Figleaf

You always have such accommodating anti-Christian views, concerning the moralistic character of this country. I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-religion.

So basically, you recommend continuing with current practices.

Asking immigrants to swear and oath to a set of vague principles is pointless. Most will have no problem accepting motherhood statements even if when the rubber hits the road their views in practice might differ substantially from what Canadians think. Canadian Bureaucrat: "Swear that Women are equal." Prospective Immigrant: "I swear that women are equal ..." Canadian Bureaucrat: "Thank you." Prospective Immigrant: "... except in moral matters where they should defer to their husbands." Instead of a stupid and feckless oath, we should have suitability questionaires and possibly interviews.

Tell that to the Republicans. She is one of their chief spokespersons. Why else invite her to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) where all but one of the repub hopefuls were present? Exactly. Coulter and her ilk an integral element of the rightwing establishment (RWE) in the U.S. 'Hacks' like Coulter say the outrageous things that the RWE wants publicised, but that are too indelicate for political leaders to actually utter. So, Coulter spews false, vicious, inane, or insane attacks, invective and prejudice -- and Republican senators don't say they agree with her, they just promote her celebrity to wider audiences. The suprising thing to me is that the sleazy, dishonest, malicious methods of the RWE have been so successful in the United States. I don't understand whether Americans just can't see the shitty degeneracy of if, or whether they are OK with all things base and false being the new reality.

I still just can't get my head around all this shit about attacking Iran. For what possible reason? And on what possible grounds? For what imagined objective? For an administration as badly discredited as this Bush presidency to contemplate in its last few months in office taking the country into an unprovoked, unnecessary war against a major regional power would be a disgraceful act that would live in infamy in future history.

Not forever. Someone, sometime, was the FIRST medicine man. Before that there were probably ceremonial leaders who were not solely religious professionals. Before that, there were probably shared times of desperate hoping coupled with attempts at sympathetic magic, and this behaviour is what would have lead to the beginnings of religion (i.e. a community-structured superstitious belief system).

They aren't, there is no real evidence of that. It's actually beyond absurd. The conclusions one can draw when they really want to draw one.... What are you talking about? Which UN resolutions has the United States been found breaking? Which court has found them guilty of violations of 'international laws' (something I don't believe is a real thing... international suggestions are a better term)??? Who's been prosecuted and found guilty because obviously a nation can't be guilty (as was recently found in the Serbia case)? Iran has been found in violation of UN resolutions and are currently facing sanctions as a result of their repeated violation. Your use of terminology suggest you don't really know what you/re talking about. What do you mean 'found in violation of UN resolutions'? Found by who?

Give us an example, or indeed any other sort of support for that assertion, if you can. Are White, English speaking Catholics forcing the federal government to make constitutional changes or force federal intervention to accommodate their views? Jews have, Muslims have, Francophone's have, Aboriginals have, Blacks have etc. etc. etc. My friend, you are very confused. Since 1867 there have been less than a handful of constitutional changes. Apart from that, I fail to see how White Catholics are being forced to pay for anything for other groups. And if you think they need better lobbying efforts for some reason, no one is stopping them.

If there's no victim, how is there a crime?

Just leave the little girls locked up in their houses and forbidden to get education, right? We live in a world where injustice and cruelty abound. Should we fight injustice and cruelty? Certainly. Should we squander our efforts fighting insurmountable injustice and cruelty half-way around the world? I'm not convinced.

Now I am finally convinced! Surely the bald statement 'crap' is at least as convincing as the implausible and unsupported expatiations of naivety we've just heard from Geoffry and August about everyone's unlimited access to perfect happiness. Crap it is.

It appears Argus [don't know about his rightwing pals] is quite right and, you may have missed the following; ".....But a quartet of Supreme Court of Canada rulings, known collectively as the Ortega ruling, quickly derailed the "rubber stamp" approach. The Court said judges had a duty to protect the Charter rights of fugitives by questioning foreign evidence. It allows lawyers to put up all sorts of objections....." ` Guyser's point, that the laws the judges are interpreting are made by the legislature (including Deifenbaker's government) refutes Argus' contention that judges have made this all up.

With all the intrigue, fighting and absentee ownership, it's remarkable how little was done with this land. The Arabs' attitude reminds me of that of a child in a sandbox who ignores a toy shovel until another child wants to play with it. When the other child wants it all h*ll breaks loose. Even if your remarkably unsurprising opinion there were taken as correct or true, I don't see how it would change the relevant rights and wrongs of the situation. In the decades immediately prior to WW-I almost all of North Africa or the Middle East if you prefer was under Ottoman (Turkish) rule. At the end of WW-I the powers who won decided to strip the Ottoman empire and split the area into two roughly equal portions, one under British rule, the other under French rule. So it continued from 1919 to 1945. During WW-II, the British promised tracts of what was then called the Palestine territory to both the Arabs and the Jews for different reasons. The British solved their problem at the end of WW-II by turning over the territory to the newly formed United Nation. The UN in turn created separate sectors of the old British protectorate into Israel and Palestine, subject to the approval of the respective groups. The Jews approved of the UN plan and settled into their designated territory. The Arabs refused the UN plan and declared they were going to eliminate Israel and have been trying to do so since. The whole Middle East has been partitioned along purely political lines created by mostly European diplomats ignoring traditional tribal territories. To make matters worse, many tribes were nomadic and claimed a right to different lands during different seasons. The Middle East is a real, live exercise in modern multiculturalism. The area is a seething caldron of isolationist, separate tribes who compete fiercely with one another and wage feuds dating back centuries. The tribes ignore both the geographic and political boundaries created by others and as in past engage in conflict whenever they have the opportunity to do so. Maintaining that one tribe or another has some sort of inherent right to a territory none of them have been able to rule except by brute force for over a century, torn apart by two world-wide conflicts and filled with tribal and political intrigues is a pure flight of fancy. Democratic Israel is a notable and recent exception and for that, she is criticized. The Middle East is currently in chaos, sundered by roving groups of fanatics bent on gaining control over the region by undermining whatever authorities are in place to create a dream world of Islamic might. Even the fanatics cannot gain much ground as their followers often ignore direction to engage in personal and family feuds rather than work to a common objective. I don't think Israel is criticized for being democratic. I never hear that.

Even if your remarkably unsurprising opinion there were taken as correct or true, I don't see how it would change the relevant rights and wrongs of the situation. Last I checked, much land ownership law is based upon occupancy and use. A property can be "adversely possessed" if someone inhabits it (in New York at least) for 10 years without the true owner bringing a trespass action. The homestead grants of land in the US were dependant upon improvement of the land. I don't know when or where you checked, but land ownership law I know of is based on title obtained from original government grant passed through a chain of for-value purchasers. Adverse possession is both difficult to obtain, and can never be obtain over the active objection of the titled owner. ANYWAY, the relevant law here is international law of, which is different from domestic land 'ownership' law. That's an amusing opinion that perhaps makes you feel good. But it's not correct.

Crrrrrrap! August is right here, your attitude is what is the problem in Canada. People are told they can't, and because the average Joe ain't that bright, he believes them. One of the most proven programs to get 'First Nations' people out of poverty is having them start their own businesses, people take pride in their accomplishments and expand on them. They become role models to others. Anything you want in Canada can be yours if you want it, without exception. Material or otherwise. Crrrrrrrrrraaaaaaap!

My point is if even the homeless don't want to go to jail, then jail must be worse than being homeless. Think of it... cramped quarters, violent atmosphere, anal rape, bad medicine, stiffling rules, and worst of all, being at the mercy of a bureaucracy that no-one gives a shit about. Think of this, no home, no warm bed, no food, no tv, no anything, and they are at the mercy of society. I should think one would choose jail over starving to death. I don't think most homeless people starve to death. Homelessness and prison are different kinds of hell on earth, but neither is unhellish.

My point is if even the homeless don't want to go to jail, then jail must be worse than being homeless. Think of it... cramped quarters, violent atmosphere, anal rape, bad medicine, stiffling rules, and worst of all, being at the mercy of a bureaucracy that no-one gives a shit about.

Why would I care? If true, all that it would show is that hypocrisy is a human trait and not the sole domain of right wingers. Hey! Credit where it's due ... the right may not own hypocrisy, but they've made it what it is today.

Ann Coulter represents everything that is wrong with the right wing in America. They should all be horsewhipped for their vile breaches of integrity and decency.

Mr. A sticks his thumb in Mr. B's eye and tells him he'll only take it out when Mr. B stops making a fuss about it.

With all the intrigue, fighting and absentee ownership, it's remarkable how little was done with this land. The Arabs' attitude reminds me of that of a child in a sandbox who ignores a toy shovel until another child wants to play with it. When the other child wants it all h*ll breaks loose. Even if your remarkably unsurprising opinion there were taken as correct or true, I don't see how it would change the relevant rights and wrongs of the situation.

Being homeless in my opinion is hell, no bed, no warmth, no guarantee of food. At least in jail you get these. I'm not surprised more bums don't commit crimes, they'd go to jail, they'd get warm food, a bed, a warm home which in my view is better than living on the street. Do you this maybe, just maybe, this indicates that prison may not be that great an experience after all? ??????? Sorry, the first 'this' should be 'think'. Do you think ... etc.

Harper DOES hate Canada, they never ran the ads about the army in the streets, and never said he was a baby eater. Case in point - the Liberals said much worse thing about Harper and some Liberal sheep still believe some of it. But it's true, amigo.

But Harper is far right, does want to take away rights, would destroy Canada if we let him, and is stacking the courts.