Michael Hardner

This really is an overstatement of what has happened. Mr. Harper has enough to do in starting up a new government without having to initiate processes with the previous adminstation's ethics office - an office that is really a lame duck now. His measures are stronger than what was in place before, and they will improve the political process in Canada far and above the US process.

What rights ? They shouldn't have CPP survivor benefits, though. The latter. Awkwardly, having sex or living-in-sin or whatever is a test to determine the nature of the relationship. The system was set up so that old people wouldn't starve (poverty among the elderly used to be a major problem but isn't so much today) but perhaps should be replaced with a single-user benefit system.

I was/am a member of Rabble and FreeDominion. They are left/right bookends to each other, with most posters of a like minded. The diversity at MapleLeaf is its strength. I would much rather read well considered points from someone from a different political perspective than random drivellings from somebody who voted the same way I did. This board will thrive as long as we continue to have a strong and fair moderator. These boards will save democracy - BELIEVE IT.

Thanks, Teddy. You are truly the greatest of all time... With regards to the post, it's true that the top dog of the movie industry has many of the traits you mentioned so I have no quibble. But given the number of bodies one must climb over to get to the top, it's not surprising that these people have these traits. I expect you'd see similar characteristics in a lot of top business people, which is what these people are. Thanks for the entertaining post.

You are correct, but because Christians and Jews also accept the old testament as the word of God, you have to deal with that as well. Of course, there are famous directions in Leviticus to stone sinners and so forth. Anyone attempting to explain Islamic fundamentalism by faulting the Koran is wrong if they say that Christianity and Judaism have holy books that are fundamentally different with respect to violence.

It seems, though, that this was done for political purposes, with GWB all the while saying 'we will find the leakers etc.'. Misleading to say the least. Would you excuse a Liberal who did that ? I wouldn't.

Can you provide a link for reference please ?

Not really. Matthew explains it best later in your post: It's the opposite of 'an eye for an eye'. It tells you to treat hate with love, treat people better than you are treated.

My apologies. I thought you were referring to education provisions within the BNA act itself. I reread your post and stand corrected.

This isn't exactly right. Again, you're looking at things from a post 1972 viewpoint. The concern was primarily Catholic education.

Your statement is proof of two things. You use a defense mechanism known as psychological projection. This is "unconsciously assuming that others have the same or similar thoughts, beliefs, values, or positions on any given subject as oneself." You only argue from the point of view of self-interest, and project this trait onto others. Secondly, your instincts are off. I'm not an immigrant. It's not surprising to me that you have bad instincts, having read your fantasies of star-chamber plotting by Quebeckers to ruin the country but perhaps you can learn something about yourself from this episode. I would submit that what you believe in is tyranny of the majority. Let's see if you still feel that way when English speaking Canadians of British heritage are far in the minority. I believe that the US and Canadian constitutions are solid, if flawed documents. Mr. Harper won't attempt anything as exclusionary and biased as banning Quebeckers from public service, if that's what you're hoping for. The Canada you're hoping for just can't happen anymore (thank God) because immigrants are the only people who are growing this country right now. Do you think Mr. Harper is going to stop immigration ? I certainly don't.

The government isn't obliged to put everything to a referrendum. There have been several governments in place since then, and none of them moved to dismantle the constitution. The Conservative government of Mulroney even attempted to bring Quebec in with the Meech Lake accord. Here: "and clearly shows the federal contempt againt provinces and English speaking Canadians that rejected 'official bilingualism'." What provinces rejected official bilingualism then ? I'm using your terminology so please explain. No, it's your viewpoint as you still haven't given any evidence. You write of provinces that "reject bilingualism" then get up in arms when I say the same thing. You state that Quebeckers should be banned from public service - it's not fact but opinion. Maybe he was. I don't know. I guess that means that he didn't repatriate the constitution ? Maybe he wasn't Prime Minister either ? Perhaps it was. I haven't heard that. If that's true, does that mean that the constitution never happened ? Said "promotion and advancement" is based on skills, not on birthright. If you had the volition to learn another language then you would have the same chance as anybody else to get a bilingual job, all other things being equal. So the discrimination that you're harping about doesn't exist. I can't believe you said 'almost' there. I know you think the whole thing was a conspiracy but, again, you only have your prejudices to back you up. I think it's 50% and counting in Toronto. If you weren't so focussed on the nineteenth century, I imagine you'd be horrified by what's going on there in the twenty first. You can get city services in Vietnamese, Spanish and many other languages. Well, I'm talking about facts at least. The gist of your argument is "There's a conspiracy there which I know to be true." Well, pardon me but it seems more to me that you have an axe to grind than a legitimate complaint. Yes, Quebeckers speak English better and they end up with a better chance at bilingual government jobs. To me, working for the government would be more of a punishment than a benefit, but maybe you aspire to different things. If you want to work for the government so badly then take a summer course and go to it. Maybe it would work better if we just discussed other failings of bilingualism.

I don't think anybody thinks it would be a war, along the lines of Iraq. It would be air strikes, support for uprisings (?) and the nuclear 'option'. If there was a scintilla of trust, or a real desire for compromise then a deal could be brokered. They did it with Cuba. A non-agression pact co-signed by Russia and China ? Does anybody else think that's possible ? Of course, the US would have to be willing to compromise.

Well, let's see ... A corporation has a single goal - to return profits to its owners. Because the corporation is responsible for errors, safety has to be planned for. Mistakes are very costly. If the onus fell on individuals, then you have a situation where the corporation has no liability for unsafe situations and safety would fall in priority. Now, if you think that the entire chain of command should be personally liable then that's something else entirely. That would make the president of the company take more of an interest in safety, it's true, but it would also be unworkable. Many lawsuits are filed against Wal Mart every day. I agree. I think the corporation was a great invention in terms of contributing to economic growth. Many people don't like them, but without corporations we wouldn't have created the affluent society IMO.

I wondered if there was someone on the board who knew scripture enough to quote that. I may have lost my faith in god, but I should never lose faith in you, Auguste. Of course, nowhere in that quote is hell mentioned. Hell, as it is popularly imagined (and I'm sure as Riverwind) isn't just "not heaven". It's a place with flames, devils poking you, etc. etc. At the time of Christ, I believe there wasn't such an idea of hell but of an in-between place. Throughout the ages, places between heaven and hell have been invented and debated, such as purgatory, limbo, etc. Matthew 7:12 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Yes, as in false prophets. The Pat Robertsons of the world are anti-Christians in the guise of Christians. I would think that the teachings of Christ might be more important to Christianity than the superstitions. That happened the last time I flew back from Vegas. That's a personal choice. If you want to ridicule somebody's belief system, well I think that's pretty smug. But at least if you want to show how your superior rationality makes you better than religious people, you should at least discriminate against all religions equally. And separate the hypocrites from the benevolantly deluded. Too many preachers sell the sizzle and not the steak, so to speak, in order to get bums in seats. They recreate Christianity as a hypocrites club, but it is rude to say all Christians are like that.

I think it's wrong to say that provinces have rejected official bilingualism. Most provinces west of Ontario don't have enough French people to offer services in French. And according to you, they 'reject' bilingualism in Alberta too. So should Albertans and Quebeckers be banned from public service ? That was my summation of your viewpoint as far as I could make it out. Twenty five years ago, Trudeau attempted to bring Canada into the twentieth century, to unify this country and have our own constitution. It's now the twenty first century and you want us to behave as if it's nineteenth. My advice to you is to let it go. You have a much bigger concern coming up as local services start to get added in Cantonese, Mandarin, Hindi and a host of languages that were heard in the colonies as you would call them.

Yes. Another more likely source for the Golden Rule is Rabbi Hillell. Agreed. Even the Catholic religion has abandoned the notion of 'hell'.

This is not true of all flavours of Christianity. Certainly it doesn't say in the Gospels that not believing in Jesus means you're going to hell. You're mixing up the teachings with the false interpretations that dominate popular culture. This is the same mixtake people make when they try to equate Islam with hate. It's lazy thinking. Jesus' teachings told his adherents to live by example, to love your enemy and so forth. Christianity is best summarized in the golden rule, which tells us to treat others as we would want to be treated. He is arguably the single most important philosopher in the effect he had on shaping western culture.

crims: Collapsing a building to get rid of information is simply not on. If there was a conspiracy, then whoever was in charge would have had access to the information. newbie: You're not helping your case with this example. Iran/Contra was infinitely simpler, and infinitely less risky - politically and otherwise. And even then, it was found out. crims: Ockham's Razor dictates that this plot would never ever work. You still haven't explained how somebody could recruit hundreds or thousands of people from all walks of life, from different organizations in cities across the US to make this work.

There are many such documents, including the fascinating 'Gospel of the Infancy' which I have read. Of course, they're interesting to read but the history of what happened to Jesus will likely never be clear. I disagree. Jesus preached something altogether different than what came before him. He taught tolerance, forgiveness and acceptance. The bastardization of Christianity (which he predicted) shouldn't be confused with the source message. You are correct about the evolution of Christianity in a secular society. The violence that erupted after the reformation is starting to happen now as the Islamic world moves towards secular democracy.

This is twisted logic. Federal services are provided across the nation, and official bilingualism dictates that these services are offered in both languages. Excluding Quebeckers from federal employment simply because separatism exists in Quebec would be grossly unfair, obviously. Your concerns are noted, but how can you on one hand demand that the federal government surrender its jurisdiction in the provinces, then on the other hand claim the federal government (who received endorsement for the constitution from the provinces) was outside its jurisdiction in that case ? Given that you think these people are evil, it seems to me that you will use whatever logic suits the scenario to undermine the authority of the federal government.

Why wouldn't they ship it to China ? If someone from China bought the scrap then off it goes. So do you think that a different sized jet hit, or that it wasn't a jet at all ? If it's the latter, what did the government do with the many people who disappeared that day ?

I sounds great in theory, but in practice it doesn't work. Firms that know they're liable for mistakes are apt to be more careful. If you put the onus on individuals, you will see a decline in safety. If you've ever had to file a complaint with the labour department, you would know that it can take months or years to have your case heard, being unemployed the whole time. That's the thinking behind Sarbanes Oxley, I suppose. Sorry, I guess it wasn't clear there. The corporation has engaged them to perform work, so the corporation is reponsible. The corporation is like a person, in a sense. It is the one benefitting from the work, so it should be incurring all the risk and taking the steps to ensure that work is performed and manged properly. But individuals, even CEOs, have limited resources to make redress for the actions of a corporation. Example: A corporation saves 10M a year by contracting out work in an unsafe fashion. Inevitably, an accident occurs one year later. Individuals are injured and require $100K in payment, but the individuals performing the work only make $20K a year so they declare backruptcy. Meanwhile, the corporation made 10M by cutting safety. Of course, you can argue the person who made the decision is responsible, but you can't always assertain in court that they were aware of the situation, etc. etc.

From the CBS article: It all sounds pretty innocuous to me. I'm not sure where you're getting these assumptions from, but anyway if what you're saying is true and a plane didn't hit the pentagon then what are we left with ? A plane that never existed full of non-people. Given the assumption that they were able to fell the twin towers without detection, doesn't it seem strange that they would have botched this part of the plan ?

You are correct, Scriblett. It denigrates people in the worst way. Rumours like this: The implication is that there was no plane, and that none of the people aboard ever existed.