Greg

I'm particularly interested in this issue, so you'll have to excuse me for interjecting, Craig, where is the justification for requiring Canadians to carry a passport to enter the United States? Where is the evidence that Canadians travelling across the border are a significant security risk? These types of security measures, in my opinion, do very little in the way of stopping crime/terrorism etc. Why? Because all the money that is going to be spent on inconveniencing your average traveller could be better spent monitoring the 99.9% of the border that isn't guarded with custom agents. Drive two minutes right or left of almost any rural border crossing and you won't likely find a place to swipe your biometric card. Congress (and in many cases the Canadian Parliament) always seem to propose out-dated methods that sound great around the committee table but horrible in the field. Perhaps no one bother to mention how expensive these types of security measures are to build and maintain. Also, I'm puzzled that they would propose a solution that requires a biometric card that doesn't even exist. A passport with biometric capabilities? Also, call me paranoid but I won't be traveling to the United States if they require any part of me to be scanned. I don't personally trust MY government with that information let along a foreign state. Sounds to me like knee-jerk reaction.

Cut this bullshit out, Craig.

Cut the idiot comments out Craig.

Ok I'll bite: If we were to take into account the environment into our economic reporting, how would we do it? Is there anyone (preferably an economist) who is doing research into this area?

You're exactly right, I do try to stay out of discussions to avoid bias. However I do reserve the right to request posters post in a proper manner. Just as a moderator would in any public debate, it's my job to make sure that unsubstantiated statements are challenged and explained. This has nothing to do with bias, it has everything to do with providing sufficient evident for the statements we all make. I make the same demands of everyone here, regardless of their political affiliation.

One should always question the accuracy of online polling. There is absolutely nothing scientific nor realiable about results like this. A class of properly motivated kindergarden students could easily manipulate this poll to report any results they wish. We need examples Gugsy, sweeping generalizations mean nothing. What are you talking about? Another statement that lacks any crediable evidence.

Can someone explain to me the value of asking such a stupid question? The Globe should be ashamed of its self - they don't even hide their bias anymore.

You've been registered here for ONE day and you think that you can make these sorts of generalizations? Do the participants in this forum need to jump on every opportunity to affirm their support for the environment in order to convince you that they're not insensitive and immoral right-wingers?

nova_satori if you don't start contributing to this forum in a positive manner you might just find yourself a new forum. If you don't like the arguments of certain posters in this forum then I would suggest you counter their arguments with intelligent and detailed responses. This forum is open to all political persuasions - left wing, right wing etc. However, if you notice, no one here has much patience for two sentence posts and blatant generalizations. You'll find that if you avoid this type of behaviour, your stay here will be much more pleasant.

I am extremely disapointed in this thread. Lets have some class.

Genocide is never a defence FastNed, you know that. Perhaps the word you're using is abit too strong. Although if one is to examine the strict definition of genocide closely, you'll find that genocide is the systematic and or planned extermination of a racial, ethic or political group. In this case, the American's are determined to exterminate terrorism or more accurately, Al-Qaida. Al-Qaida as a group a falls loosely into the politics group category. So in this case, FastNed is correct. The Americans are committing genocide - genocide against Al-Qaida. However, to use the word genocide is to invoke feelings of ethic hatred and ethic cleansing, which I do not feel was the objective of FastNed's post nor the objective of the United States. That being said, I think it's best if we avoid using terms such as genocide unless we are all willing to justify and expound the true meaning of the word. Thanks

Unfortunately Mr Chater, by not researching your post (an extensive search function is available) you've committed a bit of a faux pas. If you read the Forum Rules and Guidelines, you'll see that researching your post, to ensure that it has not already be discussed, is a rule that everyone must live by. We try to avoid beating a dead horse. If anyone would like to share their opinions with Mr Chater on the subject of same-sex issues, please message or email him privately.

That quite possibly is the stupidest thing I've read in a long time. I'm not sure whether I should delete that post or leave it up so others can have a laugh. Farrius, your ignorant statements are growing old and are becoming increasingly disruptive. I would suggest you tone down your comments or find somewhere else to discuss the issues.

Careful Craig, no one in these forums is a clown. Lets keep it clean, Greg

Please don't generalized the thoughts and opinions of everyone in these forums. Sweeping statements like this tend to exagerate the reality of the situation and do nothing but discredit your opinion.

BlackDog, what you just wrote is libel and it's against the forum rules. Try to avoid personal attacks whether they are against someone in this forum or not. Oh, and you'll need to explain this to me You've failed to explain your ignorance fully.

Lets make sure that when we propose a poll we give some thought to how is should be worded. Simply asking, Charter of Rights and Freedoms Yes or No isn't a acceptable poll. I've closed this thread, if someone wants to propose a more acceptable poll on the Charter be my guest. Thanks

Cut out the childish behaviour, Tweak124. You haven't even been here a week and you've completely alienated yourself. Check the Rules and Guidelines, they clearly state,

Maple Leaf Web's newest feature, What is everyones feelings on youth crime? Are we handling it the right way? Is there something we can be doing to improve the situation in Canada?

FastNed, I think the original post about introducing communism, as a possible solution to the problems in Africa was an attempt at proposing a command economy. I don't think anyone here is proposing we set up a communist regime like we saw in Russia, or like we see in North Korea, but to discredit the possible benefits of a top down command economy is to ignore a possible alternative. Let me quantify this position for a minute. Yes, I agree that communism, and all political systems for that matter, is based on power and that power can corrupt. For that reason, any architect must be aware of the potential abuses of power that can accompany such a system. But in the situation that Africa is currently in, it might be an alternative. I think we can all agree that the majority of countries in Africa are decades away from any sort of stable democracy, let alone any sort of egalitarian capitalist society. I think it is also safe to say that to unleash any sort of open capitalist endeavour would result in the undue exploitation of the average African. Opening a Wal-Mart in downtown Mogadishu would not be realistic, however, opening a sweatshop is much more likely. However, allowing a central government, which would act in the best interest of the average African, to command the economy could be a reasonable alternative. Some degree of checks and balances would have to be incorporated and the international community would certainly need to be involved. Is this not a reasonable solution?

Whoa, Bill. Tone done the "high grade BC import veggy action," talk. That statement is of the flaming type we don't allow here. If Ned misquoted you or has posted to the wrong thread, then politely point out that. Even in jest, that statement isn't appropriate.

I think I can say without a doubt, the political discussion on this forum is easily of the highest quality on the Net. I've been to other political forums and believe me they're full of smut, racism, spam etc. Sure we all get little carried away with our positions sometimes, but for a good portion of the time everyone contributes something to the overall discussion. It's also important to remember that a forum where everyone agrees with each other is indeed a boring one. Maple Leaf Web doesn't provide this forum just so you, the user, can personally change the opinion of someone else less informed. Because I an assure you, very few of you are going to change your positions on Iraq, social welfare spending etc. We provide this forum so users like yourself can contribute to the overall debate and maybe, just maybe, learn something about the other side of the debate.