uOttawaMan

Well, I appreciate that. I hesitate to call you two institutions.... yet. Ahh so only institutions can validly comment on moralism. Interesting.

Hahah like i said, that's everyone, that is society in general.

Being a movie buff you of course remember the scene in "Crocodile Dundee" where some toughs approach Hogan, brandishing a knife. Hogan, in response, says "Is that a knife?" He then shows them his huge blade, remarking, "Now that's a knife." The hoods flee. Well ... I'm still waiting for Benedict XVI to do the same thing. Muslims are continuously pushing the Koran in peoples' faces to gain sympathy .... and ONE day, one day soon I expect Benny to respond to them in a similar way, like saying "Is that the book?" He then shows them his huge Bible, remarking, "Now that's the Book!" What a nice ending to today's terrorism that will be. I LIKE good endings. Wow you really hold that man in high esteem, hope he doesn't let you down, sounds like you have alot invested in him doing crazy huge things. If a book of ecclectic texts ends terrorism rather than starts it, I'll eat my hat.

The problem is with Africans, not the Church. Church policy is to not have sex with multiple partners, that is a very effective deterent to AIDS. More than condoms. But they don't listen. What gives you the belief that Africans will listen when the Church tells them to put on condoms? What makes you think they give a damn what the Church thinks at all?

If we are at war, we are at war only in a metaphorical sense and not in any legal sense. Heh heh. If you think the Canadians would piss if their pants were on fire without the Americans' say so, you're mighty naive. Ha. It's been a long time since their has been any "legal" declarations of war, if you honestly believe there can be such a thing. In the modern world there are no more "convential wars". There will never be another orgainsed force to organised force war like WW2. The fact is, war is an overused word anyway in modern society, so most people wouldn't know a real war if it hit them in the face.

You're comparing condom usage to the unraveling of the family unit and abortion? Please. Agreeing that condoms are an relatively ineffective way to help combat the massive problem of AIDS would be a very impressive move by the Church. This in no way affects the abortion issue, nor will it lead to the decline of society and the collapse of the family unit. The churches goal is also to help those in need is it not? Well , there are a great many people in Africa who need this kind of help.

It's about time. I believe the Catholic Church is fairly progressive minded. Problem being that it takes a very long time for any of these progressive policies to make their way into the dogma.

Hahaha well put and very true! Thats is where my political views run askew as well. My studies in the social sciences have not left a very favourable or optimistic view of people as a whole in my mind. The vast majority of the populace appears to be selfish hedonistic pleasure seeking individuals, who without the societal constructions of law, would run amok. SO I have a very hard time figuring out how I feel about social related policy, especially economic social policy.

Pfff. Anyone who thinks we can change Afghanistan's long-held religious and cultural attitudes towards women by digging wells and building schools should give their head a shake. Was there a declaration of war that I missed? No? Then we are not at war. End of story. I'd say you have the blinders on big time if you think we aren't in a war in Afghanistan. This isn't some cheery high horse UN mission we are on. We do not hold the moral high ground. This is a NATO operation. What NATO is doing in the middle east is questionable at best. It IS a war.

Before I went off to university, like many young people I was firmly entrenched in a left if not far left viewpoint. Ironically, being touted as leftist institutions by many, I've actually become very moderate/centrist if not right leaning in many of my views. Being a student of the Social Sciences, more specifically Criminology, my eyes have really been opened to the complex and long lasting issues that are faced by the governments and people of the world today. There is not always an effective emotional response, and there is not always an effective calculated response either. I've found, alot of what goes on, is simply ineffective. So at the moment I'd have to admit I'm not really sure where I feel that I lie on this restrictive left-right axis, but I'm sure I still have alot of maneuvering on said axis to go before I'm settled.

If we are truly at war, which I believe we are, we should not lower our flag to half mast. There is every indication that there will be more , if not many more casulties in Afghanistan, and having the flag lowered for a majority of the time takes away from its reverent status. It would become a norm, which is definetly not what we as a society should want.

You seem to confuse having children to a money-making scheme. Twice you've referred that the government "pays for having children." You sound like those single moms in the laundromat in Quebec when I was just new to Canada. They adviced me to have children so I will get money from the government. A parent shouldn't think that way. A parent should have children not because "they are paid to have children"...but because they WANT to have children. Sorry but I just have to comment on that. It's an eye-opener from a different perspective. If a lot of people think of having children that way...that must explain this absurd expectation that society should pay for the way of these children. If people think that way then they are clearly delusional. Any money you recieve from the gov't for having a child is massively offset by all the costs associated with raising said child or children.

Short of a nuclear war, there is no terrorist attack that would affect/cripple more than one province at a time maximum. Well, not being totally blinded here, I'm sure some sort of biological attack involving a deadly virus could cripple our country, but whether you have food or not at that point wouldn't help you, being isolated would be the only thing.. Ontario being the most likely target of course.

I agree with the idea of the surplus money being divided up and otherwise utilised, rather than the gov't sitting on it like a trophy then spending it at random. IF there are any economists or otherwise knowledgable people on the subject here, my question is this (purely a question, no political agenda behind it, i really dont know) What is the purpose if any to paying down our "national debt"? Does it really benefit us economically , or help us for the future somehow? Or is it just some kind of feel good tag the government or parties can run part of a platform off of, by saying, "We are reducing the debt!"? Edit: I see shoop just made a post regarding debt, all the more reason for someone to explain it to me, so i can contribute at least somewhat intelligently

That was one of the most satirical and depressing posts made by a Leafs fan I've ever seen. Cheer up mate, you're no fun to make fun of if you don't defend your Leafs with unbridled , unjustified vigor and zeal like the rest of the Leaf Nation

E-drama and bs transforms into real world drama and bs at a moments notice. Tonight on the news : "Harper disenchanted with hockey, takes up cricket instead." Find something important to comment on people.

Ahhhh his predictions are basically as accurate and researched as the monkey off TSN!! Scary thing he has a good chance of getting alot of those predictions right. Except for Tampa of course, Sens will pull that out.

Giguere is injured tonight, hopefully for a few more games. No Giguere.. flames win hands down. Admit it, you just hate Calgary. Hmm that wasn't a cake walk for Calgary. Good game to Kipper for saving his teams bacon. Anaheim is no push over.. Calgary better call off the parade and make sure they get down to buisness.

1-0 Tampa 1-1 Edmonton Detroit I knew Ott series was gonna be tight and close... noone believed me tho.

I agree with that almost 100%. I feel that Buffalo is gonna get by Philly though. Too much speed, if the refs call the game tight, big Hatcher and Co. will be toast. As for everyone calling for a sweep in Ott vs TBay, I'm a rabid Sens fan, in Ottawa, and I don't think that is in the cards. I agree we have a ton of firepower, but so does Tampa. Emery will be shaky and nervous for at least one game, and one of the Tampa goalies are bound to be hot for at least one game. My conclusion basically is, this will be tighter than people expect. Ottawa in 7.

If he knows about hockey that's good enough for me. Hahah but seriously, nice to show a more human side, without the constant politiking.

Greatest Prime Minister alive. lol.

I find it humourous because it's illogical. It is not a logical step, to apply a term such as "getting tough" to a subject such as crime, which is a subject very broad and very complex as I'm learning in completing my Criminology degree. The meaning of such a phrase is very vague. "Getting tough". What does that even mean? To some it means giving mandatory sentences, bringing back capital punishment, longer sentences, more lockups. To others it is focussing on the problems that cause crime. Poverty, smuggling, etc. To others "Getting tough" on crime means finding new ways of dealing with crime, be it rehabiltative approaches, alternative approaches, a feeling in their minds of finally adressing the real issues in criminal "corrections" that have been ignored in the past. The only common thread I find in the use of "getting tough" when applied to the subject of crime is that it refers to a changing of the institutional definition and approach to crime. Not some simplistic "lets punish more " meaning.

I find the repeated use of the word "get/ getting tough on crime" humourous.

I an unable to make a judgment like that, as you have barely asked one question. And let's be honest, you really don't want people to stop looking at this thread now do you?