gc1765

Show me specifically where it says that people who post at mapleleaf web under the nickname "Leafless" are allowed to marry? Show me where is says that people who pick their noses are allowed to marry? Show me where it says that anyone who has ever worn a blue shirt is allowed to marry? etc..... Should we deny rights to these people? Afterall, picking your nose is not specifically mentioned as a human right.

I agree! It's too bad the Liberal delegates don't feel the same way

Like Iraq?

I sure hope you're right... I'll bet you 1% of my reputation vs. 99% of your reputation that if the Liberals choose Iggy, they will loose the next election. I'll also bet anyone that if Kennedy is chosen, the Liberals will win the next election.

I agree. Let's pay them a decent wage, then take off food, accomodations, compensation for the victims (or families) etc... heck, I'll even be nice and give them a choice: The above OR $6.90 per day with free food & accomodation.

Most Canadians would rather support the Democratic party than the Republican party, and Canadians are in general more left wing than our neighbors. If people begin to associate the policies of the CPC with the policies of the Republican party (whether accurately or not) they will be turned off. If the policies of the Liberal party are more similar to the Democratic party, not as many people will be turned off. There is no reason to suggest that the Liberal party would "sell out" to the Democrats any more than there is to suggest that the CPC will "sell out" to the Republicans, but I don't think that's the issue.

I'll have to read up on the details of this later (when I have more time) but it looks like good news... Link

So, are you for or against treating everyone equally?

The NDP (& bloc), at the very least, also supports all of the things that you claim makes the Liberals anti-Christian, so if you believe the liberals are anti-Christian, then so are the NDP (& bloc). Now, taken together, the NDP, bloc and liberals have in recent history, had over 50% of the vote, making them the majority. So, the majority of Canadians are anti-Christian and Christian at the same time? Now that is too funny

No, I mean do you have an evidence that there is as much lobbying on the part of alternative energy. Of course alternative energy is lobbying, but I doubt it's nearly as big as the oil lobby. I thought you meant lobbying the government in general. The lobbying registry can be found Here If you are talking about global warming studies being funded by oil companies, then no, I don't have that evidence without doing more research.

Do you have any evidence for this?

No, not because they are leftist, but because there is a potential for violence. I dont like seeing violence whether it is caused by right-wingers or left-wingers.

If they were married to the opposite sex, they wouldn't be gay now would they?

This is the part that concerns me:

The point of the issue relates to the initial quote: "Homosexuality is an anomaly brought to life by human immorality and viciousness. Though the rights of these people should be protected, society will regard them as renegades,’ people’s deputy Leonid Grach said in his interview to Kommersant Ukrainian issue published on Friday." Does this mean you acknowledge that SSM does NOT encourage paedophilia as you tried to claim earlier?

From the globe and mail: Link It will be interesting to see how this plays out (and I don't mean interesting in a good way)...

I already posted a link in this thread (on page 4) with references to studies that show there is a link.

"Which had not been implemented"? How does this misinformation spread? Here's the facts from the Canada Revenue Agency: Link That's not even considering the fact that Harper also lowered the basic personal exemption (after adjustment for inflation).

There were "actual studies" in the references of the link I provided. From your link: Your study compares the mortality rates with the general population, which also inhales second hand smoke. Nor does the article mention anything about how much they are exposed to second hand smoke. It also mentions that the SMR for cancer is 0.71 which is less than the general population. Either there is some factor that contributes to a decrease in cancer among cabin attendants (and don't tell me second hand smoke prevents cancer ) or else the error is high. Considering the study I provided showed only a 12-19% increase for cancer, and your "study" shows a 29% decrease (or 29% error, unless there is some other factor involved) the increase in mortality from second hand smoke is well within the experimental error of your study. Can you find a study that is more focused on second hand smoke? There's probably thousands of them out there, and I imagine there must be at least a few which support your case, even if the vast majority show that secondhand smoke is harmful.

The National Cancer Institute and the National Institues of Health are part of the anti-smoking industry? The NIH is the foremost organization for medical research. I can't think of a more credible source than that, can you? In the references in the link I provided, they say there is a 12-19% increase in risk due to second hand smoke. I imagine it's not too hard to figure out how many people die each year of lung cancer, and how many people are exposed to second hand smoke. Simple arithmetic would give the number of deaths per year from second hand smoke. EDIT: Oh and that's just for lung cancer. For heart disease it's 25-35%, etc.....

I read your link. Not sure if you read mine. Your link (which I've never heard of, and therefore has questionable credibility) claims to refute an EPA report from 1992. My link references studies much more recent, which to my knowledge have not been refuted. The National Cancer Institute is a very reputable source, and they claim the following: Do you have any evidence that the National Cancer Institute (or for that matter the refrences contain within) is presenting facts that are not correct?

There are enough legitimate studies out there that prove it is harmful. There is enough information out there that there's not much more I can contribute. I thought it was pretty much common sense. Here's a link to get you started: Link . I'm sure you can find lots more on Google.

You're playing with semantics here. There is nothing wrong with how I posed the question. I was asking someone if they would personally be willing to kill someone for trying to secede. The person who the question was addressed to understood what it meant.

If the studies have been misrepresented it doesn't change the fact that second hand smoke is harmful.

That's totally unnecessary. Anyone who doesn't want to be part of Canada is totally free to pack their bags and seek a new home. Read the context of my comments. We were discussing whether or not the country should go to war if a province decides to secede.