Charles Anthony

I agree. I would prefer a strong military that focussed primarily on domestic defence and disaster relief. What is disaster relief? Providing security and helping rebuild, right? So how is that different from what they're doing in Afghanistan? Forgive me. I was not clear enough. I should have said: "focussed primarily on domestic defence and domestic disaster relief." My point is that the primary responsibility should be for domestic concerns. I put international responsibility secondary to domestic responsibility AND I would bet that most Canadians agree with me on that general point.

I agree. I would prefer a strong military that focussed primarily on domestic defence and disaster relief. International peace-keeping and war-fare are important but when it comes to a federal government's responsibility, they are secondary.

The discrepancy may have to do with HOW the money is spent. If the Liberal way of funding the military involves siphoning-advertizing-middle-men-supporters-finder's-fees-contracts-skimming-off-the-top-non-functional-second-hand-submarines-with-commissions-going-to-a-friend-of-the-governments-company budgets, it is perfectly acceptable to Liberals. However, if the Conservative way of funding the military involves funding-the-military, it is bad to Liberals.

Read the original post. The position is clear. "I guarantee these people are inspired by the war and death being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan and not some 'they hate our freedom' bullshit that the brainwashed like to spew." The inference is that: First, we fought in the Middle East. Second, we made ourselves a target. So, no, we were NOT "a target already" BY HIS OPINION. However, we are in it deep and quitting will not likely eliminate us a potential target IF YOU AGREE WITH HIS POSITION.

Why???

Quoting the wife of the ringleader, Qayyum Jamal, There is nothing wrong with her position. Many parents of different cultures have the same objections. However, if she does not like the choices in the material being taught, the solution is simple: she can take her child out of that school and go somewhere else, like everybody else. If she can not find the school that she wants the public system, she go to a private school. If she does not find a private school that she wants, she can home-school. Unfortunately, it seems that her children's "home-schooling" led them to criminal charges. I wonder what she has to say about that!

Uh, it is about intent. "After uttering words like that he should face charges." Exactly what charges should he face? Be specific. Hands up anybody who thinks that State Comptroller Alan Hevesi truly had the intent of advocating shooting a firearm at the President. Hands up anybody who is familiar enough with the English language to understand metaphors (even poorly chosen ones).

To play the devil's advocate, Fred Phelps, a supposedly "Christian" minister in the U.S.A. spews out dreadful hate against specific individuals and homosexuals: http://www.godhatesamerica.com/ His twisted sense of what God wants is just as horrifying.

I would like to know the answer to this question, too. This is very serious and we should not dismiss the issue as implausible. Canadians should not feel so comfortable nor secure. If an airplane can crash into the Pentagon (and nobody saw it coming), it is dangerously foolish to think that our Parliament buildings are immune. For the better part of the day on September 11th, 2001, vehicular access to the front of the parliament buildings in Ottawa was still possible. It was only stopped later in the afternoon. Certainly, our domestic security emergency protocol at that time had gaping holes. Canadians should be more vigilent and put a lot more effort into domestic security.

-- is starting to sound more and more like it is inspired by an anonymous audio-tape transcript of a hate-filled speech submitted to Al-Jazeera for broadcast.

Interesting point. I hear some people condemn minority or coalition governments in favor of strong majorities and I hear other people preferring them precisely because they force members of parliament to co-operate. If there is no co-operation, there is the threat of an election or withdrawn support. With this budget, there is a chance that: 1) it really is not that bad 2) MPs want to enjoy the summer 3) no party can afford an election campaign right now 4) no party is certain of gaining any more seats if an election was held 5) all of the above! I think we will finally see more co-operation in parliament and less arrogant grandstanding.

I disagree. I feel this is because Stop. Slow down. Starting off with "I feel this is --" just does not cut it. The fouled up investigation is well-known and CSIS alludes to this on their own website: "Relations between these two organizations have not always been cordial and much of the earlier interservice bad feeling has been made all too public of recent date during the Air India trial. Neither governments nor Canadian citizens will tolerate any continuation of these turf wars and apparent lack of trust and cooperation." http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/en/publications...ntary/com85.asp Just do an internet search on "destroyed evidence RCMP air india bombing" and you should find a wholesome amount of research. Where is such bigotry bred?

This has been said before by others but it really does not seem to sink in: The mechanics of everything that you describe is already in place with our federal system. The mechanics are divided up by dividing the jurisdictions of each level of governemtn: federals, provicials and municipals each take care of different tasks. Yes, there may be some overlap and maybe we should look at better delineations. However, the mechanics of what you describe in your Chimeric (sorry, why that word?) government can be actualized currently. I will take your words and go line by line to illustrate: "1. Divide the government up into 5 major branches. Ex. Foreign,Education,Health,Economy. The head of each branch directs the policy for that branch. We already have that: Foreign branch is managed by the feds. Education branch is managed by the provinces. Health branch is managed by the provinces. Economy branch is managed by the feds. "2. When you vote. You vote for which party you want to represent you in each branch." When you vote for each branch (feds, provinces and municipalities) you will be voting for your prefered foreign, education, health and economic policies. In all fairness, I would suggest that our efforts at political reform would be better served by reducing the overlap of jurisdictions and more transparency instead of creating philosophical politicians.

No. The intent of the suspects must be proven. The full knowledge of what the suspects were intending to purchase must be proven. A whole whack of other things must also be proven. That is likely what the cops needed to demonstrate with the sting. Compare the two scenarios: SUSPECT: "Have you got the goods?" SELLER: "Yes -- over there." SUSPECT: "All of it?" SELLER: "Yes. Have you got the money?" SUSPECT: "Yes -- here it is." SELLER: "Good. Bye." SUSPECT: "Bye." SUSPECT: "Have you got the goods?" UNDERCOVER COP: "Yes. I have all 3 tons of ammonium nitrate." SUSPECT: "Where?" UNDERCOVER COP: "All 3 tons of ammonium nitrate are over there. Are you sure you want 3 tons of ammonium nitrate?" SUSPECT: "Yes. Yes." UNDERCOVER COP: "Do you have the money?" SUSPECT: "Yes. Yes. Here it is. Now give it to me!" UNDERCOVER COP: "Are you sure you want to buy all 3 tons of ammonium nitrate for this amount of money?" SUSPECT: "Yes! Yes! You stupid farmer! Give me the ammonium nitrate and stop wasting my time!" etc. etc. etc. The above scripts may seem corny but I they should illustrate. The cops have to demonstrate clearly that the suspects knew what they were doing and were not coerced.

Thank you for the clarification. Speaking of betting... How much would I have to pay YOU to walk up the steps of a mosque with a sledge-hammer in your hand? I bet it would have to be a lot. I also bet that I would have to give you a huge advance so that you could hire a security force to protect you while you were there. I also bet that you would still be scared to death. I also bet that anybody else (even teenage punks) would have the smarts to second guess their ability to vandalize a mosque undetected. On the other hand, if you were a frequent visitor to the mosque or you looked like one, you would easily walk right on up and inside.

"You could also argue that the opposite-sex marriage definition is suitable for the majority and it discrimminates against only a few (the homosexual population) so why change it?" Precisely. Now we are approaching full circle... This is the problem with legislation related to behavior that is generally "none-of-anybody-else's-business" and attributing "rights" accordingly. What boggles my mind is that some people see a ridiculously needlessly complicated legislation and instead of simplifying it, their solution is to patch an even more ridiculous and convoluted amendment to it and so on and so on and so on. Eventually, they advocate a motley of contradictions that has sooooo many caveats that none of it is logical and contains soooo many loopholes in its justifications that it is a cluster-(fill-in-the-blank). On top of that, they think they are being fair. I am starting to think that we do have a "slaves" problem: we are turning ourselves into our own slaves!

I am not too sure what you mean.... Can you explain? I still do not understand... Can you give me an example? Seriously, I HATE IT WHEN PEOPLE JUST QUOTE THE WHOLE PREVIOUS MESSAGE IN THEIR REPLIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT ARE THEY THINKING????!?!!!!!????!!!!???? People stop! Enough already!

...maybe a place where poppies abound...? Now we know what happens when we consume tooo much poppy seed extract!

"O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?" How does that compare to the two different final lines of the Canadian anthem? It sounds like it combines both themes of our English and French final lines.

"Each voter has to choose a party that they feel would makes the tough choices that they can live with." Not to sound like a smart-ass (Hey! Scratch that! I love taking any opportunity to be a smart-ass), but some people use democracy so that they can choose a party that they feel would make the EASY choices for themelves that OTHER PEOPLE have to live with (or pay).

"Same deal, huh?" Was the principle expressed above too difficult to understand that it needs a diversionary tactic or off-topic example?

Often, terrorists will stage attacks upon themselves to make them seem like greater victims or as a diversion or to rally more support against their enemy. The attack on this mosque in Toronto might be such a situation or it might not. We do not know. What we DO KNOW is that recently in Iraq, Sheite and Kurd muslim high-school students were dragged out of school buses and executed. The Sunni high-school students were sparred. They were executed by fellow muslims. The attack on the mosque pales in comparison but may be more complicated than we understand. We do not know what Kurds or Sunnis or Sheites say amongst eachother here in Canada. If I had to bet, I would put down my money on the vandalism being an inside job. Try to extrapolate and turn things around. You are a Christian in a completely Muslim country. All Muslims around you just identify you as a Christian even though you identify yourself as an Irish Protestant/Catholic. If you attack your neighborhoud Irish Catholic/Protestant church, all of the Muslims would feel ashamed saying "Who could have vandalized this Christian church??? It must have been one of our extremist teenage thugs! Shame! Shame!" Meanwhile, you are laughing. You win two for the price of one. Nobody understands or even cares about the meaningless hatred and rivalry that you may have imported from Northern Ireland but to you it is worth being a violent vandal. Think about it.

"And what do they and we owe to those children?" Maybe "anglosaxon countries" will finally be able to solve their "lack of slaves" problem.

Deporting suspects or sending them to American Cuba is tantamount to destroying evidence and foolish. (Of course, that is what happened to all of the debris from the World Trade Center, but that is a different topic. Or is it?) As a member of the public, I, for one, would love to get into the mind of these people. Just ask them a few questions, at the very least. Imagine them being interviewed on 20/20 or 60 Minutes. That would not only be interesting but I think it would lead us to more power in combatting them. Surely to goodness, let our psychologists or psychonanalysts or criminologists or forensists or whatever study them! Ah!!!!! but that would lead to us having to raise the cloak of secrecy.... I have heard the argument that issues of national security can not be made open to the public --- yadda yadda yadda -- but I have never heard anybody explain or justify it. Give me an example, even a hypothetical one, but give me an example. Maybe there is something that we should not know.... We should really slow down. I fear a community that reflexively acts like a lynch-mob. Our courts make enough mistakes with innocently convicted people in jail -- what makes us think we know better? I echo the statement: every suspect (regardless of our media-manufactured consent on their prejudiced guilt) should have their day in court. I have heard more muslims in Canada categorically state that the muslim extremists and terrorists are a stain and an abomination to Islam compared to muslims "openly hate Canada" or anything of the sort. In fact, I have never heard any muslim in Canada say that they "openly hate Canada" ever! I have many friends and acquaintances who are muslim and they ALL insist that the islamic terrorists are mortal blasphemers. They will not go to Heaven. Clearly there differences in the interpretation and practice of the Koran. Christians have extreme differences in dogmatic interpretation, practice and who will go to Heaven. Look at Iraq today: muslims singling out and killing muslims. Clearly there is a domestic civil war that we do not understand. The Americans are not the sole enemy and target in Iraq. Any of us in North America able to explain the conflict between Sunnis, Shites and Kurds of Iraq? That is the conflict. Anybody able to say what side of this civil war America is supporting? Anybody able to justify America taking ANY side, for that matter? As for "the Khadr's, and numerous other Muslim families" they deserve their day in court. Period. At the very least, we would do well to spend a lot of effort to understand them to better defend ourselves against them.

" So you are basically saying federalism is basically unworkable in trying to interwine two different cultures politically. Funny thing...I've been saying the same thing for years!" "So thats how this country should be divided, and we should all just share free trade and mutual defense/foreign policy." "This makes it tough for a federal government to rule and appease in a fair equal manner applicable to all Canadians which were not." Hey! Now we are talking some sense! I thought for the longest time that I was alone on this planet called Canada but I see that there are lot more people on my side than I could ever have imagined. We should group together and form our own party. We could call it "le Parti Canadien" or "le Bloc Canadois" and we could advocate the decentralization of the country! "Just a quick question, in the event of a majority OUI in a referendum, would you be willing to fight and kill your fellow Quebecois to stay in Canada ?" I am not in Quebec but it affects me too. Personally, I do believe that Quebec will separate peacefully. Maybe a few mailbox explosions and kidnappings, but not a civil war. If there was a civil war, I would not support Canadian troops going into Quebec. Also, I doubt the rest of Canada would support that either. Thus, I doubt that it would happen. If there was a conscription (that would never happen, I know; I am just saying hypothetically) and I was forced to go into Quebec, I would defect.