!!!

Oh boo hoo. Let's all take a minute to shed a tear for poor Todd Bertuzzi, who's brutal, premeditated assault ended the carer of another hockey player, who's "hefty" financial punishment was about 7 per cent of his annual salary and who's time away from the game amounted to 20 games. Oh wait: let's not. Robinson stole a ring and gave it back. No one was hurt. Bertuzzi broke a man's neck in an act of violence that was shocking even in a game known for acts of violence. There's no comparison. Bertuzzi has a long history of on-ice thuggery, undisciplined play and a well-known mean streak. The question isn't about second chances as it is about what kind of example the league is setting by allowing a role-model and public figure like Bertuzzi to continue to ply his trade (especially at a level where he is representing his country) despite displaying flagrant disregard for the princioples of sportsmanship and common decency. It's astonishing that conservative minded people here who would otherwise support harsh sentences for criminals would rally to the side of a millionaire thug simply because of his proficiency at a game. It's a disgrace hat this guy is going to be wearing the colours alongside class acts like Joe Sackic on a team run by a man who during was a pargaon of sportsmanship throughout his exceptional career.

Indeed. I'd like to see this become a bigger issue in this country (and what better time than during an election campaign?). At least the U.S. has laws about this sort of thing (even if they are being broken). Canada is clearly in no position to take any moral highground on this issue. Canada also allows spying on citizens Funny you should mention old Ronnie Reagan. This was the guy who's rhetoric more or less defined small-government (read: Republican)conservativism in the late 20th Century. Today, though, the party of the late St. Gipper can't get enough government. As for Bush's legacy, this op-ed writer says it all: "I have no doubt that one day the Bush administration's curtailment of civil liberties, especially the torture of prisoners, will be looked back on as a national shame."

You'd have more of a case if that hostility wasn't shared by pretty much every world leader who's name isn't Blair. Maybe the bully mentality you've displayed in this thread and Bush has shown the world has something to do with it?

PA court rejects ID Reading a few bits of the decision, I would even go as far to say ID got pwned. link

Hold on their cowboy. One second you're all: And the next you're all, like: So which is it?

I'm not wholly convinced a Conservative government will amount to a change in anything but the name of the gang in charge.

If this was true, then surely we'd see some indication of a downward trend in abortion support. Yet (using the U.S. as a example) support for abortion has remained stable since the 1970's. The fact is, attitudes and values change. Very few people have attitudes that march in lockstep with those of their parents. Coming from a pro-life background deoesn't guarantee soemone will be pro-life. Indeed, the kind of pangenerational idealogical rigidity he talks about would only be a factor in a very small segment of the population. I think its wishful thinking.

Nope. First: the Clinton order. In 1994, physical searches weren’t covered under FISA. So, at the time, the ability of the president to authorize physical searches without a warrant was completely legal. That loophle was closed in 1995 by Clinton himself. At no time, however, has electronic survillance of U.S. citizens been permitted without a court order or warrant. As for the reference to Carter's Executive Order of May 23, 1979, Drudge does a cute bit of selective editing. According to Drudge, the order read "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.” However, he omitted the rest of the order, which stated "but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section." The certifications contained in the Section in question includes ensuring that "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." (In other words: no spying on U.S. citizens.) Again, I guess it boils down to the matter of how much you trust the government to ensure its own activities are above board. Most freedom-minded peole would answer "not a helluva lot". Um. It's not a "difference of opinion". If the Dems are right, then the president repeatedly and personally authorized the commission of a crime, not to mention violations of the Fourth Amendment. In other words the President may have broken both the law and his oath. I guarantee, if this was a Democratic President, the knives would be out on the right (and rightly so.) So basically: it was only a small vilolation of the law and the Constiution so no biggy?

Um...the SCC has written that the "sperate but equal" civil union option is unconstitutional and would not survive a court challenge. So that leaves us with an eventual showdown over the Notwithstanding clause, which could get ugly. Why not just get over it and move on? Problem is, Harper's "it's about a free vote" stance is completely disingeneous. His party had a free vote on this issue already. And even if the Tories gain power, they can't force the Liberal, Bloc or ND caucuses to hold free votes. So what Harper really means is he wants a do over to get the results they want. the "free vote" line is just window dressing for the party's true anti-SSM platform. Millions of Canadians have been able to enter same-sex marriages since 2002 when Ontario and B.C. recognized them. In that time, have any of the dire consequenses you predict come to pass?

Um...the SCC has written that the "sperate but equal" civil union option is unconstitutional and would not survive a court challenge. So that leaves us with an eventual showdown over the Notwithstanding clause, which could get ugly. Why not just get over it and move on? Problem is, Harper's "it's about a free vote" stance is completely disingeneous. His party had a free vote on this issue already. And even if the Tories gain power, they can't force the Liberal, Bloc or ND caucuses to hold free votes. So what Harper really means is he wants a do over to get the results they want. the "free vote" line is just window dressing for the party's true anti-SSM platform.

Funny thing is neither the Liberals or Cons have expressed any interest in meaningful electoral reform which would end strategic voting like the kind proposed off the top of this thread.. That's because these parties both benefit immensely from the flaws in the current system, such as the concentration of support in specific regions. So really, a vote for either party is a vote for the same old same old.

Uh...why the hell would the leader of a political party in the midst of an election campaign tell voters to vote for a party other than his own, especially when the parties in question stand on the opposite end of the political spectrum? It's clear you think the sun shines out of Harper's hindquarters, but think about it.

Um...simply stating the ways in which the government is involved in the marriage contract is not evidence that government "sets the terms" or becomes "judge over their relationship terms and behavior." Giving me some examples of how the government dictates the terms of a marriage.

I've always wondered how the (provincial) NDP-voting folks of Saskatchewan and Manitoba and those B.C. hippies would get sucked into a union with uber-conservative Alberta. Western separation=Alberta separation.

So they tell us. But there's a reason warrants and such are required and that's to ensure that the government is using its powers to fulfill its role of protecting th epeople and not, say, keeping tabs on dissenters. Without that oversight, we have to take the government at its word and, frankly, that's just stupid. Yeah...sure. Yes they are, for the reasons I set out in my discussion with BHS. And this has what to do with the secret spy program? Why? If this had come out before the elections last year, it could have hurt Bush's campaign. I can't think of any otehr reason why they would hold off on such a story than to help Bush (just like they helped spread Bush's WMD propaganda durin the run up to the Iraq war). So lt me get this straight: you dismiss the notion that the Times conspired to hold the story when it could have really hurt Bush, but contend they conspired to publish it now (when Bush is already floundering in the polls)? How does that make any sense?