gc1765

And the right doesn't do this? Like with abortion and SSM?? How are they anti-Christian? Examples? I'm glad that the Liberals are tolerant of people regardless of sexual orientation or religion, unlike the conservatives. White Christians and Jews are politically despised?? How many non-White, non-Christian/Jewish prime ministes have we had??

Who in the current Liberal party supported the corruption of the sponsorship scandal? I need names and quotes of what was said. I voted for a Liberal, but I did NOT vote for anyone implicated in any scandals. So that does not mean I am corrupt. Voting for gagliano, I suppose, could be considered as corruption. In what sense? In terms of policies, or in terms of ethics? In terms of policies, the differences are pretty clearly laid out in their platforms Liberal and Conservatives If you are talking about ethics, I'd say there isn't much difference. Unfortunately most politicians & political parties have some level of corruption. The current Liberal party, however, is not as corrupt as some might believe. No more corrupt than the Conservatives anyways. I do find it ironic though that someone (harper) who focused so much of his platform on ethics & accountability has proven to be less than perfect in that area. I'm not surprised though, afterall he is a politician and former lobbyist who fought against restrictions on party donations. I guess that's how the got the nickname Stephen Harpercrite.

I have no evidence. I have a question though: are you happy that your money went to make rich millionaire "friends" of the Liberal government even more rich with the Adscam? No, I am very upset by it actually. But the people who I am upset with are people like gagliano, chretien, guite, all the ad execs. etc.... I am not upset with any current Liberal MPs, so I don't understand why some people keep suggesting that the sponsorship scandal means everyone in the liberal party is corrupt.

He hasn't. He has only pointed out that that phrase the media loves to repeat, about the "measured response" was said one or two days into Israel's retaliation for the attack, and obviously before things erupted into a larger regional conflict. Yes he has. First he said it was a "measured response" now he says "“But now we have a completely different situation from three weeks ago, as I've said many times. We have a full-blown conflict, almost a war. And it's hard to say whether a response is proportional to another. It's a war." How is that the same? We've been over this already. The rumours about the misspending in Quebec were all over the province. Especially in political circles. That's why the BQ were asking questions in the house for years, that's why the media were getting involved. And you can bet that within the Quebec Liberal party it was common knowledge that this was a kitty to be used to reward friends with. Martin certainly knew about it. That a man with a political machine which was centred in Quebec and took in over half the party had no idea what was going on in his own province defies belief. Show me evidence that it was common knowledge in the Liberal party that they were defrauding the government. I keep asking but nobody has been able to show me evidence, just hearsay. Given the animosity between Chretien and Martin, do you think Chretien would simply tell Martin that he was stealing money? Would you give your political opponent ammo against you?

So do you expect that every MP must be aware of exactly how every dollar is spent? Or do you think that they all get together in a caucus meeting to discuss how they are defrauding the government?

Then how do you explain Harper changing his stance on the middle east in light of recent polls?? Link

According to the Gomery Inquiry, it was people like Corbeil, Renaud, Corriveau and Morselli who accepted the cash donations. The Liberal MPs wouldn't necessarily have known where the money came from. Do you have any evidence to suggest that unnamed MPs in Quebec were aware that they were accepting illicit money?

Who are these scandalous members of the Liberal Party you are referring to? Do you have any evidence that current members of the Liberal caucus were involved in scandals? There are (I believe) 102 Liberal members of parliament, how many of them do you think are corrupt? Yet they were silent when all of that was going on. I mean, weren't many of them in the various Chrétien/Martin cabinets? Do you have any proof that Liberal cabinet ministers (aside from Gagliano who is no longer an MP) were aware of the fact that contracts were awarded to liberal-friendly agencies, or any other scandals for that matter?

Who are these scandalous members of the Liberal Party you are referring to? Do you have any evidence that current members of the Liberal caucus were involved in scandals? There are (I believe) 102 Liberal members of parliament, how many of them do you think are corrupt?

So.... stealing is "right" or "fair" if the "majority" of people agree to it? Sorry. Not for me. My point is that it's not stealing if a person wants to give their money away. I am happy to pay money for the protection of the police, so I don't consider anyone to be stealing from me. Imagine if it was not a minority. Where would YOU draw the line? Well that is a good question actually. Obviously 100% of people will never be able to agree on something, so where is the line drawn? In my particular example of security I would estimate (just a wild guess here) that at least 99% of people (at least non-criminals) would pay money to be safe. So I would say that is pretty fair...except maybe to the other 1%. But then again if there is nothing that everyone can agree on, is anything "fair"? Given your example of thughprotectors roughing up their own customers, I would again guess that the vast majority of people would choose to have a police force protecting them then these thugprotectors. So, I think my comments above would still hold true.

I guess it depends on what exactly the definition of right and wrong is. If right & wrong means what benefits the majority of people, then I would say taxing people for the sake of security is right. I think the vast majority of people wouldn't mind paying taxes if it meant they were less likely to be victims of crimes. If the definition is what is fair, I would also say my example is fair since everyone pays and everyone benefits. No one would have to pay for something they didn't want, except the very small minority who would rather live without security than pay taxes (I'm assuming it would be a minority, I don't actually know). I'm not sure how protection rackets work. Does it depend on the 'turf'? What happens when you leave your 'turf' to travel somewhere else, are you still protected?

In some cases, taxation is essential. For example, for security/police reasons. It wouldn't be easy for someone to "opt out" of such a service. For example, if someone gets robbed in front of a police officer, the police officer isn't going to wait and check to see if the victim has payed their taxes or not, the police officer should immediately go after the robber. Yet someone has to pay the salary of that police officer. Certain services, I suppose, there could be some sort of "opting out", but for others it would not be practical.

I'm not sure about the credibility of these sources since I've never heard of them before, but maybe this can help: link link

I wouldn't say that Mel Gibson is a conservative, except on a few issues. His comments were almost certainly in response to the current conflict in the middle east, and he was clearly siding with hezbollah et al., which is usually reserved for the fringe-left. Typically conservatives (ie bush & harper) tend to side with Israel. I'm very conservative and don't side with Israel. I don't think the middle-east is so cut and dry upon party lines. There are liberal and conservative arguments against Israel's action... and liberal and conservative arguments supporting Israel's action. Sharkman is right though, religious people are in open season in the media these days. The news people just can't wait to portray a loony religious person... unfortunately (I don't agree with Gibson said about Jews this time) Gibson does have some good things to say at times. Obviously there are exceptions, but I would say that for the most part conservatives side with Israel. From talking with people, and from listening to people on this forum as well as other forums, I would say that is usually true. For the most part those who say Israel is mostly to blame for the conflict come from the far left. I'm not sure exactly how you stand on the issue, but I would say that you are probably an exception to this rule. I'm not sure that it's Mel Gibson's religion that landed him in the news, but the fact that he is a celebrity. In fact, in the original article I didn't notice any reference to Gibson's religion and I didn't even realize he was deeply religious until I read more into it. I wonder what would have happened if someone like paris hilton said anti-semitic remarks after being arrested for drunk-driving? I'm guessing it would have made the news as well (though I don't understand why people care so much what moviestars say & do anyways).

I wouldn't say that Mel Gibson is a conservative, except on a few issues. His comments were almost certainly in response to the current conflict in the middle east, and he was clearly siding with hezbollah et al., which is usually reserved for the fringe-left. Typically conservatives (ie bush & harper) tend to side with Israel.

It seems that you are opposed to paying for something which will not benefit you, which is completely understandable. My point is that STD prevention appears to be essential to the functioning of the Outgames, so it's all or nothing. Either the outgames are held with std prevention in place, or they are cancelled altogether. I'm guessing you would vote for the latter, am I right? Now consider all of the associated costs of the Outgames (including STD prevention), and consider all of the associated costs of the 2010 olympics. I'm guessing that the 2010 olympics will be much more expensive, so my question is are you opposed to the government spending money on the 2010 olympics, or just the outgames?

How is that any different than having to pay the bill for the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver? Or any other similar event?

If anything is going to hurt Harper's support, it will be his broken promise to address the fiscal imbalance. Also, if the Liberals can manage to elect a leader with integrity, and Quebecers can forgive the liberals for the sponsorship scandal, then perhaps they might take some support away from the conservatives. I think a lot of Quebecers voted for the conservatives because they really didn't like the other choices offered.

He's being sued instead for putting the life of a CIA agent in danger. I think that is worse although you could say Halliburton has been killing American soldiers with its crappy food in Iraq for a couple of years now. That's true, at least I can take consolation in that. But it seems a lot of people want to impeach bush, and to them I say...would you really want to have president cheney?

I'd rather see cheney impeached for the halliburton scam.

I've heard that Arrogant Worms song before. Hilarious stuff.

Don't forget the war of 1812. Didn't we burn down their white house? Haha, way to go Canada!!

True, both of our countries can be happy that our differences have not been so large as to create a military conflict. At least, not since Canada became a country. Of course if we are talking about the territory that is now called Canada, there have been at least three invasions by the united states that I can think of. Luckily, none of them were successful.

gc, every day, millions of Canadians have dealings with millions of Americans. I would hope that each of those Canadians does what is in their own best interest, and I suspect each American does the same.When you use the term "Canada", gc, are you aware of the complexity of the word? I say all this because it is impossible to understand the relationship between the two countries except as literally millions of relationships between individuals. In this sense, it is nonsensical to talk about who dominates whom. When I use the term "Canada", I am talking specifically about the Canadian government. I thought my reference to NAFTA & Afghanistan would have made that obvious.

You may be right, but gerry was talking about conservative values, and let's face it for most conservatives hot lunches and child poverty are not priorities.