Hollus

I understand your sentiment completely, and it’s a very noble one. I honor any one who defends the innocent. However, what you suggest sounds a lot like vigilantism. Civilized people cannot be expected to defend against the crazies. Last week while waiting at a bus stop, three bigger men than I came running around the corner; two chasing the other. The lone man fought them back and kept moving as fast as he could. I had no idea how this altercation began. I didn’t know if it was two good guys chasing a bad guy, or two bad guys chasing a good guy. Should I have ran to the lone mans defense? Or should I have called 911? Does it make me a “stuffy fat headed liberal city dwelling panty waist” for calling the police instead of taking matters into my own hands?

I agree, the intention of this program is great and I think teacher and students recognize that. If we worked more on developing this idea, we could really improve our schools. Instead of forcing people through hoops, we should focus on providing the inspiration and encouragement to undertake these actions on they’re own. We should not be holding people back for not improving personal habits(such as job planning, exercise, volunteering) but we should do as much as possible to facilitate them.

Just because your stupid enough to run towards a hail of gunfire and get yourself killed doesn’t make people who react naturally cowards. I welcome you to move to a city and practice your vigilante ways; you wouldn’t last a second. It’s not like the movies, where Bruce Willis battles through a dozen marauding hoods and prevails as the hero. The last time someone tried to dissuade a gun wielding hood in Vancouver he got shot in the head. When a bullet is fired on a busy street you get your fucking head down! ‘Cause you don’t know why or where its coming from. I wouldn’t so much call you crazy, maybe just narrow minded. That you would grab your hunting riffle and shoot out your window(or whatever) with the element of surprise, at a violent druggie trying to invade your neighbors home; that doesn’t equate to unarmed citizens defending against surprise outbreaks of gunfire from thugs. Ridiculous. Can you picture that? -This is channel 10 reporting: Gunfight broke out on downtown street this afternoon. Bystanders immediately dropped their shopping bags and lunged their unarmed bodies at the assailants. And then rainbow colored monkeys started leaping out of everyone’s asses. Uhh? I hope 'plain old country sense' is more intelligent than what you’ve proposed. Don’t forget that the cities population is largely fed by rural areas, so the people are not that disconnected from rural life and crime. I’ve yet to find a rural town that does not have at least a couple violent home grown criminals that the locals are unable to deal with. So your problem is not with the gun registry but with the bureaucracy that’s prevented it.

Wow! Mapleleafwebs very own sect of right-wing extremists

And to make matters worse... alot of these cult-like sports fans are also religious Thank heavens. Most probably their saving glory. Ever watch the start of a Nascar race, lot of idiotical bru ha ha, bunch of Amaudons, I wait til the race has started to tune in. What is an Amaudon - do you mean automaton ? It was used extensively in the older generation of my family and is still used by the one's in Ireland, that give you a clue. It means Fool in Gaelic Who are you calling a fool and why?

Oh nothing. Since people want to get rid of the NDP, figured another stance should be taken saying the same thing. Let's just get rid of random parties. Why not. Think. We've already eliminated a right leaning party and assimilated it into the tories to make the CPC. I think the whole point of the original thread was (meant to be an affront and not too well articulated) basically that the NDP should be disbanded to become a part of the Liberals. I think most people would support a 3 party system if it were Left, Right and Center. But we have Left, More Left and Right. Getting to the aforementioned end leaves the NDP the odd party out. Liberals and NDP are completely different. If your going to propose such ridiculious propositions I think you need to provide better justification than balancing the spectrum of political ideology. Based on who's definition of what is Left, Center, Right. You see it as Left, more Left, Right; I see it as Left, Right, more Right. The problem with our current system is not in the diversity of the parties, its the complacency of the voters. I'd say there is a whopping % of voters making decisions without any real idea of who and what their voting for. Simplifying the system by consolidating the choices on either side of an imaginary line is not the answer.

I guess its a matter of interpretation of the definition. Wether it be a large one, old one, new one or weird one etc. they all share the function of dictating a group ideology. They differ extensivly in their ideology, yet all claim to be speaking the word of God or some spiritual variation. In my opinion, they all fit into a spectrum of perscribed spiritual speculation, inwhich there are no real answers. I think they use peoples desire for answers as a means to control them, and prevent them from asking these questions themselves. Some religions are more radical than others, some are more controlling, but they all(with out question) require that you conform to their beliefs. I say we dont need them. I say the good that has come from them can be transcended by free thinking individuals.

In my opinion, its this attitude that is going to bury us. The "One cannot see the forest for the trees", the failure to recognize the ecological and economical worth of sustainably managing these resources. How we manage our growing population, urban expansion, and resource exploitation, will determine our living standards in the future. I like this Keynote speech by Ray Anderson Chairman of the Board, Interface Inc. for its descriptiveness: "I have asked myself over and over for nearly 11 years, and I ask you, how would a living planet—the rarest and most precious thing in the universe—lose its biosphere, i.e., its essential livability? We take it for granted and don’t want to believe losing it is even possible. But, think about it, and you know, if Earth, someday in the distant future, has lost its livability—its biosphere—it will have happened insidiously: One silted or polluted stream at a time; One polluted river at a time; One collapsing fish stock at a time; One dying coral reef at a time; One acidified or entrophied lake at a time; One over-fertilized farm at a time, leading to one algae bloom at a time. One eroded ton of topsoil at a time; One developed wetland at a time; One mansion built on a fragile marsh hammock at a time; One disrupted animal migration corridor at a time; One butchered tree at a time; One corrupt politician at a time; One new open-pit coal mine in a pristine valley at a time; One decimated old growth forest at a time; One lost habitat at a time; One disappearing acre of rain forest at a time; One political pay-off at a time, resulting in one regulatory roll-back at a time; One leaching landfill at a time; One belching smokestack or exhaust pipe at a time; One depleted or polluted aquifer at a time; One desertified farm at a time; One over-grazed field at a time; One toxic release at a time; One oil spill at a time; One breath of fouled air at a time; One-tenth of a degree of global warming at a time; One exotic disease vector at a time; One new disease at a time; One invasive species at a time; One perchlorate contaminated head of lettuce at a time. (Perchlorate is rocket fuel, and it is in the ground water of the San Joaquin Valley, of California thanks to Aerojet General.) One chloro-fluorinated or methyl-brominated molecule of ozone at a time, creating a deadly hole in the ozone ultra-violet radiation shield; One poorly designed carpet at a time; One thoughtlessly designed building or building interior at a time; One misplaced kilogram of plutonium at a time; One more ton of spent nuclear fuel at a time, looking for a safe and secure home for 240,000 (!) years; One advance of urban sprawl at a time; One insensitive or uninformed architect or interior designer or facility manager or manufacturer at a time; One songbird at a time; One PCB-laced orca, one whale, one dolphin, one trumpeter swan, one mountain gorilla, one polar bear, one leatherneck turtle at a time; One entire wild species at a time; and One poverty-stricken, starving, diseased, or exploited human being at a time; That is how it would have happened, and we know that it is happening already just that way—so many ways! You could make your own list, just as long without any duplication. It is a long, long slippery slope, and we are on it. That is the first trend. We are losing one strand of the web of life at a time, inexorably, and it will not stop until either we homo sapiens come to our senses, or we, too, are gone and can do no more damage. If we do come to our senses in time, that will happen one changed mind at a time. "

Oh, not to mention the violence when they go rampaging and vandalising after a terrible loss! They've even indoctrinated their kids into this cult! Dads doing the religious training on their brats on every streets all over the city. I'm sick and tired of the bouncing ball repeatedly pounding the pavement outside my house. I looked out and observed this young boy just tossing and bouncing his ball.... non-stop...as if mesmerized...toss up and down,bounce, catch, toss up etc.,, I'd swear he was in a trance! Oh, they have their own "idols" alright. One of them is called "The Great One". And to make matters worse... alot of these cult-like sports fans are also religious Thank heavens. Most probably their saving glory. "Onward, Christian soldiers, Marching as to war, With the cross of Jesus, Going on before. Christ, the royal Master, Leads against the Foe; Forward into battle, See His banners go! Onward, Christian soldiers, Marching as to war, With the cross of Jesus, Going on before." Oh sorry, signing out loud again(damn religious upbringing) Ya, probably is their saving glory. Without all that dogmata to follow these God fearing chaps might be more likely to cultivate their own free thoughts and be less susceptible to the Abilene paradox... Wait a minute... That could mean the end of the CPC! (applause) Thank you

Oh, not to mention the violence when they go rampaging and vandalising after a terrible loss! They've even indoctrinated their kids into this cult! Dads doing the religious training on their brats on every streets all over the city. I'm sick and tired of the bouncing ball repeatedly pounding the pavement outside my house. I looked out and observed this young boy just tossing and bouncing his ball.... non-stop...as if mesmerized...toss up and down,bounce, catch, toss up etc.,, I'd swear he was in a trance! Oh, they have their own "idols" alright. One of them is called "The Great One". And to make matters worse... alot of these cult-like sports fans are also religious

Come on Geoffrey, These teams have been built on controlling people. Sure we're all responsible for our own actions and what not, but lets not go pretending that these teams promote individualism. Any team that requires you to conform to a group ideology and hold reverence to the ideology and its teachers without question(otherwise its heresey) is controlling and manipulative. Once a player has experienced this polorization of the 'sinners and the saints'(black/white thinking), he/she has a great difficulty in regaining a more balanced inner sensitivity to the complexities of human morality. Such a player will also be more vulnerable to manipulation through emotional levers such as guilt and shame as one must continually conform to the group norm. In my opinion, its this 'power of control' that is the driving force behind the game; after all: theres no "I" in team.

I think thats a rediculous comparison. Homosexual nights descriminatory? So I guees Ladies nights would be targeted aswell. Show me how heterosexuals are descriminated and I will tell you how I feel about it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Why not just start having heterosexual pride parades? I forgot, its only discrimination today if it is against minorities. Sorry. Well, you could do a hetero pride parade but wouldnt you feel a little silly doing it? I mean its not like its unaccepted to be straight. However, I can understand why the gay community would want to rally support and awareness for their movment and so they should, because it is quite obvious from reading this board that there are many that would like to repress them and shut them back into the closet. Thats descrimination. As soon as Im descriminated as a heterosexual, then I will march in the hetero pride parade. But I dont see that happing anytime soon.

I think thats a rediculous comparison. Homosexual nights descriminatory? So I guees Ladies nights would be targeted aswell. Show me how heterosexuals are descriminated and I will tell you how I feel about it.

Quite frankly, I doubt there's a lot of gays who give a rat's ass about getting "validation" from homophobic institutions like the R.C. Church. The point here is equal treatment under the law. Remember my proposal? It seems to me that you just endorsed it, even if unintentionally. That was the whole purpose of my proposal. Equal treament under the law. People could still celebrate their union however they want. No Hicksey, he did not endorse it at all. I dont think religion owns the right to dictate what marrige means to the rest of the country. Is your church being forced to SMM? As I understand it, each church makes that decision on their own. You seem to feel that the gay community is trying to attack religion by claiming equal rights as Canadian citizens. I feel my country is being attacked by religious extremists who want everyone to subscribe to their beliefs. I feel that if there are differences in opinion with regards to SSM in your religion, than thats somthing that should worked out within your religion. Just because the term 'marriage' was born through religion, does not mean that you can dictate to the rest of the country, how they should interpret it.

Whatever shoop. Your ignoring the fact that Harper was in favour of participation in the Iraq war. So how was Strombos flipflop statment so off-base? How was it different from the alligations of flipflops against Martin, which CBC has also made? Where is the unfair treatment in this supposed example of bias that you have put forth?

Well, if he doesnt think we should be in Iraq now, why did he vote the opposite in 2003? "Nay." - Conservative leader Stephen Harper voting against a motion urging the Canadian government not to participate in the US military intervention in Iraq, March 20, 2003. I'd say this is a pretty contradictory statement: "In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade." - Stephen Harper indicating that, if elected, Canada will join the US occupation of Iraq, Hansard, January 29th 2003. What about this statement, my understanding of it is that Harper see's the Security Council as our only reason for not participating in the War(a reason which he doesnt seem to aprove of). He doesnt mention anything about our militarys inability to participate. "This government's only explanation for not standing behind our allies is that they couldn't get the approval of the Security Council at the United Nations - a body [on] which Canada doesn't even have a seat." - Stephen Harper supporting the American invasion of Iraq, CTV's Question Period, March 30, 2003. Was Harper not speaking as leader of the opposition when he made this statement during the first month of invasion?: "Mr. Speaker, the issue of war requires moral leadership. We believe the government should stand by our troops, our friends and our allies and do everything necessary to support them right through to victory." - Stephen Harper, supporting the American invasion of Iraq, House of Commons, April 1, 2003. So you could argue that he has'nt directly contradicted himself persay, but then you would have to apply the same arguement to the allegations of PM Martins flip-flops, which I might add the CBC has also documented. So yes, I'd say its fair and balanced enough.

Please refer to sparhawks post on the previous page. He does a better job of illustrating this piont than I. Was'nt meant as justification, Im trying to understand what part of the programing you have the problem with. How much of the weekly broadcast do you expect to captivate you? Can you provide some examples of other stations that have a high% of programing that apeals to you?

Really? I don't think that's a completely unfair statment to make: "Nay." - Conservative leader Stephen Harper voting against a motion urging the Canadian government not to participate in the US military intervention in Iraq, March 20, 2003. And then theres this stuff: "In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade." - Stephen Harper indicating that, if elected, Canada will join the US occupation of Iraq, Hansard, January 29th 2003. "I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans." - Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, March 25th 2002. As it turned out, Harper wasn't the only one who didn't know all the facts. "This government's only explanation for not standing behind our allies is that they couldn't get the approval of the Security Council at the United Nations - a body [on] which Canada doesn't even have a seat." - Stephen Harper supporting the American invasion of Iraq, CTV's Question Period, March 30, 2003. "Mr. Speaker, the issue of war requires moral leadership. We believe the government should stand by our troops, our friends and our allies and do everything necessary to support them right through to victory." - Stephen Harper, supporting the American invasion of Iraq, House of Commons, April 1, 2003. So what should we call it?

I certianly agree that the CBC should not be used as government tool. Could somone provide me with some examples of this allegedly blatent bias?

It's funny how when we talk about Canadian entities like the CBC, it's defenders immediately juxtapose George Bush and American realities on a uniquely Canadian situation. From the PBS website, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting receives $300,000.000.00 from the American government, which translates into about 15% of it's total funding. The balance comes from corporate donations, huge endowments and from viewers like me. The CBC receives upwards to $1 billion from the Canadian government plus money received as advertising revenue. Big difference in the way funding works and bigger difference in the delivery of programming. PBS offers documentaries and news programs that provide alternatives to the mainstream outlets. On the other hand many programs have a flavour that cater to the viewership because if they didn't they wouldn't receive their donations from the public. I've said here before, that the CBC receives it's government stipend regardless of the product it delivers. The CBC operates with no accountability to it's viewership and listenership. How about this. Using the accepted scale that the Canadian market is 10% of the US, we cut CBC's government contribution to $30,000,000.00, solicit contributions from corporations, endowments and give me the choice to make a financial contribution to support programming. As Peter Mansbridge and Julie Van deusen are asking for my after tax dollars, they can convince me why they are deserving and why they are the paragons of Canadian unity, so many are willing to claim. This piont has already been covered earlier. That the CBC should operate on public donations is impractical as in Canada we have only a meer fraction of the population that American broadcasters like PBS have to draw donations from. In regards to your problem with the programing, Im curious as to what you would like to see. Are you not interested the following:Life & Times, PassionateEye, Correspondent,Fifth Estate

I think I figured out Sam's obsession with Layton. It's the moustache. Definetly some repressed sexual tension there.

Sammy, Ya should have given up when your last thread on the subject ended with you looking like a dumbass. Now your just making yourself look pathetic

Fellowtraveler your still bitchin bout the CBC? I was waiting for your reply in thread:desciples of doom. You never answered

I dissagree man. I not personly familiar with this case, but I am familiar with the drug culture in schools. Lots of kids do "E". Atleast they did 5years ago when I was in highshool. It wasnt just a few drugies either, it was just normal kids curious about what they've been told not to try. They've been told about the long-term effects on seritonone(spellcheck?) and depression, but they know that trying it once-or maybe a little more often- is not likely going to kill them. Its horrible that the girl died, but 13 or 14 is when alot of kids first start experimenting with drugs. We dont know the circumstances of how she took it, wether it was forced on her or she was a willing participant. That the kid was 16 and she was 13 could be cause for concern, but depending on what month they were born its not completely unlikely that they were peers. All Im trying to say is: yes the kid should be held accouctable for his actions, but I think we should reserve judgement untill we know just how much of a roll he played in this girls decision to take the drug.

That sure worked with alcohol eh? No underage drinking in Canada thats for sure. Bullshit. Legalisation has never stopped youth drug problems. And if your encouraging the legalisation of estcasy, I sit here dumbfounded. Leafless I agree, where the hell are the parents? Lock up these 16 year old try-hard gangsters and creeps though too! Giving estcasy to 13 year old girls, wow that kid must have some serious mental disturbances... probably because those infamous parents aren't around. Geoffrey, what the hell do you know about parenting? For alot of parents out there, just getting clothes, food and a roof for their heads takes up most of their time and energy. How are parents that struggle to make ends meet supposed to compete with peer pressure and cultural influence?