gc1765

Where did you hear that Chretien backed Dion? I thought he backed Rae. So, if the party members are the anti-establishment, just who is the "establishment"?

That's precisely the problem. They should consider it a scandal. I'm not saying there weren't other factors at play, I'm saying the scandal was probably the biggest issue. Also, the polls went down right after the RCMP declared it was launching an investigation into the income trust leak. That likely reminded people of the sponsorship scandal which is probably why it had such a dramatic effect on the polls. You're saying that Toronto is non-functioning? Come on, I know you can debate the issues without taking an unfounded cheapshot against Toronto, which is "functioning" just fine. And Harper did this so soon after taking office? I think you're giving credit to Harper for something that was done by the previous government....and that's assuming that the government was even the major factor in the creation of those jobs. I agree that the political games being played are silly, but I'd still rather have a minority government, Liberal or Conservative, than a majority for either. Political games are still played even with a majority. But, it takes two to play the game, and it seems Harper is doing more than his fair share of political games.

Aren't you the one who was saying that Dion was the "establishment" candidate? But now you're saying he isn't supported by his party members (or cabinet) aka the "establishment"? Make up your mind...is Dion supported by the establishment or not?

How is it worse? It was bad (but not worse than Cheney) for people like Gagliano...but for the rest of the party that was not directly involved? The scandal was probably THE issue. It was on everyone's lips...everyone I talked to about politics, everyone who was turned off from the Liberals, mentioned the scandal as the reason. The Belinda issue? I assume you mean crossing the floor? If that's the case, the Conservatives should loose the next election. Remember David Emerson? Much worse IMO.

No, that is laughable. Let's compare one example: The Liberals give out approx. $100 million dollars in contracts, and pocket $1 million of that. The Republicans give out $10 billion in contracts to Halliburton, the same company from which Cheney pocketed $36 million The difference (aside from the dollar amounts)? The Liberals who ran in the 2006 election, none of whom were directly involved in the scandal, and at worst turned a blind eye, were turfed out of office. Cheney, who directly profited, was re-elected.

What makes you think he is unfriendly? Sounds like you are now complimenting Belinda, whereas before it seemed you were criticizing her. She is trying to get rid of the "establishment" and make it more democratic, that is a good thing. If you want to criticize anyone you should be criticizing the delegates who voted against the 1 member 1 vote system. I'm not sure that I'd call them privilaged though...why would anyone want to pay thousands of dollars just to have one vote for the next leader?

So? What's wrong with a bit of constructive criticism? Would you rather that all the Liberal MPs blindly followed their leader, and dont' speak out, like the Conservatives? I just hope that Dion doesn't do to Belinda what Harper did to Turner... So? The 1 member, 1 vote system is a good idea (albeit not perfect). Isn't that what the Conservatives use? Good for her. This is the same Belinda who decided NOT to run for the leadership?....despite the supposed lack of tier-1 candidates.

Yes, genetics plays a role as well (and there are drugs to treat that). But if your genes are normal, pretty much the only way you are going to have too much cholesterol is through bad diet (and perhaps lack of activity). Food that is trans-fat free but not fat-free, will still make you obese if you eat enough, but I won't be quite as bad for your arteries. Raw carrots, fruit...these are very quick & convenient snacks. That doesn't make any sense. Can you explain what you mean by this? It took a while before we knew smoking was bad for us too.

Trans fats clog arteries, just like cholesterol does. Both sugar and fat are the problem. I don't blame the companies. I blame the parents who can't so "no" when their kids ask for junk food, or don't get their kids to eat proper food. What's that old saying, if it sounds too good to be true....

It's all relative. A 'reasonably' balanced diet vs. junk food & soft drinks.

Naaah. Video games aren't causing any harm, unless you are arguing that they will play video games instead of being active. But then we'd have to tax everything that does not involve activity. Heck, I'd have to be taxed for using this message board, given how much time I spend on it Besides, not being active wouldn't be so unhealthy if you eat right.

In a recent poll, 58% of Canadians said they would keep SSM, while only 38% want to repeal it. Which party do you think those 58% support? If they don't support the NDP or Bloc, then a lot of them must support the Conservatives, much more than the handful of MPs who voted against the recent motion. I said the constituents, not the MPs. The constituents were not the people voting on this motion, it was the MPs.

I'd be all for that. Although, it shouldn't take much money to get kids active. What it takes is good parenting and a $10 pair of running shoes.

Does anyone actually believe that the majority of constituents who elected an NDP or Bloc member would be opposed to SSM?

One instance should not be taken as proof. You can't say "it was warm today" therefore global warming exists, just as you can't say "it was cold today" therefore global warming does not exist. But, over time, with enough data, it is easy to see a trend emerging. Another way of looking at this. Let's say you have a coin and "tails"= a hot day , "heads"= a cold day. If you flip the coin, some days will be colder and some will be warmer, but overall it will be average. Now, let's say global warming starts, it will be like having a weighted coin, where the probability of "tails" becomes 60% and the probability of "heads" becomes 40%. If you flip it only once, you just might get "heads". You might even get "heads" a few times in a row. But ,if you flip that coin enough times, you'll find that 60% of the time it's "hot" and 40% of the time it's "cold". Thus, you can conclude that global warming does exist, since without global warming it would be 50/50.

What ridiculous orwellian doublespeak! The preamble about 'same protections and benefits' is in direct opposition to choice #2. Care to explain how? Equal rights are equal rights. Will it still be called "marriage"? It may seem trivial whether you call it a civil union or marriage, but how would you feel if we decided that blacks couldn't marry but could only get a civil union? I imagine most of the country would still be outraged, even if it may seem trivial. Or to put it another way, how would you feel if heterosexuals could only get a civil union with the same rights as homosexuals who are allowed to marry? Would you be OK with that? It comes down to separation of church and state. Is "marriage" a term owned by religions? I would argue no, in which case the government should be able to use this term for anyone they wish and it would not infringe on the rights of Christianity or any other religion. But even if you want to make the claim that "marriage" is owned by one religion, why not have the government give EVERYONE a civil union with equal rights. Then, if you are a religious person and you want to get "married" you can do so, but it would be up to the church/religion to decide who they want to marry or not. The government would not, and should not, be able to tell the church who they can and can't marry (so long as everyone has their civil unions, and they are equal in rights and in name for both homosexuals and heterosexuals). This would not only keep religion out of the government, it would keep the government out of religion. Someone please explain to me what is wrong with this arrangement?

It was a hypothetical question. I'm not saying this would ever happen, I'm saying what IF. Anyways, why should we have a referendum to take away the right for gays to marry but not have a referendum to take away the right of you to live in this country? I could just as easily argue that it would be "good for society" as it would be to prevent homosexual couples from marrying. And as my example demonstrated, people with the nickname "Leafless" are not specifically included either. You could just as easily say people with the nickname "Leafless" are not included in "everyone" but of course everyone means everyone, and a homosexual is still a person. In fact, the definition of homosexuality means that homosexuals are people, and thus are included in "everyone". Again, I could just as easily argue that you are "not associated with the good of society" as it would be for you to argue that homosexuals are not associated with the "good of society". But, you are still a person, just as a homosexual is a person, and thus you both have the right to marry anyone you want. You have not shown how homosexuals getting married are destroying the right of heterosexual marriage. I can assure you that heterosexuals still have the right to marry, despite SSM. Nothing related to SSM is preventing heterosexuals from getting married. Anyways, as much as I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my posts, I think I am going to take bk59's advice and let this thread die. Thus, this will be my last post on the topic.

Hmmm, it's rather interesting that you have attributed this to the "left", when the term "climate change" was practically invented by Frank Luntz, the republican strategist....hardly a "leftie"

If you have nothing against "non-whites", why don't you want them in Canada? That is what you said in your previous post. Unless of course you want to take back what you said earlier: P.S. Do you want to answer my other questions in posts #281 and #214. If you don't want to, or can't, that's ok too.

Who cares? I'd rather see someone realize that SSM is a "fundamental human right" later rather than never.

Leafless, I can understand you wanting people to speak English...but what do you have against non-whites?

No one. They were created spontaneously. It's much 'easier' for me to believe that protons, electrons, neutrons etc. were created out of nothing, then came together to form atoms, which came together to form molecules, which came together to form molecules that are capable of self-replication, which formed life than it is to believe that God was created out of nothing. Both theories have to explain how the original materials of the Universe came about, it's just 'simpler' to explain the formation of simple matter than it is to explain the formation of some super intelligent being.

About as hard as it would be for a business to do all of it's business "in cash", and therefore avoid consumption taxes? Is the business just supposed to say they don't have any customers?

But couldn't they just as easily avoid income tax if the labour "didn't happen"?

Precisely! A lot of people argue for creation on the grounds that it is "simpler" or easier to believe than evolution. In reality though, evolution is much "simpler" than creation, when you consider that creationism must explain how the creator got to where he is.