Michael Hardner

I don't know if it's 'tolerance' or mere 'politeness' that people are showing. After all, people generally put up with Borat whether he's casually making an anti-Semitic comment, or talking about some sexual matter that's totally inappropriate. I think the film's success is due to the fact that it destroys all boundries of social convention. Fascinating to watch, but not as funny as I thought it would be.

To clarify - I didn't mean to say that criminals should be excluded from incarceration because they belong to a religion. I meant to say that it's wrong to imprison people solely due to their religion. But I think you knew that.

And Bin Laden's confession doesn't implicate him because it was a double, right ? Can you see why we say these things about you, Poly ? Every time we come up with something that we regard as a fact, you have a reason why it's been faked out. We're at a standstill because you want to include facts in your argument that we can't debate.

Wrong. We've debated him in 9/11 threads before, and every time a point is countered he comes up with another one. And he simultaneously decries the lack of open-mindedness in the general population. If you don't accept these ridiculous theories of his, you're just not open minded, I guess. There's no convincing him.

Poly, This thread will get sidetracked quickly, but... ...that's just bad thinking. My point is that it's hard to differentiate experts/nonexperts information/pap...

AC, I would say one term should suffice. And the second referrendum should not be optional. If the system turns out to favour the majority too much, as it seems destined to do, that majority shouldn't have the option of cancelling the follow-up referendum.

Poly, It's pretty difficult to guage reliability, especially when it comes to 'expert material'. Many will choose to believe their existing opinions. 9/11 is a good example. You've got the American Society of Civil Engineers on one side, and, say, an economics professor on the other side yet many will believe the latter for some reason.

Leafless - Here's your post: Internment camps based on religion is a bad idea in my books. Do you think that arresting people solely on the basis of their 'suspected religion' is a good idea ? That is, Italians, and swarthy types could be arrested based on how they look ? I answered your question, now you answer mine.

AC - I think the first paragraph is the best summation of your argument yet. I still disagree but... 1 ) The fact that the current minority government seems to be as productive as the previous majority government gives me enough pause to consider that you might be right. ie. Maybe permanent minority government in Canada can work. 2 ) My fear is that, once this is implemented, it would be impossible to de-implement if it was failing. I would submit that pending a referrendum a limited term experiment be tried, with an expiration date, after which a second referrendum on whether to extend the system. How's that sound ?

Leafless - it's unclear from your post if you're referring to Arab Muslims suspected of criminal activity, or merely people suspected of being Arab Muslims. Betsy, That makes no sense. Anything could happen, and many things have happened but that has no bearing on whether a proposal is reasonable or not. The term 'precedent' is usually used to discuss legal decisions that changed the law, not usually to discussed mistakes in history. And, yes, there's no reason to not discuss anything.

AC: The end result of that arrangement is that no party can implement their vision of what has to be done, and gridlock results. If you're looking for a 'voice' for people who aren't represented now, why not just add a single MP for any party that received 5% (or some number) of the vote as an MP with a geographical constituency. That MP would speak on the party's behalf and achieve this goal without completely restructuring the way our democracy works.

Betsy, Interning innocent people a taboo ? I wonder why ? We aren't robots, we're humans. Certain ideas are shocking to some - this would be one of them.

Betsy, I guess it's not 'wrong' to discuss anything. But surely you realize that what you're suggesting is revolting to a great many people, and would never be implemented.

Argus Exactly. The previous post reveals an unabashed arrogance. The idea being that a company should tell the government how much tax it should pay.

Sorry, norm, but I disagree. Harper's quiet, dignified approach is worthy of praise. Take the recent income trust decision as an example. A true righty demagogue would have embraced the opportunity to decimate Canada's revenues.

Cameron - I would modify your question to 'Are they really as bad as the Liberal said they would be in the election campaign ?'. As someone who didn't vote Conservative, I would say that they're not that bad. As much as I disagree with Conservative policies in general, I commend the current government on its pragmatic approach to issues. Harper is far above the screaming conservative demagogues we've seen from the US, and I look forward to the level of debate in federal politics to continue to be elevated. That said, I'm still not going to vote for him.

Can you provide a link ? Googling the key terms here, I couldn't find the story.

Of course not. The internment of Japanese people is a black mark on the history of Canada and the US that still lingers. The idea is immoral and impractical to implement.

TTMS: Off the top of my head, I remember that it was formed under FDR to deal with a problem of bank failures, lack of confidence in the banking system, and families losing their personal savings. Now, I suppose, you'll tell me the secret truth.

CA: How many things are 'better' to do than leading the country ? Every politician is like that. True. It's hard to guage a public figure's committment to family. Harris divorced his wife didn't he ?

Well, there is a startling difference in the prospects of the two men. I say that that is a reflection of how the public views them, ie. how their legacy is seen. What do you think the reason is ?

How do you think ? He headed a government that was attached blame by the official inquiry. I refer to our friendly discussions on 9/11. Looking back on it, though, it seems to me that you might have been playing devil's advocate in those discussions. Fine. I can certainly admit that. But if someone was poisoned at McDonald's, you can bet that they would have grounds to sue the company. The ultimate answer to the question the thread poses is: who still has a political career and who doesn't ?

He must be livid, though, that his old rival is ascending on the national stage after he couldn't get arrested in the Alliance party. Oh well, it might just as easily be giving him some hope.

Norm - Pandering would be to sweep the whole contentious issue under the rug. He's going to keep his promise, lose the vote, then move on. I suppose you could say anything is pandering, but ruling via the polls as the Liberals did DEFINITELY is pandering.

Oz was a much more conspiratorial land than ours. The wizard, you see, was a sham - the proverbial 'man behind the curtain'. I think you should indulge your theories, and continue to follow the yellow brick road.