Slavik44

So is breathing No its not, I never took you for a radical feminist. But to be honest with you, your full of shit. But on the brightside I can use your favourite book the bible to disprove you and I can use science. Genisis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." So according to the bible, God didn't create a unisexual android, your God, the one that you belive in created two distinct Genders. From the Scientific point of view a multitude of studies have been done, that look at how the male and female Brain function, the end result, is that they respond to stimuli in different ways. You cannot change a girls Brain by making her play with a hammer, well okay if she hits her self on the head really hard her brain may respond ot stimuli differently, like not at all. Are there not Macho gays out there? I am really not interested in typing Macho gays into google but I would be fairly certain, that somewhere out there, there would be macho Gays. What about submissive Lesbians? If a Lesbian is a Girl that was raised a guy, why would there be submissive Lesbians, or girly Lesbians and I am pretty sure I have heard of submissive Lesbians. What about girls that behave in a masculine way but are still hetrosexual, I know for sure they exist. And what about Metrosexual guys? They can't all be closet gays can they? The fact is both Homosexual and Hetrosexual people have a multitude of different personalities, not all of them talk in that gay voice. This is simply absurd. It has been prooven there are differences in how males and females respond to stimuli, I also recall a study that pointed out a homosexual's brain responded to certain scents differntly then that of their hetrosexual counter part. I also recall a study of idtentical twins that were raised in dfferent households, and yes you guessed it if one was gay there was a higher then average chance that the other would also be gay. Obvoiusly there will always be debate as to wether homoesxuality is entirely genetic and/or how much of a role environment plays in Human Sexual Orientation. But I think you have gone past the point of reasonable and rationale debate and into a level of absurdity.

I have a picture with me standing next to mickey mouse, you wouldn't belive the influence I have over Disney. Anyways I went and listend to the audio clip of their conversation, and for the most part I feel like a just heard a bunch of kindergartners go at it. It was full of lame insults and completely lacking substance. After that I watched a number of other clips that are on the internet, again I couldn't help but notice he seems to invite the biggest idiots, the greatest wackjobs, and some of the dumbest people I have ever seen on to his show, which probabley explains why he wanted Baldwin in the first place. I can't help but want Hannity to deliver a serious ass whooping when people like Phelps ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i0UjxP0BBY&search=hannity ) and Crook ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7vssO8jj1E&search=hannity ) appear on his show, maybe he has debates with more reasonable people, but from wha tI watched he debated nut jobs, and his central arguement seemed to arise from a belief that it was wrong to question a president during war time.

George Soros, the financial speculator, worth like 10 billion dollars, helped fund Polands solidarity movement and other soviet Dissidents, removing George Bush from office is his central goal in life, donated large amounts of money to groups hoping to ditch bush...you can read more about him.

I didn't know Canada had a free trade agreement with the European Union. So in that matter I don;t think we can ask for free trade to be respected, when it has not been agreed to, and I don't think we can refer to Canada as a hipocrit, for violating a treaty that doesn't exist.

The war on murder, fraud and gun crimes aren't working either. Lets legalise it, and tax it! Please give it a rest, the question is not to look solely at wether or not the war is being won, but wether or not it is worth it. The fact remains that in America they spend more on the war on drugs then they do on the war to educate American people. The biggest problem with the war on drugs is that it can be counter productive. Personally I would change the focus of the war, to reducing the deaths the enemy causes...If the enemy doesn't kill anyone then we have achieved our goal. Everyone talks about a war where no one shows up, but what about a war where no one dies. Perhaps there is a bloody noes and a couple broken bones, but in the long run the war really isn't that bad. We should stop focusing primarily on making drugs harder to get, something we have resoundingly failed at, and start focusing on making them less appealing, less addictive, and less harmfull. Each and everyone of which can be achieved to an extent, a number of studies indicate that drug addiction is best overcome when their is a strong support based environment, a number of studies seem to indicate that drug use generally arises when people are in a poor environment( I don't mean welath wise but in general, poor), and that under circumstances, when drug users are not marginalised as much as they are, they can lead a more productive life, then that of a street junkie and ten cent whore. I feel that the current drug policy has been ineffective and counter productive and if your goal is to do something about drugs the policy should shift to focusing on the people. We waste billions focusing and failing on the drugs, lets spend 40 billion a year to make drugs less harmfull, people less likely to use drugs, and people who use drugs more productive. Instead of continuing to misplace 40 billion a year in a misguided war effort. Most of that 40 billion is spent combating Pot. Which to me would be like if America spent almost all of its defense money in order to defend itself against a Canadian invasion. I think we need to realise that our "drugs are bad" morals are killing people... The question shouldn't be wether or not Drugs are good, instead the question must be how many deaths is maintaining our position on the moral high road truly worth? And if we allow people to die by maintaining this position is it really the moral position?

Wow, let me tell you if I was going to show the world how powerfull I was, my first choice would be through the relocation of a museam to a place that is a couple of kilometers away. I think a few questions need to be asked. For one, I wonder if this is a situation in which a minister needs to follow the rah rah look at me, I am a bad ass, mode of operation? I also must ask why? It seems utterly stupid, the people of Quebec probably wouldn;t have cared before, but now that this proclamation from Thor the thunder God Cannon has been made, are we not in some way going to piss off or alienate someone? Either the people of Quebec are not going to get the fancy shamncy museam promised to them, or on the flip side if the museam does go to Quebec could we not be pissing off 5,364 people? It appears as if this situation smells of political ineptness, this is perhaps one of those situations where the Conservatives could have afforded to have done something quietly, but I suppose that doesn't play into the hands of Quebec nationalism. That being said I wouldn't get to upset about it, after all its is a museam. A celebration of the past that sustains itself on the dollar of the Canadain tax payer, and in that spirit I cannot think of a better place for this museam to be located then in Gatineau, Quebec.

It seems to me like there would be better things to do then find a way to take down the listing of member numbers. It seems a bit like Political Correctness gone awry, especially to suggest a parrallel to the Communist Party and subsequently the Soviet Union. Its a bit like saying Adolf Hitler had a dog, you know who else had a dog... Anyways I promise not to go around gloating that I am member 151, which has two ones in it making me twice as good as number one, a person who subsequently doesn't exist. Making me twice as good as no one. That there displays the importance member numbers have, none. So why then should we waste valuable time to take down something of no importance. Maybe then we might say we should get rid of the post count, perhaps the search function should go after all itc ould be used to find the oldest member, perhaps maybe we are just looking for problems that don't exist or don't need to be found. hmm...after posting this I just noticted that we both joined on the 15th of Febuary, never noticted that before.

This site is discussing Marijuana, not alcohol. Everytime someone comes out against pot, the pot-heads drag out their old standby argument about the bad affects of alcohol, when the two have nothing to do with each other. the discussion is about a scientific study done by Greek researchers on the effects on individuals who use pot. Unfortunately the study doesn't tell us anything about the effects of pot.

- He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. -Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. - Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. - He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. - He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. - Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. - I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. - Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscri...ospel_of_judas/ For those with some time on there hands there is an english translation of the gospel of Judas on the site, it is a little chopped up and misisng large portions of text.

Did pot kill Kenny to? I mean come on, why is it that you are looking for such a simplistic answer as to assume Pot did this, and pot is solely responsible. They have done a number of expirements on rats and drug addiction, in one of those expirements they had two cages, one deemed a stimulating environment and the other what was temred a non-stimulating environment. In each environment water was provided, and water laced with drugs was provided...In the stimulating environment it was found the rats were less likely to use the drugs or become addicted to these drugs, perhpas I could make a case that you, your family, and your brothers home environment should be blamed, but I wont do that. What I will say is that perhpas we should be kepping are half baked ideas to ourselves.

I agree but I disagree, the fact is the problem is rooted in the effects of culture madly consumed with consumption, that is what I would call excessive consumption. When being able to drive a Porsche 911 Turbo S over a BMW M3 takes priority over spending time with your kids or some level of involvement in your kids lives, then I would deem that to be an excessive pursuance of consumption...that would be the problem. However all to often this becomes the So-Cons excuse to bring up "traditional Values" how way back when it was better, the people were better, the moral standards were higher...but that simply is not the case, and I frown on having people turn this into a back in my day post, it reminds me of a used car sales men who describes a 1980's oldsmobile as like new and runs great I am not interested in hearign a sales pitch about the 1950's. But that is what I am starting to hear, how kids don't pay for university, how they do not contribute at all to the household and how teenagers 50 years ago were so great. And that is the problem with societies Collective action it is tainted with Nostalgia and a desire to go backwards to the morals of the past, this is done inc omplete and utter disregard for the many of the rights and freedoms people had to fight for given the morals of the times. Unfortunately solving this problem has nothing to do with Legislating Morals, if only it was that easy. In my economics text book there is a cartoon of a communist leader who finds out his people are not happy so he decides to pass legislation that says smiling is now mandatory.... Having what I woudl call a different outlook on life doesn't come meerely from the government saying, "do this." The fact is no major party is truly interested in changing the root problem. All our major parties, wether left wing or right wing are concerned with maintaining a healthy Economy, no one can come to power, put people out of work and expect to maintain this power come election time. But that is what giving people more time/cutting consumption requires. People to work less, people to produce less, people to earn less and generally speaking it would probabley result in an increasing Price level. That is not a formula for wining an election, unless we start selling soem major alcohol come election day. Unofrtunately parties tend to look at popular but misleading ways to "help" the public. Most of them however result in higher Consumption. In the case of the right wing they use "Morals" and "Hard Work" and cutting taxes to encourage people to work that extra hour. They play right along with the Idea of increasing your consumption to solve a problem that I feel is primarily caused by excessive consumption. The left of course uses Social programs, take day care for example...does that solve the underlieing issue of excessive consumption or does it allow another parent to work full time so the family can consume more? Even the Conservatives bought into this by giving people money...promotign consumption, wether it is of Beer and Popcorn I do not know. Beyond that the media and big CEO's have been more then happy to go along with these solutions, because for them even the worst Social Program is better than a parent who doesn't buy $120 jeans for their todler. I think all we have to do is look at ourselves, who here has not argued agaisnt cutting consumption at some point? The biggest problem with Kyoto--it theoretically requires us to cut consumption. Why do we lower taxes? So we can consume more? Why don't you vote for the NDP, they will destroy the economy...we wont be able to consume as much. We live in a society with fat people, not only fat as in they consume to much food, but fat as in the material sense. And really I don't see anyone suggesting we change this, I wonder if it is even possible and given this I am not about to jump on a bandwagon going the wrong way down a one way street.

I guess this is a question of wether Guns kill people or if people kill people, I am reminded of an E-mail I was sent over a year ago, of a guy who claimed to have linked a web cam up to his gun, so people could tally how many people it killed. Likewise it is one thing to blame pop culture and telivision it is another to realise that somewhere along the line some level of personal responsibility must enter the picture. After all 12 year olds did not create the environment they now live in, they did not purchase that 52 inch plasma T.V, and they do not have a high level of control over what bombards their Brains 24/7. I think however their is a problem with Society standing up and saying enough is enough, they generally miss the target, people have been trying to attack culture or the lack there of for years, generally speaking it has not been to succesfull. I often get the impression that when society stands up to do something about these situations it involves finding a scape goat, wether it be Marylin Manson or Grand Theft Auto. In the end it doesn't solve the deeper underlying issues, partly because the deeper underlying issue is what sustains the world we live in--a culture of excessive consumption. We are all chasing after that bigger house, that vacation property, a porsche, and countless assortments of other goods...and I am not trying to speak from some position of enlightment clearly I am guilty of the same. In some ways we are trying so hard, maybe to hard, to achieve economic success but because of this failing to succeed in other areas, and please don't reply and tell me how great the world was in the 1950's the world has always had very serious major moral problems. That Being said when society comes up with a solution to the evil culture problem that is infiltrating our youth they tend to do it in a way that is counter productive. Much like attempting to kill a star fish by cutting it in half, instead of killing the Star Fish you have created two. Already we have seen people bring up Fashion, grade 8's in Limos, the internet, and an urban myth known as Sex bracclets, these are not causing our problems, but undoubtedly the "collective action of society" will single them out, will disproportionately if not entirely focus on the manifestation of the problem rather then the problem itself and in that case count me out of this collective action, I would rather track Santa Clause using NORAD.

This isn't a tradition or requirement for Liberal leadership it is a bit like saying the NHl should ensure the Vancouver Canucks make it to the stanley cup finals and loose to a team from New York, this season, in order to stick with tradition. Besides, to be honest I don't see any French politicians suggested for leadership that I really like, so I would rather the Liberals break with tradition...whatever that is because I don't belive the best Candidate will be from quebec.

Listen you need to realise that we are not living in the 1800's, what the founding fathers intended for thsi country will always be up for dispute...that being said we should not give a damn, we are not here to impress a bunch of bigots from the 1800's. I love the past, I study it, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in it. What are founding fathers intended is not important...Our founding fathers intended for Canada to be a great part of the British Empire they did not intend or want Canada to become America's best friend or even friend but we have. Our founding fathers didn't want Canada to be one of the most urbanized countries in the world, but we are, Our founding fathers probabley didn't want women voting, but they do. Our founding fathers probabley didn't want British Columbia to have had an Indo-Canadian Premiere, but we have. Our founding fathers never intended for Canada to talk about cutting ties to the monarchy, but many Canadians now do. Our founding fathers never intended for Canada to have homosexual politicians but we do. OUR FOUNDING FATHERS LIVED IN THE 1800'S, BUT WE DON'T AND THAT IS SOMETHIGN YOU NEED TO REMEMBER.

I would argue it is not a bad thign to protest when Human rights are being violated, and I would however argue it is a bad thign to treat rights so frivolously that we can mock people who defend them. You have made no qualifications to what sorts of people are being defended or actions only that lefties like to protest against anything that comes remotely close to infringing on Human rights, I would rather see protest against Rights violations then see rights violations themselves. Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it). I suggests that you refrain from making such implications, they are implications you are not capable of making and you are not capable of defending. It would be just as inflamatory for me to say all right wingers need a global massacre because they like to see children being killed, cut the B.S Well I think this would best describe the sentiments of the majority of Canadians wether left right or center. The Truth is that "Free speech is a right that all Canadians enjoy; Canadians also have the right to voice their opinions... but we regret the publication of this material in several media outlets. While we understand this issue is divisive, we wish that people be respectful of the beliefs of others. And we commend the Canadian Muslim community for voicing its opinion peacefully, respectfully and democratically. I do not belive the goal of the positionis to oppose tradition, it happens to be that Gay Marrige is apparently not traditional and by supporting Gay Marrige you are supporting something that tends to go against "Traditional Values" I am afraid you are already Starting with a mis charachterization. But for that Matter Canada is not Governed by Tradition, Canada is not ruled by Religion Canada is a country Governed by the people under a set of Laws, not under a religion and not under a tradition but by the people under laws, laws that should be followed. It is also funny that you blame the left for fearing "Irrate Muslims", when is it not most Conservatives who in a fear of terrorists, generally stereotyped as very Irrate Muslims, have violated their own laws of the land Of course in this case the right is very quick to argue it is justified, it is justified to violate such laws. But when the left asks for some tolerance to be shown, some respect to be shown, you have a problem with it. You will find that one of many things that seperates us from tyranical despots tends to be toleration and moderation, and yet in the fight against such people were are throwing that to the dogs. Well the left isn't so monolithic so that everyone holds the same opinions, so I am sure they can figure out their own personal beliefs for themselves, and they can take action based on that. Damned if you do damned if you don't, there are hundreds of millions of people in North America, probabley half of which could be carachterized as being left wing, it is not neccesary, practical, or even benificial to ensure that all these people walk, talk, and act like each other...who knew lefties the defenders of individuality. That is such a load, I think the better way would be for you to take a one month vacation.

I have little control over what Canada does, this is a political board, this is in a sub section titled the rest of the world, My arguement is not that Canada should legalise Pot, my arguement is that Pot should be legailised, that would include the United States of America.

well this is not just about Canada, I have mentioned U.S stats and agencies in my posts...

When I was a student, I advocated for a similar area designated for masturbation, but it didn't fly. your telling me your school didn't have a bathroom??? ------------------------------------------ I belive you might be somewhat mistaken, When describing Canada as a secular nation the attempt is not to say that the country is runing around with Athiests but it is to say that in theory the laws of the land and legal code are not designed to favour or endorse one particular religion, so yes Canada should be seen as a secular nation.

There is absolutely no double stuandard, The lords prayer was a forced public display of Religion that violated peoples religous freedoms and there ability to choose wether or not they wanted to be religous. IF we were here argueign everyone in public school should get on a mat and pray five tiems a day to mecca then yes, there would be a double standard. But most people here are only saying that people of all faiths Christian, Muslim, or whatever should have an area designated for prayer that they could choose to go to if they so desired.

What is it with conservatives and throwing money at problems.... If you like we can do both, we can control who grows it in a stringent licensing system and we can impose harsh penalties on those who illegaly grow the stuff. That way the left gets their pot and the right gets to throw someone in Jail...everyone is happy.

Your scored -2 on the Moral Order axis 2 on the Moral Rules axis. The following items best match your score: System: Socialism Variation: Moderate Socialism Ideologies: Social Democratism US Parties: No match. Presidents: Jimmy Carter (87.50%) 2004 Election Candidates: John Kerry (81.78%), Ralph Nader (81.78%), George W. Bush (56.25%) Statistics 3.4% had the same score as you. 14.7% were above you on the chart. 72.6% were below you on the chart. 47.6% were to your right on the chart. 31.1% were to your left on the chart.

No of course they are not going to put on suites, but the fact remains pot is something people buy, people don't run around buying heroine in large numbers, in B.C it is a 4 billion dollar industry...you cannot replace 4 billion dollars with the snap of your fingers. Yes legalising Pot would be a huge blow to gang funding, because 4 billion dollars is a ton of cash and it cannot be replaced so easily. Pot is such a great source of funding because it is widley used, when you eliminate Pot, you push these gangs to the fringes, there is not a 4 billion dollar market for guns and heroine in British Columbia. While they will move somewhere else they wilbe moving from a 4 billion dollar industry to a minor million dollar industries. No the lesson we learned from prohibition was that it created gangs, or thats the lessonw e shoudl ahve learned gangsters move on but when they loose major sources of funding they are hurt. A 4 billion dollar industry in a province of 4 million people cannot be so easily replaced. Yes it would hurt gangs imensley to take away 4 billion dollars yearly. Yeah cars provide alot of grief to. The fact is we spend billions combating a billion dollar industry, we forfiet billions of revenue and waste billions of revenue, Pot is a burden to our society right now, but if we legalised it, pot would become less of a burden probabley even a source of wealth. Exaclty, its just like alcohol...tell me how many gangsters sell alcohol? Young people will probabley be able to get pot if they want it, like alcohol and cigarettes but like alcohol and Cigarettes they will get it from older friends. What you previously stated is wrong not if it was legalised.

Yes nothing prooves Pat Robertson's point more then the fact that here in Canada every one of my professors this semester voted Conservative. Oh, okay maybe that doesn't proove his point. But what about my economics professor who likes to hand us out studies from the highly left wing Fraser institute? Or maybe my history teacher who supports the war in Iraq, can't get more left wing then that. I have spent two years in University now and have yet to have a communist professor or meet a Communist student, clearly Pat Robertson has a point. Schools are just eminating with Commies, they are everywhere, but like any good communist they have the ability to hide all of their political beliefs, so their students can't tell, those are the worst kind of communists, the ones you know are out there but you can't find. Pat Robertson has an excellent point because in the past like during the vietnam war there was large support by teachers and the student body for the establishment and government activities, protests were very rare, and professors rarely opened their mouths on the issue, unlike today where every where you turn some student has 1,000 people following him making noise and complaining about the war in Iraq. Pat Robertson has it nailed never before in the history of universities have we seen so few capitalists and pro establishment teachers as today. Or maybe the guy is just full of shit, and got bored of bashing homosexuals and praying for hurricanes to miss American cities...good thing he was on hand for Katrina...but that couldn't be it could it?

What about a mistrust of Government? I do not belive we can say that Social Conservatives desire a less intrusive government, clearly much of their policy seems to surround maintaining or expanding government control. However I do get the impression that many Social Conservatives do not trust Government, Fiscal conservatives also seem to possess this mistrust which for them translates into a smaller Government. Given Social conservatives mistrust Government they are probabley likely to follow the lead of fiscal Conservatives on economic issues. I think it is tough to pick one thing that unites the right. In today's world the sense of ideology is no where near as strong nor as extreme as it has been in the past. The majority of votes tend to reside in moderate swing voters. Given that fact I think it is tough to say what unites the right when most voters in Canada are not really married to one particular party. I could tell you what unites the green party voters, or the Marijuana party voters, or Bloc voters but once we move into the big three federalist parties the unity tends to disappear especially when it comes to the Liberal party and Conservative party, but I think it would be fair to say that the most ardent Conservatives do not trust Government.