gc1765

I don't like the thought of women having to turn to prostitution either...but it's going to happen whether it's legal or not. While it may feel good to be part of a society that does not officially sanction prostutition, it won't make a difference in reality. At least legalizing it will make things safer for those women, and that is what is important. I am more comfortable in a soceity that sanctions prostitution and is relatively safe than I am with a society that does not sanction prositution but is more dangerous.

I agree with some sort of compensation...but really, who needs $10 million?? Even with $1 million he could buy a nice house and never have to work again.

Citation hehe Just kidding...

Maybe a few seats in B.C., but it's rare. Look at Ontario (and probably other places as well) and notice how many ridings were close between the Liberals & Conservatives, where the NDP votes would have put the Liberals over the top. Actually, it's remarkable how few seats the Conservatives would have won if NDP voters had voted Liberal...

Support varies...so I'll conveniently choose this particular poll (Jan 2007= same time period) which proves I am right: Link

"52 per cent of respondents oppose the U.S. conflict in Afghanistan" That's surprising, considering they were the ones attacked on Sept. 11. There is at least as much support, if not more, from Canadians than there is from Americans. We are there to help out the Americans...and most of them don't even want us there? Perhaps some of them don't make a distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan. Or perhaps they are happy now that bin laden is as good as dead in some people's eyes, and don't really care about the reconstruction aspect. In October 2001, support for the war was over 90% : Link

...or Bush could leave them in Afghanistan Come on, you can't possibly blame this on the Democrats ....it's Bush who wants more troops in Iraq. I'm sure if the Democrats had their way, the troops would stay in Afghanistan rather than Iraq and the world would be a safer place EDIT: from the opening post "She (Clinton) said its a time when more troops should be sent to Afghanistan and pulled out of Iraq instead". Bang on, 'nuff said.

There's also the group of people who simply don't like Harper's policies...

I don't see a problem with them having children. It's not as if Hitler's hatred was purely genetic and his relatives are bound to repeat history. In fact, according to your post, they fought against Hitler. No one can choose who their ancestors/relatives are, I don't see why we should look down on someone just because of who their great uncle is.

Your original post implied that the courts could strike down any law passed by the government. I simply pointed out that is not the case because the government can override the courts by using the notwithstanding clause (I'm not sure if you forgot we had a notwithstanding clause, or purposely left it out of your post). This is completely irrelevant. But to answer your question, I don't think it has ever been used, but I could be wrong on that...it certainly hasn't been used often. But how often has there been a need to use it? How often has there been an important issue that the majority of Canadians (including the majority of MPs) agree with that has been struck down by the courts? My point is that IF the majority of Canadians wanted abortions to be illegal, the Harper government could (and most likely would) bring in legislation to make it illegal. If the courts struck it down, he could (and probably would) use the withstanding clause. That is what I have been arguing...do you disagree?

Sounds like blogging isn't a problem...just don't accept money from lobbyists (of if you do accept money from lobbyists, make sure to register as a lobbyist). There's nothing in there against free speech, bloggers can keep blogging.

Wow, that's the biggest strawman I've seen in a while. Show me where I said Harper has an "itchy trigger finger" for the notwithstanding clause. IF the majority of Canadians wanted to make abortion illegal and IF the courts struck it down, then maybe we would see it being used.

Notwithstanding Clause

Do you have a link from a (relatively) neutral source, so I can actually get more information?

If the war was truly a humanitarian cause, they are being extremely inefficient with their resources. The war in Iraq has costed, what, about $400 billion so far (and perhaps more in the future). Considering that diseases like malaria & tuberculosis etc. kill MILLIONS each year, and are inexpensive to treat, that $400 billion could have saved MANY MILLIONS of people in Africa...and it wouldn't have cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.

Huh? "Give in" as in prosecute them?

Despite the fact that during his term as a Reform MP he joined Jan Brown in fighting against the party adopting socially conservative policies, and being pro-choice. But if you wish, keep on believing that since ignorance is more likely to make you happier than the facts. Harper has said that on the issue of abortion, he would do what he felt Canadians wanted. If Harper thought most people wanted laws agains abortion, he would bring them in. I believe that is what the post you quoted was trying to say. So, how is that ignorant? And we all know where Harper stands on SSM. So....what socially progressive policies has Harper fought for?

Back in his NCC days, they were probably roughly equally far to the right. But Harper is trying to get a majority and will put aside his principles and govern based on polls in order to get that majority he seeks.

You are quite right...calling Bush a Christian is an insult to the religion.

I'm in favour of the idea that was originally posted by Riverwind: ...I mean, if our actions are going to cause someone's house to be underwater, the least we could do is cut them a cheque to provide some aid.

If this is true, it looks like another broken promise: I'm guessing "the west" won't be too happy about this...

In a recent poll, 70% of Americans oppose the sending of more troops to Iraq Link

There ya go. Just try not to fart billions of tons and we'll be ok

Of course I don't have a mechanism for how farts cause global warming. What I do have is a mechanism for how carbon dioxide causes global warming, all of which is based on irrefutable facts: 1) Sunlight (energy) enters the earth at a particular wavelength. At that wavelength most of that "energy" passes through. 2) That sunlight heats up the earth. 3) Energy is radiated away from the earth at a different wavelength that it entered. At this wavelength much of that energy is absorbed by carbon dioxide. 4) Thus, the energy is "trapped" in the atmosphere 5) Thus, there is more "energy" (heat) in the atmosphere Which of these FACTS do you care to refute?

Again, that is their job. Is a scientist too focused on science? An artist too focused on art? Actually economists are programed to maximize utility, not money. How correlated these two should be is the nature of the question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility I agree (actually I realized that right after I posted). An economist is focused on resources...it just so happens that those resources almost always are, or can be, exchanged for money. Thus, the reason why economists are focused on "money".