Chuck U. Farlie

Okay, then why else would hamas fire their rockets from beside schools and hospitals? It would appear to me that hamas wants civilian deaths... it works to garner support for them. Like I said, to Hamas a dead Palestinian is almost as good as a dead Jew.

To the Hammas, the only thing better than a dead Jew is a dead Palestinian kid. At least they can use the kid as further propaganda for the bleeding hearts.

Here is another one about Iran getting involved: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

How about back in Oct. 2005 when Ahmadinejad said Israel should be 'wiped off the map'. Isn't that a threat? Here is another link: http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-01-06-voa47.cfm Anyway, I will help you all look for the times in the past years when Iran has threatened Israel: http://tinyurl.com/84z6kg

I singled out this one because it is here in Toronto, where I am. I haven't heard of any Christian groups here that are bashing gays, etc... but I am against all religious extremism.

I wonder... can the American Army court martial these people in their absence and then have them extradited to America since they would all be convicted felons?

This is the question... I am very surprised about how many Canadians responded yes to it.

You can't have a democratic army - nothing would get done. If you are not prepared to take orders, then don't sign up for the army. A soldier can't choose which battles to participate in. If you don't agree with the wars your army is fighting, then refuse to fight and go to jail for it and get your felony conviction. Don't go running to some other country like a coward. I'm sure these deserters had no problem accepting their signing bonuses and free education, did they? Only when they had to do something for what they were given did they decide to run away. Can you give me a link to this poll that you are talking about? I am curious to see the exact question that was asked. I doubt that the majority of Canadians want to harbour deserters.

They are not resisters - they signed up to be soldiers. War resisters avoid war at all costs, they don't join the army. These are war deserters. Some of the more recent deserters signed up for the army when the US was already in Iraq, like this woman in Toronto being deported. She knew full well she would be sent there, then she couldn't hack it and went AWOL. I don't think we need to be taking in people who volunteered for a position and then refuse to finish their contractual obligations. They are not refugees, they are cowards. Send them home to their democratic country with their own laws. We don't need them. Also, where do you get your information that so many Canadians support these war deserters?

One interesting point I heard on the radio this morning concerns the double standard the laws seem to have when it comes to the biological parents versus what's best for the kids. Consider this scenario... A couple take the wrong baby home from the hospital. Five years later the mistake is uncovered and the biological parents have the right to take back their biological child even though they have not been the parents. This is biology in favour of what is (possibly) best for the child. This situation is the opposite. The courts are taking what is best for the child (again, argumentative) over biology. This man is not the biological father, and if this woman wants any further support she should have to track down the guy that is. If I were the guy in this case, what would piss me off is being forced to pay for kids that aren't mine. Of course I would still pay, because I raised them and love them, but having the courts enforce it would drive me crazy. If I were him and had the choice, I would be giving these kids the money directly (possibly a trust fund) and not let that cheating witch see another penny.

If there is any god that is acting 'hands-on' and any of the organized religions are right, then it is obviously running some kind of cruel experiment. In that case I am not playing ball. I am like the rat in the cage that doesn't bother to navigate the maze. A more likely scenario that involves a god would be a 'hands-off' god that set the rules (physics) and hit the start button. In that case religion is irrelevant. The most likely scenario is that there is no god. At the end of the day all I can say is I don't know, and I am pretty sure no one else on earth has a clue as to what the reality is either. Anyway I don't really care if there is a god or not - I just care when people that think they know what is going on infringe on my life.

To the OP, maybe if Christians haven't waged a war and tried to instill their beliefs on us non-believers for centuries, maybe these so called 100 million Christians in your article would not have been killed. The way I see it, the religious started the fight. How many times have non-believers been killed in the past 2000 years for not believing? Bring it to modern times... How many times have Christians tried to instill their beliefs on our kids (Creationalism/Intelligent Design versus Evolution)? How many times have us non-believers been barred from shopping, working, or drinking alcohol from Christians? Less common now as it used to be, but still prevalent. How many times to I have to read your signs about how much your invisible friend loves me? I don't want to hear it. You Christians have been bombarding us non-religious for 2 thousand years. You think it is your right and your duty to instill your beliefs on us whether we like it or not. If you kept your religious beliefs in your home and your church where they belong, then I would keep my anti-religious beliefs where they belong. But you don't. You need to bring it out into the public sphere and influence how we live - now we will fight back. We will fight against you trying to teach our kids your drivel, and we will fight against your ridiculous rules to limit our freedoms during your religious days. And you have the nerve to suggest that the non-believers started this fight? I am all for taking religion completely out of the public sphere - it doesn't belong in a society that includes many religions as well as non-religious. Get it out of sight and mind and there will be fewer clashes between us.

Bush said this loan must be paid back in April if the receiver does not turn things around - but if the company doesn't turn things around and still goes bankrupt, how will they repay the loan?

I thought Ozzy was the Prince of Darkness... when did he lose his title?

I wonder though, if they are privatized but allowed to stay a monopoly, then what is the point of privatizing them? As it is they are a crown corporation, and although I can't find a reference I have heard that if a crown corporation isn't profitable for a certain number of years, then the gov't can elect to privatize them. Canada Post has been profitable for at least the past 13 years... If their monopoly is removed then they would be no different than any other courier company. Since they would lose a lot of the profitable city business, it is very likely that as a company they would no longer make a profit since the rural service costs so much to maintain. In the end they would no longer provide the rural service in order to at least break-even. The ones that would suffer would be rural Canadians.

While reading the other thread regarding public service unions, some members discussed Canada Post's monopoly on mail delivery and seemed to be against it. I, for one, am against privatizing Canada Post. I think it would be a big mistake in a country of this side. On this website I found a summary of countries that have or are trying to privatize their postal services. In particular, I think the problems that would arise include: By privatizing Canada Post we could eventually lose both universal service and universal pricing. Many of our rural Canadians might not receive any postal service at all, or if they do it might become very expensive. Considering this, I would like to see what arguments exist that we should privatize Canada Post, and additional arguments as to why we should not.

While I am not sure if I agree with the current CPC strike or not, I have made one observation: On almost everything that was offered by CPC, PSAC was willing to accept. They did not ask for more money or more time off or more sick days. Basically they just wanted a new contract the same as their old contract - nothing more, but nothing less. I am not in PSAC, but I know how I would feel if my boss came up to me one day and said "Business is fine, we are profitable and in fact are doing more business than ever before, but as of next week you will only get half of your sick days every year... (or less money... or a reduction in vacation days, etc, etc...)" This is not a company going into bankruptcy, and so the union feels it should not offer concessions. from the PSAC website, they think that the lose of these benefits would be a precursor to deregulation: Personally I think deregulating or privatizing Canada Post would be a big mistake. For one thing, it is profitable and has made a profit for the past 13 years. Also... a private post office might work well enough in a small densely populated country, but I don't think it would work well in Canada. Very many small towns throughout Canada would have no mail service what-so-ever as the cost would be too great for a private company.

All I can say is 'WHEW'! Ok, that and the Liberals should find a new leader ASAP... preferably yesterday.

It's a hard question to answer because who is to say the partys would remain under the control they are under now? If Dion is leading the Liberals, then no way I would vote for them. If someone else was I might possibly consider it, for example. Same goes for any other party.

When I vote for someone, generally I don't care about the local representative - I most often vote for the party they represent. My understanding was that the party that won the most seats governed the country. Not a single Canadian voted for a Coalition party led by Dion, as 62% of Canadians split their votes and chose either Layton, Dion or Duceppe. If this Coalition wants to run as a coalition with dion as the leader... fine, lets run an election and see if Canadians want that. Usually when there is no confidence in the house with a minority an election is called... why should this time be any different?

Tell me about it... I don't know where you live, but try living in Ontario with McGuinty or in Toronto with Miller... both of these clowns are coming up with new things to ban on a daily basis, it seems.

I'd be more than happy to move to Alberta and make a go of it... as well as supporting independence. I have also stated to some that I would leave the country... but I have tried that before it wasn't easy. For one thing, immigration elsewhere takes years and years and usually you are stuck with the worse jobs in the meantime - despite education and skills. I too, Jerry, am becoming furious with the way this country is going. Sometimes I wish I still lived in Indonesia where I didn't give a shit about the politics or even the country for that matter... I could always just up and leave if I felt like it - which I finally did. Here I have to deal with politicians that are just as dumb as their Indonesian counter-parts, yet I have a lot more to lose and can't just up and leave as easily here.

And I wonder how bad it would get if the two rallys met? I have had some very heated arguments during the past two days - and I have never become visibly upset by something political before. There is no telling where such emotions might have lead if these arguments were face to face.

Lets speculate for a moment that this coalition happens... How welcoming would Albertans be to a couple from Ontario immigrating there? We would be fully prepared and ready to fight for Alberta independence from the rest of Canada.

I don't think Dion has much more to lose... he was already on his way out. I think the biggest losers at the end of the day will be both the NDP and the Liberal parties. I have heard from a lot of supporters of both who are furious about this coalition especially when it concerns pandering to the Blok.