Figleaf

''

You try to sound like a moderate, but your whole position and the assumptions that underly it are extremist. Look, if Israel want peace, why is it building settlements on Palestinians' land? While Fatah has accepted the existence of Israel and it got nowhere. Hamas has a negotiating position which, while in no way laudable, is understandable given the history of the region: (A.) they didn't want Israel imposed on their region, (B.) it was imposed against their will, ergo, (C.) it is illegitimate and should be 'destroyed'. They are not wrong about A or B. If only Israel would confine itself to defending itself and desist from occupying the Palestinians and provoking its neighbors. NO. Israel should get the hell out of Palestine, pay reparations, and leave the affairs of Palestinians to themselves.

Maybe we don't like disingenuous spin-words like 'leadership' used to cover ideology.

By implying that she's educated on SOME of the issues, you admit she's further ahead than you.

Partial answer: Israel persists in an illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, preventing the Palestinian people from exercising their inherent right to self-determination. Yes, though I'd call it bigotry.

I think they already have worked. In what sense? Do you support Islamic terrorists? Do you realize that question is both offensive AND stupid? Its' too bad, becaue there are WAY, WAY more important things to worry about here in Canada than those 2 last things you listed. I think that's part of her point. Maybe Dion realizes that taxing families to get the money, just to mail it right back to them without adding an value (and in fact adding wasteful administration) is stupid. Of course Harper, the vaunted economist, can't grasp these basics. (He also doesn't seem to get the elementary realities of investment for returns and economies of scale.) Who pays you for this crap? You shouldn't concern yourself with the world, ...

null

You could also say that if a teacher was any good, all his/her students would have A's. But it doesn't work that way. The student has free agency to do well or to do poorly. The bad in our world is a result of our negative choices. A teacher is not credited with Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence, and Omniscience. A teacher, therefore has neither the knowledge or ability to make his students perfect. God, however, is said to claim the power knowledge and the desire, but mysteriously fails to achieve its ends. Meanwhile, its Ministers criticise the 'students'. It's absurd.

No -- maybe you were raised to a belief in religion, but you weren't born to it. I was baptised and brought to church regularly as a child. I attended church lessons once a week through my childhood as well. I am now 'agnostic-with-a-spiritual-side' because I found: 1 - the claims religion makes about 'God' are usually irrational and often mutually exclusive; 2 - the claims religion makes about the world are often demonstrably wrong; and 3 - IF God is omnipotent, his demonstrated ethics make him unworthy of worship, whereas IF God is not omnipotent, he is not God.

What, like Jimmy Swaggart? Like Pope Alexander VI? Calling this exercise in selective nonsense a 'study' puts way too high a value on it. What utter shite.

I have rarely heard anything quite as stupid as that. First, the 'major barrier' to 'belief' is rationality itself. Second, all of us have a free choice to reject or accept Pazoopla, Dringofash, Buddha, Casper the friendly Ghost, or any other nonsense as well. More nonsense. There is only one reason for atheism -- being convinced that a God doesn't exist.

??? What is God's name are you talking about??? Israel has never given any land to the Palestinians.

Wine, women, and song (or it's modern variant: Sex, drugs, and rock and roll).

Actually, it has been proven to work quite well, as long as you remember to recover the spending after the recession. That part has proven difficult for politicians.

The next election is Harper's to lose -> he will get voted out if enough voters decide that they don't like the job he is doing and the Liberals will gain by default. All the Liberals needed to do was elect someone credible - Dion has that credibility. However, Dion will never be able to win based only on his merits - he depends entirely on Harper and crew self destructing. Harper seems to be doing that on the environment file but he still has some time to recover. You overlook, I think, the importance of the disaster that is looming for the NDP. Dion will be able to draw in a lot of uncommitted progressives from the edges of the New Democrat/Big-Labour Party.

If you mean believe them substantially less than they believe other politicians, then yes, you're wrong. Above, you described it's schtick as 'pragmatic idealism'. I think there's probably plenty of legs left in the appeal of pragmatic idealism for Canadian voters.

Why on Earth is it necessary to decorate courthouses with religious symbols of any kind? What civil servant wasted my tax dollars issuing a purchase order, selecting a vendor, arranging appropriate delivery, insuring, setting up and taking down, a tree and decorations for a goddamn courthouse?

Yup. React with complete dismissal of the will of a segement of people and complete oppression of their freedom. Oppression of their freedom? Nonsense. They are as free as anyone else in the country and if they don't like that they are free to emigrate.

I disagree. It's a very democratic act. It spells out to geographic minorities how the federal government will respond to any proposed separation. It was passed constitutionally in our elected Parliament. Nothing undemocratic in the least. Utter nonsense. Provinces are not independent nations. They are not here against their will. And I've already described a legal means of separation. No province has ever decided to attempt separation. Why do people say silly things like this. The Clarity Act is very detailed and in a dispute it would be interpreted in court. That's ridiculous. With 7 provinces on Alberta welfare, who'd let us go? That's the constitutional amending formula, ridiculous or not. But I love your comment. That's what this is all about to Alberta separatists, isn't it... Your claim of entitlement to be rich, even if it means stealing part of our country for yourselves. I'm glad a majority of Albertans don't buy into that kind of zero-sum thinking.

FTA, I look forward to hearing the outcome. In my opinion agressors should bear the burden of risk for whatever means the defender chooses, up to the point that the aggressor desists or poses no further threat.

I agree completely. Are models hot? Most of them, but not all of them. Are lots of other women I see every day hot too? Yes, but not all of them. The 'media' can't change my opinions in one way, any more than political correctness or the Dove campaign can change my opinions in another way.

My dear fellow, it's brilliantly constructed to achieve it's real purpose. Legally? Well, they can: -hold a referendum that complies with the Clarity Act and then attempt to negotiate a constitutional amendment of separation with the federal government and the other provinces, OR, -they can ignore the Clarity Act and attempt to negotiate a constitutional amendment of separation with the federal government and other provinces. In either case, if the federal government and 7 provinces representing over 50% of the population approves, the amendment passes.

I have no idea what your last sentence is supposed to indicate, but regarding your questions: a-"why has Ottawa to this day allowed Quebec to violate the spirit and intent of the constitution" b-"what is with Quebecs refusal to sign the 1982 Constitution, and still lay claim to articles of it to protect their own interests?" A: I think Bill 101 and the use of the notwithstanding clause to protect it has been tested in litigation and found legal. (Though I'm not 100% sure). B: It's ironic, isn't it?

Totally wrong. Nothing in the constitution discusses referendums. It's a Supreme Court ruling (not the text of the constitution) that says the federal gov. would have to negotiate with a province whose democratic majority wished to separate from Canada. False. The Province of Alberta, as a province of Canada, was granted provincial authority respecting resources, not 'ownership'. The crown of Alberta shares split sovereignty with the crown of Canada. If you purport to say that Canadian sovereignty is negotiable, then so to is Alberta sovereignty. They know where the passport office is.

It doesn't show that. It shows how much improvement is possible using all the various techniques. Are we not all supposed to aspire to the 'ideal'? I don't see what the problem is.