Oddman

When I hear people sound off on Chavez, I wonder if they are just worried that someone would have the audacity to challenge America the Mighty and their world domination. His oil assets are well documented, making me feel it is pure economics that make American politicians worried. It makes me wonder if the world will ever detract from the feeling that there needs to be one almighty empire in order for there to be, well, order. Chavez has some strong points, many of which I am sure will be disputed here. But can anyone claim he is an actual threat to America's security? After all, wasn't it Reagan who really rallied South American countries to unite against America? I am more interested in learning other's opinion on this matter than advertising my own position...( I relalize my position is somewhat exposed, but I still would like to hear a concise counter argument...)

Oh....sorry...got it now...

Didn't Betsy refer to homosexuality in her post? If so, when did any homosexuals repent? I think we believe the same thing, only I do not see how any homosexuals have repented...

OK, I am not religious at all, but I can guarantee there are hardly any homosexuals who are asking for forgiveness for being who they are. So I therefore do not see why you would cite a passage that deals with a sinner repenting...just my two cents.

SHarkman, I do see where you are coming from, but I do not believe that any political party should cater to a religious point of view. In a multi cultural society how do we sustain ourselves if we cater to just one religion? And before you cite that Canada is traditionally a Christian country, I suggest you consult with Natives to see what their religious beliefs are. Either that, or lobby the CPC to revoke the religious priveledges of new immigrants because in 50 years we may see Christianity is on par with another religion. Then what?

Maybe a more accurate post would have included a reference to the NRA - as they were Christians who used terrorism to further their cause.

How did the Liberals push anti-religion? Was it really anti-religion, or was it that they promoted social issues that did not jive with Christianity? It seems to me there is a huge difference.

Leader, Thank you. I now have a greater understanding of your position, and although I do not agree with it, at least I can understand better. What has dawned on me is the possibility of an open dialog on both sides of the issue, or any issue for that matter. Much of my disdain for the church is how it was taught to me growing up in the Catholic school system. We would have nuns come in every Wednesday in elementary school who would teach us values that I can respect, and likely still hold to this day. But they also said things that irked me, even as a young child. One nun in particular. always invoked a sense of fear in us and, using Jews as an example, said that non Christians were bound for hell...no questions asked. Like you, I also realize that not all Christians feel this way, but there are many who quietly believe this to be true. I appreciate the referencing of your cousin and I have to say that maybe you are right - being raised in rural Alberta might drastically affect the way one thinks about these kind of issues. I recently moved back to Toronto after spending six months in Saskatchewan and I couldn't believe the differences in people - a lot of which really shocked me to say the least. I don't know about you, but I feel that as I get older this country is more like three or four countries nestled in one giagantic border. Anyway, I feel we are good examples of how the usual forum banter between two opposite viewpoints can be settled with maturity, and I look forward to more debates between my left and your right....I am not saying you're right you know, but you get the idea.

Well, as a blanket statement, wouldn't it make sense to use animals for food only. It seems pretty prehistoric that we kill for fashion runways, if you really think about it. And before people sound off on people's incomes, I think part of evolving is that we can figure out other ways to help build economies. And I should also point out that before slavery was abolished, one of the main talking points for southern American states was that emancipation would hurt the economy. I am in now way equating animals with people, but the braoder argument is essentially the same.

I think those who have a problem with Harper invoking God in his speeches do so because his background gives the impression that he is trying to push a religious view/agenda. It is a microcosmic example of how the beginning of a polarized nation may soon exist.

So, if the Iraqi fighters only shot at American soldiers, would they then be freedom fighters? After all, it really comes down to one side VS the other. I am not asking the question to be a smart ass...I really do not know what the answer is. I mean, there is a new Iraqi government - but if you saw the footage, the Iraqi leader looked almost as if he wanted to give the impression that he didn't like Bush as he really didn't look him in the eye or nod his head like a real ally would.

I am for equal rights Leader CIrcle, that's all.

Dear Leader Circle, I could continue the barrage of insults and Bible interpretation, but instead I will try to appeal to the good in you. I know it must be there somewhere. I can't help but wonder, hypothetically speaking, if you were left in the dark regarding the rights of gays to marry each other. Let's say for years you just didn't have a clue gay people were getting married. Would you notice a sudden or even gradual decaying of society? Of course you wouldn't, because things would be the same as they are now, only gay couples would have a piece of paper and sport a couple of rings. Virtually nothing in your life would be affected whatsoever. So it begs the question - What are you so afraid of? As a gesture of good faith I will give you this - I did in fact type out the word "fag" but not the N bomb - you've got me there, and I can only say that you are right - if I am to equate the two words I should be equally willing to omit them both. I suppose the latter holds a higher 'sting rate' in my mind. Leader, do you have any gay friends? I think maybe you base your opinion solely on your religious beliefs and not on first hand experience. I really hope we can continue discussing/debating without having to bait one another or hurl insults. If I have in previous posts offended you than I apologize. I write this with the sincere intention of trying to explore the issue, rather than inflame tensions.

That's nonsense. Heads of government or state frequently designate someone to speak or negotiate on their behalf. Your example of Wolfowitz is slightly different. The journalists were questioning his authority to negotiate a matter that could possibly be considered within the jurisdiction of the Congress. IOW, the journalists were playing partisan politics, US-style. Yes, Heads of States often do send one person in to negotiate - but the Bilderbergs is a PRIVATE organization. WHo in this world who leads a sovereign nation would discuss PUBLIC policy matters with a PRIVATE organization?

Addmittedly, I am having trouble citing the law. I will keep trying. I think it may be common knowledge though - that a government official is barred from discussing domestic policy issues with Bilerbergs. I believe the process begins with a motion whereby government officials can discuss policy within the House (for Canada). To discuss Canada's policy concerns or possible future polciy motions with a group outside the framework of Canadaian government is not only suspect, it goes against government transparency. I will continue sifting until I can find a source however.

I am referring to Canada and the United States - it is illegal to discuss policy matters without the input of opposition parties and without a formal debate in the house. That's why when Wolfowitz went while serving in the Bush administration there were reporters who questioned whether or not public figures should be engaging in these types of discussions. Of course, as I stated earlier, the privacy issue leaves many to wonder whether it is this type of illegal discussion they are trying to hide.

Good post Mighty AC...I hope the relevance of it is not lost. And yes, it would be nice the question of dicrimination would be answered with something other than "It's in the Bible." Man, how I wish I could easily deflect important question by simply saying that it was in a book I read.

Hmmmm....sound like a government we know? Anyone? Come one, I'll give you three guesses!

Really? Then how are they supposed to determine policy? Let me clarify - any government official who discusses policy matters while not in their place of governance is committing a crime. This is also why the privacy issue is suspect - because if the public knows they are dicussing policy matters in the improper setting (i.e. - an open debate in the House is considered proper) the group will be considered to be engaging in criminal acts.

Why is it that righties only seem to know how to trash something like Gore's movie, while never really supplying a logical counter-argument stating something scientific in regards to how we are not warming the planet? And isn't it better to sound the alarm about something in order to get the public to take notice? If you think "no", all you have to do is remember the "Mushroom Cloud" comment made by Condi, Rummy and Bush. Methinks that was more of an alarmist startegy (lies) than this movie is.

See, there you go again. That's what a grade three student might say. The word "fag" is on par with N****R...you just don't realize how hateful you sound. And that changing the laws excuse is flimsy, seeing as how laws are changed all the time - it is called evolving. you should join the evolution.

I'm a straight male, thanks for being mature about the debate.

Hmmmm, a lefty PR firm VS Fox News. I wonder which does more damage. Not to mention the several "think tanks" right wingers have at their disposal - and didn't the Bush administration hire a PR firm in 2000 to push out false info about Iraq? If you are going to cite something like this you should at least appear to try and be balanced.

Understandable. Just like an ex-smoker tends to be very anti-smoking more than anyone else. Or someone who decided to become vegetarian....and now can't stand even the smell of meat. Very well said. And I don't loathe people who identify themselves as Christian either. I do feel that some people just say they are Christian but do not act very Christ-like. Christ was not judgemental, he was forgiving. Being anti-gay is not a forgiving way of living one's life. Jesus was very judging when he cast sellers out of the temple. Didn't he also have strong judgements on the Pharisees and the chief Priests? There is a place to say something is wrong, just as you have stated it's wrong to claim to be a Christian and then live without morals. As for anti-gay, I don't know how you view the Bible, but in Romans 1:27 it clearly states homosexuality is an error. For believers of the Bible to state this does not make them judgemental. I guess you have to be a believer in the Bible to agree with Romans 1:27. But prostitution is illegal, and Jesus was able to spare her life. Why did he cast sellers from the temple? It seems to me that there are times when Jesus took a stand, and yet there is nothing in the Bible that relates Jesus directly with the subject of homosexuality.

There are companies, such as Hy-Drive technologies, who have conducted tests that prove emissions can be lowered by over 80%. And I find any economical reasons NOT to pursue alternative fuels to be short-sighted and impractical. A question - Would you sacrifice 50% of your salary if it meant we could curb global warming? It is hypothetical, and I am not suggesting we have all the answers. But I fear that many cannot see past next payday and often set aside their concerns because the damage is not tangible enough to take seriously.