Pellaken

Springer: We just dont like the extreme social-conservativism that you guys want. I'll say the same thing I say to quebec sepratists if you want to leave... c-ya later. frankly, the west and quebec are tugging at eachother. once one of the 2 leaves, ALL demands of the other will be met.

"I read a report that Sweden would have net incomes 3 x higher and a much higher standard of living without its nonsensical socialist regime." If sweden were to do any better economically, it would become the land of milk and honey... literally. Social-Democracy has worked well in Sweden. Socialisim is a faled system, Social-Democracy however, as Sweden, Germany, Finland, Denmark, France and others prove, just plain works.

this post tells of canada's troubles. most of canada's provinces realize how good we have it, but AB and BC want to destroy the naiton we have built, and create a US Jr. Canada is doomed so long as the extremist-right wingers are still in this nation.

exactly! that's what I've been saying for a while now.

manslaughter is still harshly punished, while murderes walk away free. there should be a minimum of 50 years without parole (even for good behaviour) for all intentful murderers there should be a maximum of 5 years, with parole, for all non-intentful murders. while I wont quote these numbers, and they perhaps are an over-exaderation, they do prove my point quite well. I think the same should apply to youth crimes, but as you get younger and younger, a child can "intend" to do something, but not really understand what he's doing.

"Today, thanks to Trudeau's socialism, and Brian Mulroney's failure to uproot it, the dollar has sunk to a pathetic, humiliating $ .66 cents. " and we all saw when the dollar rose to 75 cents, how our economey took a big hit perhaps we can raise the dollar to 1.06 american, and watch the economey free fall! on the bright side, once alberta and ontairo are as poor as newfoundland, there'll be no more need for transfer payments

it seems to me like people are going all out to prevent someone from being offended oh no, we cant say fag, because that's offencive oh no, we cant quote the quran, because that's offensive oh no, we cant quote the bible, because it's offensive oh no, we cant say "black" because it's offensive oh no, we cant say caveman in school textbooks oh no, we cant say girl, when talking to a woman oh no, we cant look at people the wrong way oh no, we cant show emotion, its too offensive oh no, we cant NOT show emotion, that's too offencive too. oh no, we cant live, cause that's offensice oh no, we cant commit suiside, because that's offensive well, guess I'll just sit here till I wither away... oh wait, I cant do that, its offensive GIVE ME A BREAK

still. those stats do not say anyhting about intent

what the heck are you talking about? I do not support any mandatory anything.

you people crack me up. yes, we are going to die everyone to chairs, and say "gay is good" untill everyone thinks it is if we wanted to brainwash people, we'd do it the same way the conservatives brainwashed us into beleiving in capitalism. no one will ever notice. but, alas, we dont. we, unlike you, respect personal social freedom.

I'll use this to strengthen my point. all of the crimes you guys point out, are ones where intent is there. I'm pretty sure this guy dident "fall" on that guy's fist 100 times. he intended to hurt him pretty bad. where intent to do harm is in the mix, then anyone, 12 or 50, should be held equally accountable. this changes when intent is NOT in the mix. lets say you are 30, and are "playing" with a gun, that goes off, and blinds your best friend. well, your 30! you should know better however, if you are 13 and doing this, then the punishment should be way different. I'll bet you learned your lesson, and will probably be traumatized to the point of joining the NDP to support gun control (no joke intended) Intent is like a fork in the road, leading to 2 radically different paths. We cannot even discuss Anonymity unless we define weather or not we have intent.

if any of those actions are taken, I will fight it will all of my will. I belive in the freedom of 2 consenting adults to do whatever they want including, to beleive in whatever religion they want to as well as the freedom for each religion to decide what it can and cannot do. if we allow one freedom to cancel another freedom, then we have no freedom at all. whew for a moment there I thought you would replace "that's the way it is" with "that's the way it has always been, and that's the way it always will be" I think someone used that argument against stopping slavery... or was it giving women rights? either way, the bible is opposed to both

which is why I hope they vote for the bill. it's my religion's belif that anyone who causes anyone else pain, by telling 2 people they cannot marry for example, will go to hell. well there is no hell in my religion but you'll be re-incarnated as a crazy person, like me

I disagree if your religion says the pope can tell you what to do, and if you follow your religion, then the pope CAN tell you what to do.

gays have just as much right to marry, as churches do denying to marry them. if the "gay lobby" did sue a church for discriminaiton because they will not marry them, I will stand on the side of the church, protecting freedom of religion. as for the pope telling the PM what to do, the answer is simple. if you chose a religion, you must them live by it's laws (if you chose to do so). if Cretch wants to go agianst his own religion by supporting gay marriage, then he can do so. should the pope influence our MP's? no should the pope influence roman catholics? yes should the pope influence roman catholic MP's? weather are MP,s the PM, or a regular person, if they are roman catholic, they must listen to the pope.

"Many of us see this "marriage" issue ultimately being used to force the doors of our Churches open and being used to force our Ministers and Priests to perform acts contrary to the tenets of our faith. " bull sh*t I heard on CTV, which has quite a bit of right-wing propaganda, that the government's bill will allow any church that does not want to do so, to not do so. I beleive that any 2 consenting adults that want to enter into a union from which they will reveive the benifits of any other 2 consenting adults. call it marriage, call it civil unions, call it ;dsklfhsa;d if you really want to. the point is that the government has no business telling 2 people that they cannot join in legal union, while telling 2 other people that they can. its time the government got out of the bedrooms of this country.

I can live with gay legal unions. I can live with consentual poligomy. I, obviously unlike you guys, think that adults can make up their own minds, and dont need some book or government to tell them what to and not to do.

you get treated differently if your married check any government document that asks you questions. one is always "are you married?" if marriage IS based on religion, then, due to the seperation of church and state, all benifits should be erased. either we ALL get married, or NONE of us get married. saying that some of us can and some of us cant is the real social-engenering. we are just trying to stop it.

again, depends on intent. if I was cleaning my car, knocked it in neutral, and it rolled over someone, killing them, while the 12 year old broke into a gun-shop, stole a gun and some bullets, then shot that guy he's wanted to shoot for 3 years, then yes, he SHOULD get in bigger trouble then me. Unfortunatly, there is no way to be 100% sure of somone's intent, therefore any fair reforms to the justice system, youth or adult, are very complicated, if not impossible.

you keep pointing out how poor the muslim world is, and cite that as THE reason islam has failed. in that case, with south america in mind, tell me how the catholic religion has not failed, or, hindu's in india?

to add: if the state and the church is seperate, then A-marriage must be totally re-written, since its based on christian tradition I sugguest the government takes all documents relating to marriage, hits ctl+c then ctl+v (copy and paste) therefore B-gay legal unions, under any name, have no reason NOT to be allowed.

People and Freedom, under attack. The Individual, the root unit of our Western Culture is under attack by a coalition of radical christians, regressive and traditional rights activists and (to be charitable) gullible politicians. from this post, I'd have to say that you qualify somewhere in this group.

just last night I was reading some stuff I wrote 4 years ago, and I agree that emotional immiturity is a valid point. however, if you knowingly do something wrong, like kill someone for example, then you should get punished weather your sober, drunk, 15, or 50.

untill we can create a device that can tell true intent, we can never have a good justice system, adult or youth. if you skrewed up, like lost here did (drinking at age 15, eh?) then no, you shouldent get in deep doo-doo. but if severly injure or kill someone, then you should get harsher punishments. my stance on youth crimes is the same as my stance on all crimes. harsher sentances for those who ment to do harm, and lighter sentances for those who just did something stupid.

what, more crusades? dident work that first, what, 5 times? what makes you think it's gonna work again. ok. so perhaps islam IS a failure. well, I hate to say it, but Christianity is a joke. some dude says "I'm god (or the son thereof)" and 2 billion people say "yea, you are!" in any other context, that'd be funny! let me prove my point: I'm the Prime Minister there. dont beleive me, do you? why should you? if I knew some majic tricks, I'd attempt to prove I was the PM. perhaps I'd hack into his e-mail, and send you one. I could claim that I'm Paul Martin (easier to spell then Jean Chotchin) and use some slight of hand to make you think that I am, but any reasonable person would conclude that I am NOT Paul Martin... and rightfully so at that! if Christianity is a joke, and Islam a falure, then atheisim is very efficient. think about it, it IS. no time wasted on things what you cannot see. I can continue, but I hope I've made my point. weather a religion is... ANYTHING, its followers will not change thier views. I hope that this post wont make any of you think that Jesus was not the son of god. You think he is, and there aint much I can (or would want to) do that can change your mind. if you think its right, then to YOU, it is right. to 1 billion people from Algeria to Zanzibar, from Sarajevo to Sudan truly think that Islam is the right religion. Weather I think its wrong (and I do) is not the issue. the issue is that we cannot go around the world, and force ANYHTING on ANYONE, no matter how right it is.