betsy

Well it's perfectly obvious, liberals will see what they want to see. The truth is of no consequence. The truth is as hidden from liberal sheeps as Liberal leaders would hide it from their followers.

Took the high road indeed. Liars are now viewed as taking the "high road" just for listening as the others are pointing out their lies. He didn't stood up for himself. He simply stood there....and hung his head....unable to correct his opponents, or justify his broken promises. He couldn't defend himself.

I would say this fits the pattern of the liberal or left-wing obsession with control. They tell you what's good for you and they want you to do as they say. They couldn't care less if the vaccine has been properly researched....but that it gets shoved down our throats.

"What’s worse, while over 20 strains of HPV are considered high-risk, the vaccine only targets 2–4 of them — hardly a true preventative,” says Marcelle Pick, a founder of the Women to Women clinic." Like the flu vaccine that targets only certain strains! For something that wasn't researched thoroughly, not even having the knowledge whether it's still effective after only 5 years...would you still say the risk is worth taking? Do we give the flu vaccines en masse in schools? I'm not sure about that that's why I'm asking. As far as I know it is up to you if you want one and you go to the clinic. What I question about is this sudden hyping of its needs! From scare-mongering as a way to pressure parents to the cost of the vaccine if it's not for free! They're driving home the fact that if you were to pay for this vaccine yourself it would cost you around $400.00! If it's so dire important....then cost shouldn't be an issue! People should have the vaccine available at all times and for free. If they can give it for free in schools, then they can give it for free in clinics at anytime since I don't think any girls will abuse its use and get the vaccine twice! Why this tremendous pressuring on the parents? Why must it be forcibly given? Some states in the USA wouldn't accept a child in school unless they've been vaccinated. Why? Coot is right. Some groups are adamant about refusing its forcible use in schools because of its moral implications that stems from religion. And some groups are adamant about refusing its forcible use in schools because of its moral implications that it over-rides parental decisions! HOWEVER, some proponents of this vaccines are adamant to see its use enforced in schools because of the fact that they see it as a foil against religions and conservative thinking. In other words they're letting their ideology cloud their better judgement! The doctor interviewed on tv bragged about its 5-year research! 5 years ONLY? The simple fact remains that the vaccine is preventive only on 2 to 4 strains of the virus, and that research is still going on.

So far there are some minor side-effects. And although there were reported deaths, the relation with the vaccine is not clear. Possible adverse reactions after vaccination As of May 11, 2007, 1,637 adverse reactions to Gardasil vaccination have been reported to the Food and Drug Administration.[21] As of July 31, 2007, the count is up to 3,137.[22] The vast majority are minor, but there have been seven reports of deaths following HPV vaccination. A child, a 12-year-old girl, and a nineteen-year-old woman died of heart problems and/or blood clotting after receiving Gardasil.[23] Other reported adverse events are "neurological symptoms including syncopal episodes and seizures, arthralgia and joint pain, Guillian-Barre Syndrome, and other immunological reactions."[24] Full details are not available and it is not known if these are related to the vaccine. These reports are from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database: "When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause and effect relationship has been established... VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine." [25] In the Gardasil clinical trials, 1,115 pregnant women received the HPV vaccine. Overall, the proportions of pregnancies with an adverse outcome were comparable in subjects who received GARDASIL and subjects who received placebo [26]. However, the clinical trials had a relatively small sample size. Currently the vaccine is not recommended for pregnant women.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccine#Controversy

I understand what you mean about the women website. I haven't heard of it until now. However, the statement from this government site, especially the highlighted part corroborate the concern of the women website: How long does vaccine protection last? Will a booster shot be needed? The length of vaccine protection (immunity) is usually not known when a vaccine is first introduced. So far, studies have found that vaccinated persons are protected for five years. More research is being done to find out how long protection will last, and if a booster dose of vaccine will be needed . The women website stated: Holmes adds, “Many vaccines can have negative effects on health and this new vaccine has not been studied in sufficient depth or over sufficient time to ascertain its long-term safety. The truth is we just do not know enough yet to be generating this kind of hype,” says Holmes. If more research is still being done....then it means the findings they have so far is not complete. A lot of drugs had passed the FDA regulations and later on pulled from the shelves. My concern here is that they want girls to be vaccinated en masse in schools...with something that is still being studied. Parents are being lulled or pressured to agree to this. Therefore, with the parents' consent these girls will be used as guinea pigs.

I believe some children could be tried in criminal courts as adults....depending of course, on the type of crimes they commit.

Hype about new HPV vaccine is more good marketing than good medicine June 20, 2006, Yarmouth, Maine — Women to Women, whose website is one of the most prominent women’s health sites on the internet, posted a warning today about the recent “hype” over a newly developed vaccine for HPV, the human papilloma virus, which affects millions of women. “The drug company behind the vaccine is already promoting it as a cure-all solution. The ad campaign, titled ‘Tell Someone,’ has created false hope among women that this new vaccine will make the HPV problem go away,” says Marcy Holmes, a practitioner at Women to Women. “What the commercials don’t make clear is that the vaccine is meant for very young women who have had no prior sexual contact. What’s worse, while over 20 strains of HPV are considered high-risk, the vaccine only targets 2–4 of them — hardly a true preventative,” says Marcelle Pick, a founder of the Women to Women clinic. Holmes adds, “Many vaccines can have negative effects on health and this new vaccine has not been studied in sufficient depth or over sufficient time to ascertain its long-term safety. The truth is we just do not know enough yet to be generating this kind of hype,” says Holmes. Responding to reports that the vaccine may even be mandated, Pick comments, “Talk of mandating such a vaccine for young women is very premature. We simply do not have enough information to warrant such an extreme step. Little is known at this point about the vaccine’s long-term side effects or its interaction with other drugs. In addition, many of the test study details — information such as whether any recipients were immune suppressed and other possible drug interactions — are still unknown.” “The public relations campaign behind the new vaccine may be good marketing — or even good shareholder relations — but it isn’t responsible medicine,” adds Holmes. “I would call this a promising advance that may one day yield an effective therapy — one we could recommend to our patients. But not yet.” Marcelle Pick adds, “My concern is that this kind of public relations campaign also promotes the idea that there can be a kind of magic pill to solve the HPV problem. The reality is that HPV infection is a net result of exposure plus a weakened immune system. There are ways to reduce the risk of exposure and to enhance immune function, but reliance on a vaccine for HPV may lead women to ignore the underlying causes. http://www.womentowomen.com/sexualityandfe...ressrelease.asp *************** I was watching City On Line the other day and they were talking about this vaccine. The way the host and her guests were carrying on about this vaccine made it seem that they were ramming this vaccine down our throats. And now after seeing this article, I just realized that the word "hype" was what had eluded me at that moment. The guest (a doctor) even went so far as saying "how do you think you'd feel if you do not give your daughter this vaccine now and later on she developed cervical cancer?" The host was quick to help with the "marketing" by getting right on cue..."Oh, I couldn't even begin to imagine as a mother how I would feel."

On one hand it is good to have something that would prevent cervical cancer, however I would like to know how long had they done the research? There seems to be some controversies about it. How long does vaccine protection last? Will a booster shot be needed? The length of vaccine protection (immunity) is usually not known when a vaccine is first introduced. So far, studies have found that vaccinated persons are protected for five years. More research is being done to find out how long protection will last, and if a booster dose of vaccine will be needed . That last statement is of particular concern. If more research is needed just to find how long the protection would last....that, to me, says the research that has been done is not enough. It could've easily said that "more research is being done to know if there are any side-effects that might crop up after several years." What could happen after five years? Maybe nothing. But what if there is? Remember the thalidomide (?) kids? And Birth control pills were later found to cause cancer. As a parent, would I want to take the chance....practically using my child as a guinea pig?

They're talking of doing this in school. Would you have your 9 year old daughter vaccinated? What is the HPV vaccine? The vaccine, Gardasil, is the first vaccine developed to prevent cervical cancer, precancerous genital lesions, and genital warts due to HPV. Who should get the HPV vaccine? CDC recommends the HPV vaccine for all 11 and 12 year old girls. The recommendation allows for vaccination to begin at age nine. Vaccination also is recommended for females aged 13 through 26 years who have not been previously vaccinated or who have not completed the full series of shots. Are there other HPV vaccines in development? Another HPV vaccine (being developed by GlaxoSmithKline) is in the final stages of clinical testing, but it is not yet licensed. This vaccine would protect against the two types of HPV that cause most cervical cancers. How and when is the vaccine delivered? The vaccine is given in a series of three injections over a six-month period. The second and third doses should be given at two and six months (respectively) after the first dose. HPV vaccine may be given at the same time as other vaccines. Is the HPV vaccine effective? This vaccine is highly effective in preventing four types of HPV in young women who have not been previously exposed to HPV. This vaccine targets HPV types that cause up to 70% of all cervical cancers and about 90% of genital warts. The vaccine will not treat existing HPV infections or their complications. Is the HPV vaccine safe? The FDA has licensed the vaccine as safe and effective. This vaccine has been tested in thousands of females (9 to 26 years of age) around the world. These studies have shown no serious side effects. The most common side effect is brief soreness at the injection site. CDC, working with the FDA, will continue to monitor the safety of the vaccine after it is in general use. Does the vaccine contain thimerosal or mercury? No, there is no thimerosal or mercury in the vaccine. How long does vaccine protection last? Will a booster shot be needed? The length of vaccine protection (immunity) is usually not known when a vaccine is first introduced. So far, studies have found that vaccinated persons are protected for five years. More research is being done to find out how long protection will last, and if a booster dose of vaccine will be needed . http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/hpv/vac-faqs.htm

Oh, they also mentioned about his broken promise regarding the coal mines....and his promise to help autistic children where-in not only did he backed off from that promise, but he also fought the parents in court using tax-payers money!

I just finished watching that City On Line show where-in they talked about the debate. Funny, a couple of callers - including the host and her guest - had complained about the "negativity" of the debate. YOO-HOOOOOO....that's what a debate is supposed to be. They were there to ARGUE! Well, too bad that Dalton McGuinty got picked on about his broken promises...but hey, he should've known that his broken promises would be the albatross around his neck....so of course the two, especially Tory would be hammering on that! What do they think? The guest at City On Line ridiculously said that the fact that McGuinty survived the debate made him victorious! EH? Come again? Just because McGuinty did not go sobbing and running out on the debate...that he stood there and took it ,(because what else could he have done)....that means he won? Get real! McGuinty did not handle it well either! Right off the bath on the first round, he deflated and floundered. Tory and Hampton smelled blood! The press smelled blood! McGuinty knew very well that the two will get him for his broken promises. How could he not? He and his strategists knew there's no escaping that. He was hanging his head most of the time simply because he did not know what else to do or say! He has no choice! Tory and Hampton were determined not to let him distract, dodge or slink his way out of it. McGuinty's strategy was to make it look like he was "ganged up" by the other two. He was hoping and counting on the fact that viewers will be turned off by the NEGATIVE factor. That's why he admonished Tory twice, commenting on Tory's "negativity". It's even a rehearsed line. He spouted it exactly the same way. Anyway that's what a real debate is all about! He had the floor to correct or oppose or argue back! The fact that he couldn't does not make Tory and Hampton into bullies or villains since both were just simply reiterating the facts. As a voter I'd like to have all the information. If someone is lying, somebody ought to be able to point that out. I don't watch debates just to see who smells sweet! I watch them to get some information as much as I can....expose some that's hidden. A good pounding and heated debate usually delivers a different picture! You get closer to seeing what's real and what's bull! Well McGuinty should be grateful that Tory did not go far as telling him to his face: You sir are a liar! Strategist Jeff Norquay at MDuffy did not hesitate. In fact he said he wants to say just that. And he explained how McGuinty lied. Tory and Hampton's assertions of "negativity" was just challenging McGuinty about the FACTS concerning his 4-year record! Tory and Hampton tied with their performance....the two won. McGuinty was clearly the loser.

Well, I must've tuned in at the wrong channel. The McGuinty I saw had hung his head down most of the time. He got stumped most of the time. He was clutching at straws most of the time - blaming the previous governments NDP and Conservative for his record - several times. He was on the defensive most of the time. He did not answer a question repeatedly asked by Hampton! McGuinty was uncomfortably, definitely on the hot seat most of the time. I found McGuinty's responses to the hot questions and challenges thrown his way quite lame. A few minutes into the debate and he already looked like a deflated balloon. He tried to recover....but I guess it's hard to defend and rise above it. He could not reasonably defend his record. Reporters during scrum after the debate badgered Tory for being on the attack mode, badgered Hampton for concentrating on McGuinty - and badgered McGunity for being on the defensive most of the time - so the reporters must be on the same channel I was tuned in. Anyway, I got to Duffy and the parties' strategists (Jeff Norquay, Gerrard Kennedy and Peggy Nash). Really, that Kennedy rudely cross-talked...and got Nash cross-talking too. I was disappointed in Duffy that he was not that assertive enough to shut those two up! Duffy was upset that he was ignored when trying to break up the nonsense. I'd say Kennedy ought to be duck-taped or better yet, not be invited back to these kind of shows. This is not his first offense by any means. Mike Duffy got a load of angry emails once when Kennedy was rude too and wouldn't let anyone talk! I'd hate to see him running for office and involving in mature debates! He wouldn't know how! I couldn't understand anything anyone was saying - both were talking at the same time! Duffy, do your job! Hampton surprisingly did pretty well for an apparently first-timer, and apparently suffering from flu, I must say. And Tory was quite good too and delivered a heavy blow with his statement about leadership. Oh yeah, McGuinty and Martin must've had the same coach - the way they move their hands (half-waving) as they talk. They look like mimes. I swear all they need is a baton and they could easily be leading the orchestra at the NAC.

How so?

Who is "they?"

While going through Ottawa last weekend I noticed campaign signs up everywhere. Some names are foreign-sounding (Arab?). Out of curiousity....how many Muslims are running for office nation-wide? How many Muslims do we have sitting in office right now? Like White Doors, I am concerned. Don't forget, it was McGuinty of the Liberal Party who had the audacity to even consider legalizing Sharia Law not too long ago, and the recent judgement call made by Dion over the veiled-women voters and this current Khadr involvement - all of which are Taliban-related, makes me wary where the Liberals might be headed with all these. I know this is off-topic....but this situation in Belgium is scary. We may be headed that way too.

Yes siree. Having this photo op with the rest of the Khadr family in the hotel would surely gladen the hearts and boost up the morale of our boys and girls in Afghanistan!

Dion to meet with Omar Khadr's U.S. lawyers Updated Wed. Sep. 19 2007 10:49 AM ET CTV.ca News Staff Liberal Leader Stephane Dion is meeting today with American military lawyers representing Omar Khadr -- the only Western prisoner left at Guantanamo Bay. The son of an alleged al Qaeda financier, Khadr was accused of killing U.S. Army Sgt. Christopher Speer with a grenade during a firefight in Afghanistan on July 27, 2002. In 2004, a military panel classified him as an "enemy combatant." However, since he wasn't classified as an "unlawful" enemy combatant -- required under rules written by Congress -- a military judge threw the case out last June. Since then, Khadr's case has been the focus of ongoing legal wrangling while he has remained in prison. Meanwhile, Dion, widely criticized for failing to win a seat during this week's Quebec byelections, appears to now be taking on the volatile political issue. Last month, Dion said Prime Minister Stephen Harper was the only Western leader not to pressure the U.S. for the rights of a citizen. Dion will meet with Khadr's lawyers in Toronto at the Royal York Hotel and is expected to comment afterwards. U.S. Lieutenant-Commander William Kuebler, who proposed the meeting, told The Globe and Mail that he was "very encouraged" by Dion's interest. "The political process is finally starting to engage, as Canadians grow frustrated with the treatment of a fellow citizen," he said. "I hope he (Dion) takes away a consequent appreciation of the essentialness of the Canadian government stepping up." Meanwhile, Khadr's Canadian lawyers say they have been snubbed by their American counterparts, having been left out of the meeting. "Here we have Canadian politicians choosing to speak to an American military lawyer who is not Omar's chosen lawyer ... and who was appointed by the same U.S. authority that gave us Guantanamo Bay and all its horrors," Dennis Edney, who represents several members of the Khadr family, told The Globe. Some members of Khadr's family are also planning on going to the hotel. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

So he is agreeable to the implementation of Taliban-rule on a few hapless women in this democratic society, at a time when we are at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and now he is bringing up the issue of Khadr. Dion announces meeting with the lad's lawyers. So, what's with all these seeming bootlicking fascination with fundamentalists?

That could change. We'll wait and see. And if the ruling does change, I would question the loyalty or allegiance of anyone who attempts to challenge the change of ruling. We're at war to eradicate the oppressive rule of the Taliban. They ought to be on the spook watchlist!

I didn't know about this incident until now: Muslim women will have to lift veils to vote in Quebec election Last Updated: Friday, March 23, 2007 | 6:12 PM ET CBC News Muslim women will have to remove their face coverings if they want to vote in Monday's Quebec election, said the province's chief returning officer. Marcel Blanchet announced Friday he was reversing an earlier decision that would have allowed Muslim women wearing niqabs to vote on March 26 without showing their faces. The initial decision, reported in Montreal newspapers, sparked fierce debate in Quebec. The chief electoral officer's headquarters were flooded with angry e-mails and phone calls, forcing Blanchet to hire two personal bodyguards and assign security officials to survey the building. Some Quebecers threatened to show up at polling stations wearing masks, which spurred Elections Quebec to reverse its decision so voting day could proceed without trouble. "It's not a good idea to make people nervous," said Denis Dion, a spokesman with Elections Quebec. "In the house of democracy, we're not used to dealing with security. What we're doing currently in Quebec is a crucial part of our social and political life." http://www.cbc.ca/canada/quebecvotes2007/s...ab20070323.html

This is one reason why Dion is not popular in Quebec. "Elections Canada Chief Won't Back Down On Veil Voting Guimond said Mayrand's decision "does not take into account the reality of Quebec society," reminding the public of the controversy that took place during the last general election in Quebec. In March, Quebec's chief returning officer, Marcel Blanchet, had to hire bodyguards, and Elections Quebec received threatening phone calls, after he decided it was acceptable for Muslim women to keep their faces covered at the polls. That decision was later reversed, requiring women to show their faces when they voted. Guimond said his party will push for an amendment the Elections Act. NDP Leader Jack Layton said he continues to hold out hope that Mayrand will change his position before the byelections, but is prepared to support a legislative move. "If not, it appears it will be necessary to change the law to make it clear," Layton said. But Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said that he would respect Elections Canada's position, even though he disagreed with it." http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/2007/09/ha...ons_canada.html What a wimpy stance! He will go along with it even though he disagrees with it??? What kind of a leader will he be??? Just from this latest controversy over the veil ruling, at a time such as this.....I feel secure with Harper at the helm. Harper had always been more consistent by a long shot over national security. If the Muslim Community itself sees and questions the oddness or the farce over this gesture by the Elections Canada (considering that we're at war with the Taliban)....just look which side Dion had chosen to align himself!

Yesterday, CTV Newsnet showed some clips of what seemed like some sort of a hearing where-in MPs and rep of Muslim Community gave their statements. The representative of the Muslim community voiced practically the same sentiment that I have. He said that with us at war with the Taliban, and with our soldiers dying for this war...why would EC give preferential treatment to those that follow Taliban fundamentalism? There are only a few hundreds of veiled Muslims, most of whom are willing to show their faces. Why should we accomodate those very few that would not respect our own system....considering that yes, their burquas and najibs represent the very thing why our men and women are dying at war?

But the way I understand it, they are going to change the law or do something about this? or at least try. And to think that all the political parties agree on this....so that really says a lot. One thing I would bet on this though is that what the majority of people think will not be that irrelevant. You bet we're talking politicking here. You think the majority of people will not have a say on this matter? All you need is a good measure of polls! Whether you or I think it's reasonable or not...or whether it should be this or that...will not make any difference at this point. We'll just have to wait and see. And speaking of anger..... well who's having a temper tantrum? Who's resorting to toddlerism of "MINE!" "MY!" And just right after having a "time-out"...or "quiet time?" Who's calling names?

Depending on what's on the table. How do we define "reasonable accomodation?" And who determines what's "reasonable?" For majority of people in this country, I would bet that giving "reasonable accomodation" (whatever that means) is never an option when it involves security.