Figleaf

In what particulars?

I think we can do that here too.

Help depress the wages of low income earners, you mean.

Journal de MontrealDepending on the level of security and the use of social services, the annual cost of keeping a prisoner in a federal penitentiary is over $100,000. Ordinary taxpayers (including the victims of crime) pay this. In some cases however, the prisoners have valuable assets and the ability to pay these costs. It seems paradoxical that a prisoner can live (and enjoy special services) at the expense of taxpayers and then leave prison with their assets intact. At the same time, this cost would be a special fine levied on rich criminals and it could have an effect on other family members. Should we punish such criminals twice? BTW, this ADQ proposal is in line with federal Conservative policies - although I don't think teh Cosnervatives have proposed this. At the risk of making an incorrect generalization, the typical ADQ voter resembles in some ways the typical Tory voter. This proposal is unacceptable, for exactly the reasons noted... it is an extra punishment applied based on the extraneous element of wealth.

More than enough. Religion is the most perfidious, destructive and harmful artifact humankind ever devised, even counting nuclear weapons. If somehow it could be wiped from our collective consciousness, I would do it in an instant.

Leafless, you really don't care what sort of spurious nonsense you emit, do you? Let's see ... Was Canada built by the sweat and blood of coureurs du bois? NO!, it was built by religious marriages. Was Canada built by pragmatic politics and good government? NO!, it was built by religious marriages. Was Canada built by hardy prairie settlers? NO!, it was built by religious marriages. HOO r L.U.d.i.ck.rus. Personally, I'm married because I found a wonderful person who agreed to by my wife and lifelong companion. No-one promised me any social privileges would go along with it. You leave my sister out of this.

First, why, in the title of the thread here, do you assume that blame should be involved? Second, is traditional marriage really failing? People keep getting married, as far as I can tell.

Either way the majority government did not have majority support, 3 out of 4 opposed if you include non-voters, 6 out of 10 opposed if non-voters excluded. The problem remains. Why is it a problem?

Given the way the federal governments of either of our countries operate, their impact on domestic life is generally far from immediate. Is that really a sound generalization though? In Canada, if you're a fisherman, if you live near a military base, if you become unemployed, if you drive on major highways, if you're on parole, if you go to university, if you measure with centimeters, if you travel abroad, if you use a bank, or even if you watch TV, you're involved with federal government activity.

Yeah! If they killed all the women and children of the fighting sectarian sects in all sectors of Iraq, the single sex sectartians surviving would die off in a single generation. Then Iraq would be free.

Is anyone going to acknowledge and attempt to address the challenge to this nonsense that Blackdog, myself, and others have pointed out? Peace talks occur to END a conflict, ergo, the conflict is ongoing when they are attempted. The refusal to talk because the enemy is the enemy is not a reason, it is just a refusal to talk. Amen, brother.

Ergo Israel has no "right to exist." Wouldn't it be useful to call things what they really are, so that people don't get confused and make unsupportable claims. In particular here, it's much more accurate not to say 'Israel has a right to exist' but instead 'the people of Israel have the right to establish and maintain their state in the territory they preponderantly and lawfully inhabit.'

It is an irrelevant point. Cite an example where I did such a thing, if you can. That rather depends on your definition of 'rights'. International law does not recognize rights to territory by ethnic or religious groups based on habitation in the remote past or claims of religious covenants. It does recognize the right of a people inhabiting an area to be free from expulsion, genocide, or the denial of self-determination. It is these international rules which today makes 'wiping out' Israel, for example, a criminal act. Of course what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I don't see what any concept of 'originally' hailing from has to do with anything. Congratulations "Figleaf". At least you're seeing the light of day. That means the "Palestinians" have no vested rights, and we should all head back to the Great Rift Valley of Africa, then re-sort where everyone lives. JBG why would you engage in dialogue with someone who has repeatedly made it clear what his feelings towards all Jews are and has made it clear he is not interested in any dialogue unless it is to make negative generalizations or misrepresentations about Jews. You, Rue, are a dirty liar. I have NEVER made characterizations about Jews or anyone else. I have NO particular feelings about ANY people as a people. I defy you to refer to ANY quote of mine that suggests otherwise. Either cough up whatever evidence you think you have on this malicious allegation of yours, or stop with the smears and lies.

We have no idea what the traditional Conservatives might be capable of, since they no longer exist. The present 'Conservatives' are anything but traditional. They are Karl-Rove style Republicans, disdaining institutions in favor of ideology.

Depending on your definition of 'legitimate': yes, or no.

Your question is misphrased. You mean, what should we be willing to do to prevent this guy from getting his hands on a nuke? I mean, no-one is really 'letting' it happen since Iran is doing it on its own. True - but the UN and it's club of thugs and thug apologists is a complete joke. True, the UN record is not one of unrelieved successes, but when you guys criticize it, I wonder what it is you expect it to be.

So the exact quote is.... "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". Which is tantamount to the exact same thing. No, it's not. It's different in two important ways: First, the false version implies a specific agency carrying out the action of 'wiping'. Wheras the true version merely expresses the idea of vanishing coming to pass, perhaps through evolution or divine provenance or some other passive process. Second, the false version 'wiped off the map' implies a sort of violence, whereas the other lacks such an aggressive connotation.

Your question is misphrased. You mean, what should we be willing to do to prevent this guy from getting his hands on a nuke? I mean, no-one is really 'letting' it happen since Iran is doing it on its own. Also, isn't is a bit premature to call it the biggest nuclear threat of our time ... they don't actually have an nukes after all.

Technically ... It's the right of the Crown and any over-zealous or malicious prosecutors it may employ to ruin an innocent citizen with impunity.

My opinion: I like emoticons. They allow posters to add more nuance to their comments. The classic to take the sting out of a seeming insult is a prime example.

Gee, then maybe sticking a whole shitload of displaced Europeans right under their noses wasn't the hottest idea. Right. Because the Jews ORIGINALLY hail from Europe! I guess the name "Jerusalem" was really just a perversion of "Jielenia Gora" in Poland and this was somehow lost in translation. I don't see what any concept of 'originally' hailing from has to do with anything.

Systemic problems: ie, infrastructure falling apart, health care not working, miltary underfunded, the environment a mess, immigration a mess, happen over many years of neglect and incompetent leadership. The tories have only been in power a year. You cannot honestly blame any systemic problems on them yet because all those problems are a result of years of Liberal government misbehaviour, inactivity or incompetence. Peculiar digression there, Argie. Any other response than an off topic malicious attack? Of course they could. They could respond on topic, with their actual opinion on the subject. You know, like is intended in Parliamentary tradition.

I just assume lawyers are corrupt because of my experience. So when I see a lawyer I automatically assume that they are criminals based on what the law society is prepared to do about criminal behaviour by lawyers. I know they sanction criminal behaviour of their colleagues. If you have a problem with that then its up to you to do something about it. I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I just said that because of the profession he is in he could be doing it because he could certainly get away with it. Who would be able to report it ? (re contacting Law Society)I would never call the law society on a corrupt lawyer. They are just there to protect lawyers from the public. They knowingly allow lawyers to commit crimes. The fact that you cannot report lawyers for commiting crimes - you cannot even file a report !!!! So they can do whatever they want. Given that I safely assume lawyers are criminals because they are allowed to be if they want to be. Its perfectly fair. You have a secret organization that self governs lawyers. You deserve to be judged by the actions of youtr colleagues. I judge all lawyers by the actions of their colleagues. Okay, do you have any shreds of evidence to support your sweeping views on the perfidy of all lawyers, or can we just chalk this up to ranting?

The interesting thing is how that pundits are noticing that Harper's scurrilous attack on MP Bains is part of a pattern of intemperance. And it's true. He never misses an chance, whether openning a new mall, or greeting a visiting head of state, to slag the former government. (Psssst, Steve-- we know. We voted them out, remember?) He and his ministers have reduced question period to and even merer vestige of its former self. Question period now goes like this: An opposition member rises with a question, whether a valid technical or constituent issue, or an effort to put a minister on the defensive. The government member then rises to reply -- and ignores the question, ignores the topic of the question, and fires a malicious insult at someone on the other side. It goes on and on. 'OPMP1: Mr Speaker, could the minister of public works please indicate if he has any information on the scheduled date of completion of the bridge in my riding of XYZ (Manitoba)? The town council is budgeting and would like to predict when their portion of the final contract payment will be due. GOVMINA: Mr Speaker, in 2001 the honorable member voted against the act to enhance sentencing of young offenders which represents the stance of his whole party, soft on crime, and suspiciously soft on children. It's disgusting Mr Speaker. OPMP2: Mr Speaker, could the Prime Minister indicate his response to the thousands of Canadians seeking a national holiday to brighten our cold dark February? PMHARPER: Mr Speaker, I read from the record of the family court of Ontario respecting in a case naming the Honorable Member quoting the honorable member's ex spouse, "... he looks at other women, he won't listen, and I don't think he shares the same family values as I do ...". Mr Speaker, clearly the honorable member has more important things to look into than asking me questions here in Parliament.'