gc1765

Except that the Conservatives mean even bigger government than the Liberals. I'm a fan of small government, I won't be voting for the Conservatives.

Does that make masturbation a disorder? Or using birth control a disorder? The percentage of Canadians who post messages on Maple Leaf Web forums is pretty insignificant, much less than 1%. Therefore, posting messages on this board is an anomaly. I agree! Unfortunately, I don't think many on the Christian right would go for that. They'd probably call it the death of marriage (if homosexual marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage, imagine how much of a threat getting rid of marriage altogether would be). That's usually the point of adoption. If a heterosexual couple were not capable of producing kids, would you prevent them from adopting too?

Natural medications are not regulated, and anyone can have access to them (except for perhaps marijuana) as long as they dont' make any false claims. If you want to make a claim about the effectiveness of a natural drug, you better be able to prove it. I can't go around claiming that dandelions cure cancer, and I see no problem with that. I can, however, go out and pick some dandelions and use them anyways.

I think you missed the point. Nobody in their right minds would have a problem with a politician paying for their own expenses...the question is who is paying for the meals, the politicians or the lobbyists?

How does same-sex marriage, as described above, affect ANYONE who is not a willing participant? And what would your answer be?

Of course it's not good for you if you are smoking it for recreational purposes. It does have a lot of medicinal benefits, which are backed up by solid research. It's probably a lot better for you than most prescription drugs out there. So, in certain cases in can be good for you...but I think it's silly to suggest that smoking recreationally is good for you. But, to each his own...

Reminds me of the attack ads from the Conservatives during the 2006 campaign. They actually said something like "the Liberals are planning to use attack ads" right inside their very own attack ad. Now that was hilarious. I don't think the ads are too bad. It's one thing to say "this is what we've done/are going to do vs. this is what the other guys have done/are going to do", I don't see anything wrong with that. What I really don't like are the "soldiers in our streets" ads, or the Conservative Gomery/Corruption ads from the 2006 campaign.

Some more info: "The Tory government intends to stop the rise of greenhouse gases in three to five years, according to a speech to be delivered by Environment Minister John Baird.... ...The speech says that by 2020, the government hopes it will have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 150 million tonnes. It also says the government will explore emission credit trading with the U.S. and Mexico, something they have been reluctant to embrace in the past." There must be at least 30-40% of Canada who opposes this, no? Where are these people going to park their vote? If all the anti-Kyoto/anti-emission trading/anti-GHG reducing voters voted for the CPC, they could likely win the election, no? I've heard people say the Liberals will go further to the right on economic issues to make up for being too far left on the environment...but if Conservatives are on par with the Liberals on the environment, and are spending like crazy, it could mean the Liberals will be the party of choice for fiscal conservatives. Link

I can see where he is coming from. Fact is (and I hope everyone can agree with this), we don't know whether Holland is guilty or not. Personally, I don't see how Holland would know what 320-3 would mean, but if the RCMP investigates and decides that he did know what "320-3" means I'll respect their decision. My biggest criticism would be how many files did he go through before he found the one in question? Again, we don't know the answer to that. For all we know it could have been right there on the top...or it could have been on the bottom under a stack of papers with CPC letter head...who knows. We can argue until the cows come home whether he is innocent or not, but I don't think anyone on this board has the authority to say for certain (though some think they do). I don't see a problem with an investigation to clear things up. As for stockwell, we have what basically amounts to a confession. It's hard to imagine how he could be innocent, unless of course Jim Hart is in on the conspiracy.

Was this a confidence vote?

Believe it or not, I agree.

So, you think Stockwell should be investigated as well?

I'd like to see a more accurate poll, although this one might at least give some idea of how Canadians feel. It doesn't really matter whether O'Connor has done anything wrong, if the vast majority of Canadians think he is doing a poor job, I don't think Harper will keep him on.

This Extremely Unscientific Poll doesn't look good for O'Connor. If this is how Canadians in general feel about him, I wouldn't be surprised to see him go.

"The issue with using a drug of this type becomes the window of concentration that will be effective. Can you physiologically achieve what you want without causing unwanted effects, he tells WebMD." Unwanted effects? What could those possibly be?

Well, I'm a bit confused. On the one hand, you quoted Fortunata's post when you made that comment. On the other hand, you suggested the Conservative must have snuck in and placed the boxes there 14 months later (as if it was not possible for them to be there the whole time without being noticed) before Fortunata's post. Either you posted after reading Fortunata's post but still somehow managed to have your post show up first....or you are referring to figleaf, and accidentally quoted the wrong post. So, which is it?

Who is Rita, and which post didn't he/she read?

Ummm if you read Figleaf's post, you'll see he says "There's no evidence they knew the boxes were even there for that long". There's a big difference between the boxes being there, and Holland knowing the boxes were there. Before you insult someone else's intelligence, you might want to read Figleaf's post again.

CATEGORY GLOBAL HECTARES FOOD 3.1 MOBILITY 1.2 SHELTER 0.6 GOODS/SERVICES 1.8 TOTAL FOOTPRINT 6.7

Should someone automatically be charged with first degree murder if they kill a cop?

How do you know it's not true? How is it that armchair critics like yourself know how the soldiers feel?

I would have thought the troops would be a lot more upset when they found out that they were lied to about weapons of mass destruction, or ties to al qaeda...but hey that's just a guess. Perhaps you should consider starting a thread about traitors in the bush administration?

Using your logic, I could claim that Al Gore is a saint when it comes to the environment. Al Gore may have used 221,000 kWh per year, but America used about 1,000,000,000,000 kWh per year or about 5 million times what Al Gore used. The problem here, of course, is that Al Gore is one person and America is about 300 million.

I'll extend the challenge to you as well (or anyone else)...if you can find stats that contradict these, please post them.

I just posted the first thing that came up on google....if you have some more reliable data that contradicts it, please post it.