Michael Hardner

Leaf: You believe that, but upon what is that belief based ? Is is mistrust of the Liberals or do you have some other evidence ? How many come from troubled Arab countries ? I checked with the Stats Can... Immigration Facts 18.4 % of immigrants come from Europe and the UK 47.2 % from Asia 12.4 % from the Americas 22 % from Africa AND the middle East. I don't see that this is 'so many'.

Or do the people who say that Islam causes violence also attribute the acts of Christians who bomb abortion clinics and gay bars to the Christianity as a whole ? Of course not.

Exactly, they have not so it is indeed fair to compare the behaviors. People with poor education, that have no tradition of openness, and separation of church and state cannot be expected to act as we do.

Didn't Harper say something about banning corporate and union donations ? That would bring such a fresh air to politics in Ottawa, and set Canadian politics head and shoulders above the US system. The NDP wouldn't have to kowtow to Buzz anymore, and the other parties could develop policy without having to take their big contributors into account.

I agree Hicksey. These issues are only being raised because the CPC set the bar very high when it comes to ethics. If the Liberals had done these things, people would have barely noticed. I don't see these issues resonating with the voters either. I'm more interested to see how Harper will handle his caucus now.

The case you're talking about is one of many grey areas that will be tested. The KoC is a Catholic organization, but not a church. Its members are practicing Catholics, but being a practicing Catholic doesn't give you carte blanche to discriminate. There are many more cases that will need to be tested, including adoption.

I believe it actually came from 'National Socialist'. Anybody ?

I'm sorry but your point is not at all clear. Read this: What is your point ?

I think the most she could get out of a run would be publicity. She is intelligent, obviously, and has a unique perspective and would get the youth vote BUT being PM requires a far broader spectrum of talent and experience than she currently has.

Why though ? What is it about Islam particularly ? Anything that has been said about Islam as a religion is true of other religions, but when Muslims commit violence it's the religion itself that is blamed.

Yank, the Philadelpha example you give does illustrate the problems that happen with social services. The counter example you gave of your own school, though, reflects an institution developed through strong community ties over many years. Do you propose dismantling the existing social services structure entirely ? If so, how do you think the dependent community would respond ? If not, what is the plan ? I understand why people can look at the social infrastructure and brand it a failure, but it arose to serve a need and that need won't go away.

Yank - as Canuck E Stan pointed out, he only promised a free vote. If that happens, and it fails then he can move on. There's no abandoning anybody. Harper is much more interested in retooling Canada's economics, in my opinion.

Yes, exactly ! It's the caricatures here we're talking about after all ! It's good to know the cartoon version of your opponents view of you. Got that ?

The Nazis were a political party elected in Germany, with an ideology that drove them to exterminate innocent civilians and invade nations. Islam is a religion practiced by different races of different backgrounds across the globe. The interpretation of that religion varies, as it does with every other major religion. The Nazis were bound to one country that invaded other countries in Europe so the response followed the usual process: diplomacy, then military action. Islam is the chief religion of many countries (some are our allies, some not) but these countries aren't themselves exercising any military actions right now, with the possible exception of developing military capabilities (Iran). Iran is also a peculiar case, because the general population itself is fairly westernized and culturally at odds with its leadership. So with the Islamic radicals, you have a problem of disparate intolerance and propensity towards violence. This is also a problem in other non-Islamic countries and ignorance is a general problem everywhere. There are moderate and modern Muslims, but there was only one flavour of Nazisism. I think it's a mistake to attach a threat to the religion itself, ignoring other factors. No one has yet supplied a good reason why Islam itself would cause its adherents to become violent, which leads me to think that there are other factors happening here.

Yank... as long as we're arguing caricatures, I would add "demanding that people stand up and fend for themselves, while they have been handed a easy life, a supportive upbringing, a network of propserous friends and family members, and maybe even a trust fund.

But private networks do have the onus of delivering the news that the customer wants to hear. This comes out of the profit motive. A public network should have the onus of delivering information for the public good. Of course, you can and should argue what that means, and whether the CBC is doing that. I think having a public broadcaster provides a good balance, but the CBC needs more divergent views. Any large organization has a challenge to remain dynamic as time goes on, and the CBC - like so many other similar organizations - isn't really doing this.

Well, not much of what Freud came up with is still believed today. But, yes, there are undoubtedly some who are unsure of their sexuality, who are confused, and who sort it out. Just as there are some who "know" from the beginning.

Well, I can't. Conspiracies are almost impossible to disprove, because of their nature. Everything is supposedly done with a secret agenda, documents are falsified etc. etc. If you believe there's a shadowy world out there that cannot be exposed, that works towards evil - how can that be disproved ? Yes. I don't agree with the world 'priority' in that, but I follow you... Which main cultural group ? None of what you said supports your assertion that "Trivilization the problems of official multiculturalism which in my estimation was only created to take the emphasis off of Quebec and their Liberal fed imposing culture on the ROC..." Basically you're saying that the Liberals devised Multiculturalism as a political tool to distract the RoC from the Quebec problem. This implies that the Liberals didn't think this policy was good for Canada per se, but only sought to advance themselves politically at any cost. I don't see it. The policy, as I see it, is meant to encourage immigration for the good of the economy and make Canada a visible player on the world stage. I would guess that you don't agree with immigration, or at least "non-European" immigration. I understand that change is unsettling, and that immigrants come to Canada with a different set of problems. But closing the borders based on your background is not an option politically (even the Conservatives would never do this) and closing them altogether would lead to declining population. I trust that the children of new immigrants will be more Canadian, and their children will be even more Canadian still. So it is will all immigrants. I live in Toronto and have met these people. I have also lived as an immigrant abroad and the immigrant experience is largely the same. Integration happens, irregardless of government policy, or the religion/background of the immigrants.

So does Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, and evangelical Protestantism to a degree.

But why ? Convince those of us who are for same-sex marriage that this needs to happen for some reason.

One thing I still haven't figured out is are American industries owned abroad benefitting from this imbalance too ?

Thanks, Kimmy, for that inspiring post. As a Toronto liberal, I find that MapleLeaf and the good forums are the only places where I come into contact with other points of view. That's sad when you consider that productive dissent is supposed to be a mainstay of democracy. I always try to bring up the conservative point of view in casual conversation if I feel that it's not being well represented and you post will be helpful in that regard.

Sage, maybe I should ask you this question: Is there anything else in the way of major tax advantages we've left out ?

It's such a subjective and nebulous thing. Some men were probably confused. The Metric system was confusing too. That doesn't make it a valid reason to not move ahead.

Betsy: 1) You're right about common definitions changing and eroding over time. Liberals have been the ones accused of trying to 'legislate against human nature' in the recent past by trying to impose social engineering through legislation, including changing common elements of language to be politically correct. But 'Person-hole cover' never replaced manhole cover as the liberals would have liked. Now, conservatives are picking up the ball and playing this game too. They don't want the term marriage to be used in connection with legally sanctioned same-sex relationships. 'Marriage' was still called marriage after divorce first became legal, then commonplace. That term - 'marriage' - will survive its latest sociological morphing in the same way. This will happen whether or not legislation is passed to re-label same sex marriage as 'civil union' or whatever. 2) This seems odd to be. How many societies over thousands of years did survive ? Ancient Rome ? Elizabethan England ? Eisenhower-era America ? Maybe more detail here would help.