sage

Let me get this straight. Killing seals is abhorrent, whereas killing other animals for human purposes is acceptable? What possible distinction is there? Some have attempted to answer this question by commenting on the domestication of certain animals. The measurement of an animal's life is dependent on whether it was born to serve a human utility? As for everyone drawing a distinction between cattle and seals on the basis of the age of the cubs killed, I suggest you do some research into veal. Arguably far more morally atrocious then clubbing. The fact of it is that humans generally kill animals when it serves our purpose, whether its termites in your basement or seals for their skins, so again what is the difference?

I don't believe the Lib's under Martin were required to justify any decisions, as they never made any.

Don't get me wrong, the whole thing seems a little ridiculous. I have no clue how carrying something around gets you into heaven. The fact of it is though the odds of the kirpan on this kid being used as a weapon is infinitesimal, and whatever argument you're going to make applies equally to all sorts of other things found in the school yard, think rocks, scalpel's, scissors, pens, fun tacks. To say it isn't a slippery slope is ridiculous. The only distinction between a kirpan and the rest of these things is that the other things have some utility to the general classroon, whereas the kirpan's only utility is in the hands of the Sikh kid, and this is the discrimination that is the problem. Get off the bullshit about "its a weapon", because anything can be used as one.

If you ban these Kirpan's where does it end? Please explain one difference between a scalpel used in a science biology class and a kirpan. Both are knives, both are even sharp (likely the scalpel is sharper then the kirpan). Holy shit, the scalpel is even purposely manufactured to cut flesh. I am outraged, why haven't scalpel's been banned before!!!!!!

Have any of you people actually read the Supreme Court's decision on this? I'll go out on a limb and suggest you haven't, which means that the majority of you are obtaining your information from the media. The difficulty is this: the Supreme Court did not say it is okay to bring kirpan's to school. It said you cannot ban them wholly, without even trying to accomodate the religion. This is a fundamental distinction. I first heard of this case on the CBC, in advance of the ruling. While I listened, I too was struck by the stupidity of the idea that someone should bring a knife to school. I then read the Supreme Court's decision with this in mind. I had envisioned someone either wearing a sheath with a kirpan in it, or wearing it on their belt, etc. The fact of the matter is that the school placed the following restrictions on this kid bringing it to school (taken from the SCC's judgment): -- that the kirpan be worn under his clothes; — that the kirpan be carried in a sheath made of wood, not metal, to prevent it from causing injury; — that the kirpan be placed in its sheath and wrapped and sewn securely in a sturdy cloth envelope, and that this envelope be sewn to the guthra; — that school personnel be authorized to verify, in a reasonable fashion, that these conditions were being complied with; — that the petitioner be required to keep the kirpan in his possession at all times, and that its disappearance be reported to school authorities immediately; and — that in the event of a failure to comply with the terms of the judgment, the petitioner would definitively lose the right to wear his kirpan at school. Now I am not that familiar with Sikh clothing, but it sounds to me like this thing is in a wooden sheath, then sewn in a cloth bag that is again sewn to some clothing (I'm assuming a "guthra" is some type of clothing). The point in all of this is to recognize that you have to try to accomodate the individual, which I believe the school did (it was the school board which would not sign off on the proposal). Ultimately if we take the rationale you people are expounding then, as the SCC says: "The application of a standard of absolute safety could result in the installation of metal detectors in schools, the prohibition of all potentially dangerous objects (such as scissors, compasses, baseball bats and table knives in the cafeteria)." Anyone want to rethink their previous posts?

Michael, am I reading your post accurately? Is the Free Trade agreement being brought into this debate as the cause of this lack of progress? Margins are being squeezed in every respect, from between corporations to labour itself. Why is this surprising?

Let me get this straight: if Ezra publishes the cartoons, its "me too"ism? If he doesn't publish, then what is it? The only reason this is a story is because no other news outlet would touch this thing. That's why its about free speech.

The reason for the distinction is found in your previous post: "(might you be a Bushbot automaton?)..." I may be wrong but I do not believe there was any specific personal reference to yourself as an idiot for supporting Clinton in Insom Elvis's post. Yet this is exactly the course you choose to take in your defence of Clinton, by referencing Insom Elvis as a "Bushbot automaton". Not that I want to get into the "I'm rubber, you're glue" bit, but it is the intense hatred of Bush that trickles down to his supporters and results in the phenomenon of "bush-bashing", when the facts of the debate exit the conversation and you have to resort to personal attacks. For the record I think there's plenty of reason's to question Bush's leadership, but don't be so blind to think that Clinton walked on water.

He managed to lose the campaign the first time it was ran 2 years ago, so its hard to see how it was a "can't lose scenario".

It was a worthwhile idea at the time, though obviously not enough thought was put into what happened after the war was going to be over. Considering that they destabilized the entire region, though I think we'll have to wait and see whether the Iraqi can actually respond to a nation state on its own, or whether they will continue in their own respective group struggles. If they can control their borders and themselves, perhaps it will work out, but I'm a little pessimistic in that regard.

You don't have to be Trudeau, wearing ridiculous costumes and doing dumb things to be a leader. I know you weren't specifically referencing Trdeau, but much of the time when people are complaining about Harper, that is who they dig up from the past, and speak of "charisma", more specifically Harper's lack thereof. If Layton has taught us anything its that leadership requires more then a personality. In terms of what Harper has engineered, its difficult not to give him credit for the amalgamation of the Tories. Don't get me wrong, Harper is not the person that embodies every attribute you would want in a leader, but he has accomplished something, which means he obviously has some qualifications for leadership.

Is it your ignorance, lack of intelligence, or blind partisanship that makes it impossible for you to appreciate or understand the dynamics of belinda's defection? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume its door #3 for now. Now to deal summarily with each your assertions Your last post referenced her difference on SSM "But she also disagreed with the CPC stance on SSM" as the reason for defection. Which one is it? How many liberals are serious contenders for the liberal leadership? None. How are these different? Please, please, show me the insight that I'm lacking here. May I suggest you quit researching if its what leads to your asinine conclusions. Common sense would better serve you. I will grant you (as I have in previous posts) that this Emerson brings the CPC party directly in line with the antics it was campaigning against.

One problem that will plague Ignatieff, as Harper is finding out, is that it is easy to govern from academia, but more difficult to implement in practice. Its fine for Ignatieff to comment on foreign policy when he is a professor, its far different however when it comes time to make a decision between competing interests. Is it a strong military or health care spending? For just one example.

Yo, Honest Politician, if Belinda was so troubled by the values of the Conservative Party why did she wait for 2 days before a major vote before jumping ship? Did she just wake up that day read the party platform and suddenly realize its policy on SSM. Not very god-damn likely. She jumped ship for one thing - a cabinet post. Let's see the other possibilities that were available to her: A. She could have sat as an independent and accomplished the moral superiority she spoke about having when she crossed the floor; OR B. She could have left the party once its platform was clear and she disagreed with it. Instead she did neither, which implies her greed/ambition was the motiviation in the whole fiasco.

I thought that was me. Well, a Liberal that called me on that I called Stronach a whore said I owed people an apology not an hour after it happened and I said Emerson was cut form the same cloth then. Check the link. You're right, I was a few hours later.

I thought that was me.

No he is not! Are you deaf? He must be elected in order to qualify for the job! That's how democracy works. Ministers are appointed in dictatorships! Before you get pissy with me (though we may have crossed that threshold already) you keep mentioning that in order to be "qualified" for a cabinet position you must be elected. This is despite the fact that our Parliamentary history allows this to occur. This qualification, where exactly does it arise from? I'm not trying to be cute but you continually ignore this question and its important. Before you go stating how this is the way it should be you should be aware of the role Parliamentary Convention plays in our system. Do you know what constitutional document mentions the powers that the Prime Minister of Canada holds? No where. That's right, its merely through convention that the PM holds any power whatsoever. What about cabinet? It doesn't exist in our constitution either. My point is please, oh please, tell me where this "qualification" arises, other then in your mind. I'm not saying your not entitled to your opinion on the subject but I doubt you entirely appreciate how our government operates.

Yep.

Melanie do you honestly think he entered the campaign planning to jump ship? Not very likely. I am sure he ran the campaign to sit as a Liberal. Then old opportunity and ambition came knocking. I don't believe we're talking about subterfuge here, though questionable ethics to be sure.

Zues, its you whose bringing up something irrelevant to avoid a question. In case you didn't notice this thread is devoted to Clinton, not Bush. Why don't you focus on that subject for a paragraph. If you want to go on a bush-bashing spree, be my guest, but there must be a dozen other threads where this is occuring.

So in a nutshell you're pissed at Harper, and Fortier may very well be qualified for the job.

Mimas, I don't get what you're saying here. "Thousands" of Canadians are better qualified? In what way exactly? What is it specifically that you disagree with? Fortier's personal qualifications? Fair enough, list them. The fact that he was appointed a senator, on the basis that Harper campaigned against this? Fair enough, though as I mentioned before it brings the question as to how Harper deals with any senator at this point. Is it that Fortier is not elected? Historically its happened before, so is it just that Harper used this convention?

An interesting sidebar to this Emerson thing. On Wednesday on CBC radio, they had an "activist" from Emerson's riding to give her opinion. Hearing the phrase activist, of course, conjures up images of someone just waiting to trounce the conservatives (which she ultimately did do). However she said the Emerson was the hardest working representative that constituency ever had and she was willing to wait and see what he would do for the riding before criticizing him. It was a surprisingly balanced opinion. Not that we should expect such things here.

I'm a lawyer who does a fair bit of commercial work; tax planning, incorporating, buying-selling businesses, that sort of thing. Also I don't know if you're correct Geoffrey necessarily that you get more deductions by being incorporated, that's a common misconception. The fact is you can deduct valid expenses regardless whether you are incorporated or not. It just depends on your business, and whether they are reasonable in the circumstances. The big benefit though is, for example, you may get to make $1,000/month vehicle lease payments with money taxed at 20% (as opposed to 44%). The tax people even have this figured out though because there are circumstances where in such a situation the provision of the vehicle itself is a taxable benefit to yourself through what's called a "standby charge". Though we may have gotten a bit far off the bashing of the NDP. Please just let me keep a little bit of my money, that's all I want.

Much my business is devoted to incorporating individuals for the sole purpose of saving taxes, so I would disagree. You don't think there's a reason the small business deduction exists, or why its limited?