sure if that's the correct phrase) before it could simply be added to the flow of electricity in the wires. If every little turbine required a power converted the process could be very expensive. Maybe mass production of the smaller turbines and "converters" could overcome the cost problem but I don't know. Any thoughts?

Oh no, I understand. Dogma is an authoritative belief, often thought to be absolutely true. It still amounts to a set of rules or policies. Is the idea that Priests should be celibate and unmarried dogma, because that seems to be changing. There are now married priests, although not common or very open, and there is pressure to allow all priests to marry. This seems to be change resulting from pressure, discussion and maybe need. If I debate Chinese policies and actions with the Chinese some of them may be offended. Similarly, Americans or Israelis may get offended if I voice my disagreement with the foreign policy of their homeland. I think the same thing is happening here. I have targeted some specific policies that I disagree with. I haven't insulted you or been disrespectful to your religion, other than to disagree with some of its policies and yet you are offended. Does being a Catholic, or a lapsed Catholic in your case, mean you have to agree with and defend all Catholic policies (dogma, doctrine, etc)? Do you agree with Catholic scientists being excommunicated for furthering stem cell research? Do you agree with the Vatican pressuring Western nations to stop aid to Africa if it will be used to buy condoms? Do you agree with the churches men only policy when it comes to the priesthood?

Sure, you feel I was making fun of your religion by quoting a humorous song. Sorry, I offended you. IMO, the song doesn't make fun of the birth control policy; it's just the subject of a funny song. This is where you err. The church is not and will never be a democracy. Theology is not supposed to be worked out politically. The fact that you don't appreciate this very basic fact means that you should revisit how you approach this issue. I don't care if the RCC is a democracy or not, I can still criticize it's policies whether or not it's members get to vote. The Chinese government is not a democracy and I don't expect to change their human rights and economic policies, but I can still express my disgust for them.

My Monty Python song lyric isn't anything like your "eat a bacon sandwich" comment. If I had told all Catholics to go rape an alter boy then you'd have a point. The Python reference is, IMO, a humorous but accurate representation of one of the RCC policies I was criticizing. I didn't intend to offend, I love to use lyrics and famous quotations in my posts as those I quote are much wittier than I. Ok, I won’t. I also don’t want to be Israeli, American, Chinese, Lebanese or a member of PETA or the NRA…and though I have no problem with people being a part of these groups I still reserve the right to criticize their policies. First of all the Catholic church is very political and the Vatican does criticize governments, leaders, people, etc. So I don't see my criticizing their policies to be any different. Also, their policies are not static, they have changed over time...you may believe it was a god that said "stop letting your priests marry" or "tell the people not to use birth control" but that should not prevent me from criticizing the policy. I am always respectful when criticizing religion. Keep in mind that this thread is about the RCC.

The RCC is often unfairly singled out over most other religions with the same views but this topic was about the RCC specifically. How is disagreeing with the policies of the Catholic church intolerant? I tolerate all religion and respect the right of people "to choose whatever path gets them through life"...but I don't have to agree with all of a religion's policies. The RCC's policies affect the lives of millions of people. Some of their policies are very negative in my opinion and I speak out against them. That's not intolerance that's a difference of opinion.

My local free newspaper/flyer distribution tool printed some emails by a local resident describing his struggle to actually get out. Anyway, in them he mentioned that Americans had to pay $4,000 each to be rescued. Has anyone heard about Americans paying for their transport home? Also, some of the dual citizens we are rescuing have not been to Canada in many years and may not have any place to stay. I wonder if we will pay for their stay or if we'll release them into the wild.

IMO, Harper should have avoided the whole issue and let Foreign Affairs handle it. However, he decided to take a political risk in an attempt for headlines and probably to give the impression that he is at the helm in times of crisis. I wonder if McKay is upset by the headline grabbing/intrusion/micro managing or if he's happy that Harper is the face of this issue and not him...

I explain what I mean more specifically. First off, I think the RCC can excommunicate whoever they wish. It’s a private club with rules, if a member isn’t following the rules the membership committee can choose to tear up their membership card. About my comment that the RCC is draconian and an anachronistic society: The RCC prevents women from holding positions of power, they treat homosexuals as second class citizens, they prevent followers from developing life saving stem cell research and they condemn the use of birth control…including condoms in Africa where AIDS, one of the largest epidemics the world has ever known, threatens to wipe out an entire continent. Not only do they condemn the use of condoms in Africa but the Vatican pressures nations to ensure their foreign aid is not spent on such a nasty little, sperm catching, life saving, latex tube. IMO, this club seems cruel and out of some distant time period…hence draconian and anachronistic. The Monty Python song has sprung to mind…”Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. If just one is wasted, god gets quite irate”

As a capitalist, it is nice to see that saving and making more of the Almighty Dollar is what motivates it! As a communist, I wonder why money (stored capital) is required in the first place. Communism can be successful if we can find a way to keep people working hard when they no longer have any incentive to do so. Maybe one day we will all live to enrich our minds and improve society like they do on Star Trek TNG. However, until we have replicator technology that puts an end to all need and want the almighty buck is the necessary dangling carrot that keeps us plodding along.

Since February 15, 1977, a Canadian citizen who acquires another nationality may retain Canadian citizenship. I think we should go back to singular citizenship recognition. If you want to be Canadian,then you must only be Canadian and renounce any other citizenship you may have. If you believe in Canada then Canada comes first. How do you feel about not allowing dual citizenship? I think we have to rescue anybody with a Canadian passport in Lebanon that wants out, dual citizen or not. That being said I think it's a time to put an end to dual citizenships in Canada. People living and working abroad do not have to become a foreign dual citizen to do so...typically it's just done for tax purposes. On this topic I also want to congratulate Garth Turner, my favourite MP - unfortunately not from my riding, for discussing politically sensitive issues like this one openly and honestly. The CPC often tries to shut him up but he is one of the few in the party to ignore party gag orders and actually embrace transparency. Anyway, some people have been giving him a hard time for openly discussing dual citizenships like we are here. I think he said it very well here.