Wilber

Or Canadian. Witness the last two Liberal campaigns. What's the old saying about imitation being the sincerest form of flattery?

Are the Yanks the bogeymen for everything bad up there? Need you ask?

From what I have seen of China, it is an entrepreneurs paradise as long as you know how to treat officialdom. Shanghai and Beijing are crawling with Beemers and Mercs. From a business point of view it is kind of wild west though, like the Europe and North America a 150 years ago. Lots of corruption and few of the safeguards for labour that have evolved here. On the other hand, there is no such thing as can't do over there. If there is a buck to be made, they get it done.

Since when were award shows relevant? How could bringing up political topics during award shows make them less relevant than they already are? It seems to me the most memorable award show moments were political ones: Marlon Brando's refusal to accept the Best Actor award; Kim Basinger ragging out the academy for ignoring Do the Right Thing; Milton Berle being humiliated by Rupaul (that one was my favourite). Relevant in regard to rewarding the best in their industry. But you're right, its been awhile.

Just ask smokers.

Actually I am. If you campaign on a platform and are elected on it, you have an obligation to at least try and carry it out. It's a simple concept. If you campaign on a platform, presumably it reflects what you believe in. Presumably unless you are lying, and if enough people agree with you, you get elected.

Actually I am. If you campaign on a platform and are elected on it, you have an obligation to at least try and carry it out. It's a simple concept.

Maybe I am just unwilling to roll over and accede to your agenda without saying my piece. I'm not a religious person but I don't tell those who are what they can stand for or what they can't do. I believe that all couples should have the same rights under the law. I don't much care if the 38 years since my wedding are called a union or a marriage but I do have a problem when governments arbitrarily change the meaning of words purely for perceived political correctness. The fact is, for all societies including Communist societies which are officially atheist, the traditional definition of marriage has always been the union of a man and a women, so it shouldn't be surprising that there is a lot of opposition to that change. It shouldn't take a genius to figure that out. Some would like to say that opposition is restricted entirely to fundamentalist Christians. Much of it is but the tactic of trying to pigeon hole a certain group as the sole obstruction and then discredit that group in order to advance an agenda is as old as the hills. A most extreme example of that tactic is the Nazi's vilification of the Jews. As far as I know the only religious institutions in the world carrying out same sex marriages are some Christian churches and maybe some Synagogues. Objections to the term "marriage" being used for same sex relationships are not confined to religious fundamentalists and range from the very emotional, all the way to, Geez! I don't really like this but don't we have more important things to do with our time? No one knows how many fit in the latter category and because of that, if this were put to a referendum no one knows how it would turn out, that is why neither side wants to go that way. But let's take it one step farther. As well as not allowing anyone to let their religious beliefs have anything to do with how they vote in Parliament, we should also stipulate that anyone who allows their religious views to influence them when they fill out a ballot should disqualify themselves from voting.

Bull. You don't think you should know what people stand for when they run for office? You don't think their faith or lack of it will have any bearing on how they govern? We are what we are and act accordingly.

Deleted

So what.

Doesn't matter if it was an election promise or not, the point is that making such a promise and then holding a vote was a step away from separation of church and state, as I said before. You don't get to tell people what they will be allowed to vote on. If a politician says he is going to do something during an election campaign and he gets elected, he has a mandate to do what he said he was going to do. You can't seem to accept that. There are people of many religions and those who are not religious at all who are on both sides of this issue.

Because that is what he intended to do. Novel concept what?

This was part of the election campaign. When the people voted they had been told this would happen. The promise was kept, it was voted on, defeated and won't be revisited, at least not by the government.

I want people running for office to be honest about what they believe in. Don't you? If people decide not to vote for them because of it, that is their business.

The more award shows become a political forum the less relevance they will have.

And it wouldn't surprise others that they are not prepared to use it as a straw man.

What's your point? Are you advocating stoning them? I don't think the fact that some people would do worse than threaten their lives justifies people threatening their lives. Saying otherwise just demonstrates how people's morals can often be trumped by their partisanship. I am saying that in some countries women who express themselves are actually stoned. Afghanistan under the Taliban for example. I was reacting to the "only in America" crack. That's crap. In some countries they would be dead. In America they are raking in the cash and getting awards.

I was under the impression that Chretien is a practicing Catholic. Conservatives never made an issue of that. It seems to be a liberal game.

Why do you generalize so much? People are accountable for what they say. If they didn't expect a reaction from a certain percentage of the population they were very naive. Any celeb who pops off on a political issue is going to get flack from some quarter. There are always a few on the fringe who take it to far and threaten violence but most of that is just mouth. Personally, I don't give any more credence to the opinion of show biz people than anyone else. They are just another mouth who is entitled to their say but not to my money. I kind of like some of the Chicks music actually and have a couple of their albums. I could care less about their politics as long as they are just bashing politicians. They are fair game.

Interesting that you credit the left with all linguistic creativity. Anyway, 'theocons' is a play on the word 'neocons'. They refer to two different types of conservatives. Interesting how "liberals" catagorize a persons politics according to their religious views. Thats very "liberal" of them.

Only in America would a bunch of redneck right wingers threaten some ladies in a music band because they didnt like what they had to say But yea they had the last laugh Heh-Heh Actually in some countries they would have been stoned. Thats with real rocks.

I am one of the first of the boomers and both my parents are pushing 90. It could be over forty years before the boomers are gone. I don't think we can count on that.

The situation in Campbell River has nothing to do with the College, it is the Federal bureaucracy that is the problem making these people go through a complete process that they have already been through once before but didn't quite complete. There are issues concerning accrediting immigrant doctors and nurses, not the least of which is language. More emphasis should be made on getting these people into the system as quickly as possible. We need some innovative ideas. Quebec and BC have been the two most progressive Provinces when it comes to making changes yet Health Care spending in BC has risen astronomically over the past 6 years without conditions improving and if it continues at the present rate would consume over 70% of the present provincial budget within 10 years. The economy would have to grow at a astronomical rate to accommodate this. Just throwing more money at the problem with out major changes is not an option that can save the system.

Actually there was never any such thing as the "Great Bear Rainforest" It is a name invented by environmentalists.