gc1765

What exactly are you talking about? NOW I want to know what YOU are talking about. I think that post was in reference to the post above it by jdobbin, and the Link that was provided.

The issue is not the fact that he called her a dog. The issue is that he blatantly lied about it. I don't really care if he called her a dog, but he should have the guts to admit what he said. He could have apologized for the incident, or better yet he could have said something like "yes, I called her a dog, but it was addressed specifically to her and not to all women". I would have respected the courage it would take to say something like that. Instead, he is acting cowardly by lying about it, especially when it was caught on tape. A lot of posters on this board seem to believe the name calling is not a big issue (and I agree), but they forget that he lied about it. I don't know if this is intentionally diverting the issue or not.

I know this question was not adressed to me, but as a "leftists" I would like to answer.... I don't think ANYONE on the left is a "lover of Radical Islam". In other words, I don't think anyone on the left is advocating the death of homosexuals. What people on the left, including myself, do defend is Muslims in general. There are some people on the right who like to make sweeping generalizations. They see a few Muslims advocating the death of homosexuals, or blowing themselves up, and they think ALL Muslims are bad. Those few Muslims are indefensible, and to suggest that people on the left are defending this type of action is simply wrong (from what I have seen). The left stands up for moderate Muslims, not the extreme ones.

Is there an undercurrent of violence in this situation? I read the link, and it didn't say anything about violence, which is why I asked for more information on this subject.

I agree. But it seems this has been going on since 1991, and Christians and Jews have been using this same system...so why hasn't anyone complained about this before?

You're going to have to give us more information than that. Do you have another link handy that is more specific. It seems that Christians & Jews have been using the same "faith-based arbitration" as well, so what's the problem? Interestingly, the same website has these links: MAC Condemns Barbaric Terror Attacks in London OTTAWA - The Muslim Association of Canada today issued a statement condemning the barbaric attacks in the underground system and on a street bus in London, UK. Link The Muslim Association of Canada (MAC) joins all Canadians in unequivocally condemning the shameless, cowardly, and barbaric acts against innocent civilians. MAC affirms that such acts are in explicit violation of fundamental Islamic and moral values. Link For all those people who still deny that muslims are condemning terrorism, even when statements proving the contrary are staring them in the face.

If someone did an outstanding job as President, but got a blowjob and tried to cover it up, would you want someone like that as president? (hypothetically speaking of course, Clinton may not be ioutstanding but neither is mackay)

“I made no such gesture. I made no derogatory or discriminatory remark towards any member of this house, Mr. Speaker,” Mr. MacKay replied. "I made no comment," he told reporters. "It's not there. It's not there. I said nothing about a dog,'' he said. From Globe and Mail & CTV

It's been the lead story on the G & M website for most of the day now...not that I decide what is important based on what makes the headlines.

Huh? Just because it wasn't recorded in Hansard means that he didn't lie? A lie is a lie. What does that have to do with whether it's in the record or not?

You can view the video from the globe and mail website Here I think that lying is much worse than the insult. Why would he lie about something that so many people, from different parties, swear they heard...and which is on videotape. Does he expect that Canadians will believe it's some sort of Liberal/NDP conspiracy? I just lost some respect for mackay. He could have apologized, or stood by what he said, either way I would respect that more than lying.

Sometimes, we all make spelling & grammar mistakes. I think that as long as the point gets across without too much confusion, that's what matters. Usually if you look at the context you can probably figure out what the poster is trying to say.

Looks like it's not gonna happen.... Link

Thanks.

How come I had to produce ID when I voted? Is it because I voted early?

How in the world does calling a specific person a dog (no...INFERRING...Mackay didn't actually SAY "that dog Belinda" or some such thing) get blown up into "generalising women as being weaker and less knowlegable"? When did people in this country lose their hides? It's time people grew back thicker hides and stopped being such whiney little babies. "Rest of us realised this in the 60's"? Realised what exactly? There are people of all political stripes who still haven't smartened up. In the 1970s, Cretien make a very insensitive remark about natives (wasn't he even minister fr Indian Affairs at one point back then too?). In the 1980s Crosbie ( a Mulroney-era cabinet minister) had a "witty remark" almost daily, often aimed at women ("Pass the Tequila, Shiela" and "Four Horsewomen of the Apolcalypse" were noteworthy). Crosbie was notoriously unapologetic too. In the 1990s Deb Gray endured much personal ridicule at the hands of Liberal ministers during question period (including being compared with a "slab of bacon" by the Liberal defence minister of the day). Often apologies were never forthcoming. Guess what...MOST policicians from ALL parties simply need to GROW UP and stop with the childish taunts. And the rest of us (the press gallery in particular) also need to GROW UP and stop making federal cases out of childish taunts..all it does is encourage the clowns. I don't care so much that he called her a dog....I think what's important is that he lied about it & denied it. What does that say about his integrity?

I'll take #7, 9, 17 and 18

From Politopia: West-You are a Westerner-a civil libertarian-which means that you advocate a diminished role for the government in the personal realm. You are more or less pleased the government's role in the economic realm.

Economic Left/Right: -1.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.56 Last time I took the test, I was closer to the center economically. I still think I'm more economically conservative and more socially liberal than that test indicates.

Wow, so many choices...it's so hard to choose just one...

No. Just because something is recessive does not mean it will become extinct. Fair skin is also recessive. So is not having huntington's disease.

The situations are very different. Emerson was not kicked out of the liberal party. Turner was not offered a cabinet position, and has not really changed his 'views' (yet). I dunno, the bloc has 50 seats

It is most likely not a single gene. Regardless of how you masturbate, you can not reproduce. This proves there is something screwy in your make up.

Good. Now, please explain to me how this is not a contradiction:

True. So, how do Canadians themselves decide whether or not to support the government on the issue of a specific war? Do they use religion, and if so how?