Figleaf

Because that is what he intended to do. Novel concept what? Now you're making both sides of the argument. He intended to take away rights from people because they are gay.

Arm guy, What do you think the results of the afghan mission will be, when will it be achieved, and how long will the results survive after western forces leave?

This was part of the election campaign. When the people voted they had been told this would happen. The promise was kept, it was voted on, defeated and won't be revisited, at least not by the government. Why make such an absurd, prejudicial campaign promise in the first place?

Personally I don't find the CPC agenda all that objectionable, in fact I'm down right euphoric over the funding cuts to some SIGs, and look forward to eventual senate reform and tax cuts. I sure don't look forward to nanny state liberal policies. Maybe you would care to look at the actual CPC policies and tell me which ones you particularly object to: http://www.conservative.ca/media/20050319-...DECLARATION.pdf Like most voters, I'm not very interested in the pro forma policies of the Conservative party when we can now observe the conservative government in action. And in that respect, I find myself agreeing with most of what Catchme had to say (see post 61, above).

And it wouldn't surprise others that they are not prepared to use it as a straw man. You've lost me among the pronouns. Who is not prepared to use what?

I can't answer this poll. Use of nukes against Iran?? When??? Tomorrow? Next wednesday? What on earth for???

I was under the impression that Chretien is a practicing Catholic. Conservatives never made an issue of that. It seems to be a liberal game. It is I guess, and these labels are rather stupid labels, especially as it speaks to the intolerance of the left. These terms are rather fake labels used by desperate liberals to scare poor old Canucks into believing that the Conservatives still have that scary hidden agenda. booga booga The polls tell us that the objectionable Conservative agenda is not so well hidden anymore.

I was under the impression that Chretien is a practicing Catholic. Conservatives never made an issue of that. It seems to be a liberal game. I don't think it would surprise anyone to find that conservatives don't cherish the separation of church and state the way liberals do. Indeed it's one of the many things conservatives are wrong about.

It makes sense, doesn't it? Many people of certain religious persuasions make their political choices completely based on their faith. No, the word is supposed to be clever and mocking, not 'scary'. To be scary you'd use the term 'theocrat'. And indeed, theocracy would be a terror.

We all know this administration is crooked, vicious, and consider themselves morally exceptional. I'd say America got what it deserved, if the Bushites had actually won either of the elections. As it is, one has to consider the nation a victim of these bastiches.

Don't forget his program to politicize the judiciary.

Interesting that you credit the left with all linguistic creativity. Anyway, 'theocons' is a play on the word 'neocons'. They refer to two different types of conservatives.

So he's in favor of gay civil unions, not marriage. Why doesn't he want to call it marriage?

Depends on what the church is like, doesn't it? Poor analogy. Dion is a French citizen by happenstance, and it doesn't imply any particular beliefs or attitudes. Harper is religious by choice, and that does imply particular beliefs and attitudes. Relatively inactive does not necessarily equal moderate.

Questions for the 'Hurrah for Israel' crowd: In terms of a comprehensive resolution of the Palestine/Israel conflict -- 1) What do you think the Palestinian side should actually do? 2) What outcome do you think they should expect by adopting your suggestion (please provide specifics)?

Or like criticising Palestinian violence but not saying a word about the Occupation that inspires it.

Source citation please? I wonder ... does Israel want to see Hamas destroyed? While Israel's apologists tend to 'ignore' the ongoing illegal Occupation and the original harm of the creation of Israel against the wishes of the regions inhabitants. Question: what would you say if the Palestinians carried out standard military action against Israel? Would that be okay?

Do you have any support, proof, or examples for this contention?

1. How do you know it's left wing? 2. Where does it suggest the wiping off the map thing?

This seems like a red herring. Anyone can argue against anyone.

Harshness is Annie's stock in trade. I have yet to hear a criticism of Ann Coulter that went remotely far enough in calling her on her perfidious nonsense.

Ya, but I wonder what would happen if a couple of the quys and I tried to walk down main street on a hot summer day with our shirts off? How equal would I be then? Adelle FYI, in Ontario, the courts have already ruled female toplessness to be a-ok.

Really? Some of the people in Whoville want to forbid islamic women from covering their face. Does that sound tolerant to you??? I believe their rule included everyone, not just Muslim women. Long before Islam started becoming an issue in the west, some places have had laws against wearing disguises or face coverings. Italy, for example, brought in such a rule during the time of the Red Brigades. If the law applies universally, and its infringement of individual liberty can be justified on reasonable grounds, I see no problem.

He was facing legal expenses by the COERCION of a tribunal that is funded by TAXES and thus, has deeper pockets than does he. So, he was in the same position as thousands of other Canadians who are charged with crimes and have to plea bargain, or are civil litigants against wealthier opponents. I agree that's a general problem, but my point here is that his settlement, however unwanted, means that we can't use this case to analyze the human rights laws. This case was never decided.

He AGREED to settle the case for $1000.