betsy

The first conviction, Harper apparently knew about that. That was 30 years ago. Carson worked his way up again, as mentioned in my posted article from McLean's. His second conviction was not missed by security, that's my understanding. Carson was upfront with his prior convictions. Carson said that it's possible that Harper didn't know since Prime Ministers do not personally check the security clearance of personnel....which is understandable. Furthermore, his second conviction did not see him being given any jail sentence, but was told to CONTINUE his PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT....which clearly indicate that his transgressions were not deemed that serious (not to mean that I condone them), but that this obviously has something to do with his state of mind or psychological problems. We know stress or psychological problems can induce someone to commit fraud or theft. Didn't a Liberal MP confess to stealing a jewelry from an auction site? And he cited stress and psychological problems. Carson's work performance through the years in various offices must've been very impressive....it was mentioned in the article that he attracted the attention of Harper's office. From what I understand, his forte is in "trouble-shooting." He's regarded as a "Mr Fix-it." So I assume his advisory position seems more focused on fixing problems within the party....or problems that may affect Harper/party.

This is the hypothetical scenario: The Conservatives wins another minority. Diuceppe gets more seats than the Liberals and NDP. If the three decide to go to the Governor General....can we end up with a government led by the Bloc? Can Diuceppe become Prime Minister or leader of the Coalition?

What's the point then of having children? Might as well give them to the system and let them incur all the expenses of raising them! Everyone wants a dib on the child....then everyone should pay for his upkeep!

This mandatory religion courses is not the end. Wait til we get the Universal Daycares! “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Parents will be nothing more than "Den Mothers"....homes will be nothing more than boarding houses! Mothers' breasts will be nothing more than feeding stations!

Secularists are always trying to find excuses why our youths today seem to be more inclined to commit crime. They point the blame on poverty - even though most people in poverty do not resort to crimes, on family dysfunction - although it can be said that not all people in dysfunctional families resort to crime, on child abuse - although not all abused children grew up to resort to crimes! Yet they try to overlook the glaring fact that this could be the result of MORAL RELATIVISM! The product of which is ever-shifting "truths". Distortions and lies are okay. Dishonesty is acceptable. There is no solid foundation on the concept of right and wrong!

Are you reading or not? Who said anything about censoring??? MANDATORY! So you wouldn't miss that. That's my issue! PARENTAL RIGHTS! (don't miss this one too) They have the right to teach their children their own values/religion! When the child reaches age of maturity....then that's when you guys can have a go at them, and try to confuse them with your batshit crazy moral relativism!

What past performance? Or you meant past crimes?

Is that scenario not possible....especially when you're dealing with someone who has psychological problems, whose personal life is apparently in shambles? Someone connected with Bill Clinton did commit suicide when there was investigation of fraud dealings. He had a good track record! He'd been advising others before he ended in Harper's office. Besides, it's naive to think he's the only one advising the PM! So the plot thickens. First, Ignatieff is saying past crimes do count (even though you've already paid for it in full). Now you are saying anyone who's seeing a therapist or psychologists shouldn't hold managerial positions or any job that involves use of judgement! Is this another Liberal hidden agenda? or rather....flip-flop? Golly, no wonder they're pushing out the RESP! There'll be lots of job openings! Replacing probably half the population who had visits with the therapists! Like Ignatieff, you guys are not being consistent.

That wasn't answering directly. That's as August 1991 stated - he was giving a tutorial! No wonder he cannot connect with the people, he treats everyone like students! Either he hasn't been prepped by his strategists (which Scott Reid explained that likely questions are anticipated and Ignatieff should've been prepped how to deflect and change the channel), or Ignatieff ignored the advice and dealt with the interview on his own! Of course, perhaps he was let on his own by his strategists too. Sort of throwing their hands up in the air!

CTV Powerplay Don Martin said bringing out Chretien and Martin reminds him of a Monty Python movie "The Holy Grail," where in one scene shows caretakers go about shouting "Bring out your dead! Bring out your dead!"

And I've said that I don't think Flew would've been convinced by sheer logic alone considering that he knew he was talking with scientists! Of course the whole details of evidence presented to Flew wouldn't be crammed into a few paragraphs in that short article. The explanations were concise. And in that context, I'd given my reply to Bloodyminded on this part of his argument: Now, that's being silly. Darwin has been long dead, and evolution is still being promoted! What's being dead got to do with it? They're immortalized in books, in the statements that they've made! That's the difference between well-known people, those with fame and considerable reputation! If he didn't promote his new belief....why are we here right now discussing this article? Because I'm debating with atheists and agnostics. I have to set my faith aside when I am engaged in discussions....it's futile to have a discussion with an atheist who don't believe that God/gods exists, with me saying "It's my God! He created everything!" I'm not promoting Flew. I'm giving Flew as one of the many examples of atheists in various fields who eventually ended up recanting. At least give me credits for not just giving names of only those who converted to Christianity. I also included a deist. Besides, why shouldn't I give him as an example? Not only did he accept ID as more credible than random chance (which says so much for evolution/origin).....he also underlined that acceptance by changing his belief - dropping atheism! For non-believers, that's a start. It's like skinny-dipping. You wade in gradually. Some may not accept it...some will eventually find their way to God...and some may just settle half-way. To non-believers, it may not be the evidence of God, but of course it's the evidence of Inteligent Design aka Prime Mover aka Creator.....road-sign pointing towards God.

Mansbridge was well-focused and knew how to push the buttons. I'm not sure if I'm reading it right....but it seems to me that he is not fond of Ignatieff. The interview was gruelling. Mansbridge was relentless with Ignatieff during their 15 minute interview. Replay tonight at The National. He managed to "push" Ignatieff that he (Ignatieff) went on details as to what will happen if Harper wins a minority government. Ignatieff squarely set the coalition back to the table! Pundits, including former Liberal strategist Scott Reid agreed that Ignatieff made a big mistake.

This is all allegations against bruce Carson at this point. The rest of what you're saying are all based on his past! Past crimes that he'd been convicted of, sentenced and jailed for! The truth lies in that void.....he can either be guilty or not. By yuour statement: It does seems your mind is already made up about this guy. To you, he's already guilty! See? See how infleuntial and destructive Ignatieff's exploitation of this man's past crimes is? The tarring and the feathering! You bought Ignatieff's implications. How many more people have pre-judged this man based on what they hear from Ignatieff's campaign? I had a question to you in one of my posts. I guess you've already answered it.

Yes. If it was Ignatieff in Harper's shoes, how should he handle Bruce Carson regarding the allegations exposed by APTN?

Thank you for clarifying that.

This is what it really boils down to: They crucify a man in public - someone who's supposed to be deemed innocent until proven guilty - just for the sake of giving the Conservatives a "black eye!" I feel for Carson. With his mental/psychological state...I hope these Opposition Inquisitors do not drive him to commit suicide! This is the way the Oppostion mete "justice!" This is their "democracy!" They speak of contempt of parliament....and yet they have this arrogant contempt for the public! They lump everyone like as if everyone is stupid! They treat the public like as if they're all stupid and cannot see past the hypocrisy and lies!

The Oppositions are so hypocritical that they ignored this fact! I enboldened the statement. Who is Lynch-Staunton? What Opposition party did he represent? Bruce Carson came to Harper's inner circle several decades after serving penalty for his criminal past. Opposition questions Harper's judgement. And yet they deemed it okay that Carson served as an advisor to an Opposition leader Lynch-Staunton, only a few years after committing those crimes! The Oppositions are not consistent! They shift around....flip-flopping as they go along. And we're supposed to trust them????

How did he end up in Harper's office? By proving himself over the years! http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/28/the-carson-show-2/ For him to make such a good impression - THROUGHOUT THE NUMEROUS YEARS - must definitely mean he was good at his job! Granted he had a criminal record for fraud, his performance must be such that people in politics had deemed it okay to overlook that past.

So far, this is all I know. Emphasis on the statement which I enboldened. http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/28/the-carson-show-2/

None that I know of.

That's not the question. I want to understand. Maybe you know something that I don't. Explain how Bruce Carson was given the public purse? How did he spend our money?

I suspect this is the goal.

Children can understand the world and other cultures in their early learning....what more with the multi-cultural society that we have, and all the resources provided to do just that....which is good. Through learning cultures, that touches somewaht on some religion I guess, especially when they see people doing what they do when they worship...children will ask questions. That's when they get their lessons. When they show an interest and ask questions. That's healthy. It's natural curiousity. There is a right time for learning religion.....and for that, they need to have some maturity. Religion is heavy stuff! I don't think it's healthy actually to have them learn about different religions at an early age. I still do not see why it should be mandatory. The youths will be better served if they're given more time learning their spelling, reading and rithmetic (without the calculator). As it is, it's rare nowadays to find a highschool student who can write/spell correctly!

Like most of the atheists listed in the thread REJOICE ON THIS DAY, some of them in the field of science or well-known atheist activists....most, if not all of them have one thing in common. They've got credentials. They're achievers in their field. They've got reputations to uphold. And amazing that when they did finally recant....they did not stop there. They went on to be active promoters of their new-found faith! They wrote books, or articles or become apologeticists!

Common sense. Logic. Compared to posters on this board, I think it's safe to assume that yes, he's got authority....unless one or two of you have the same qualifications/credentials/reputation that he has in the same field. I don't think he'd just throw away his atheistic belief which he'd promoted for 60+ years to replace it with something that's not been given any proof or evidence solid enough for him to make a sudden change. This man's been debating practically most of his years as an atheist. He has a reputation! To recant is one thing. But he made a statement that he wants to atone for the people who may've been misled by him in the past....that's why he's been promoting ID.