Figleaf

I've watched several of the clips and checked out their website. By and large, they have a consistent and well supported take on what the Bible says. Any objective reading of the book must acknowledge that the God represented in it is demanding, vengeful, and not fair-minded in any sense whatsoever. The Westboro Baptists seem to simply want to make people realize that the Bible really means what it says.

:puke: Were Newman and Ignatieff room-mates at UCC or something?

Like the Reform Party used to do before it was hijacked by neo- and so- con agendas.

Hurray! And he died in disgrace too!

Liberal Red, is it? Nice drive-by there. Look, is this ... Tory blue?

Oh, come now. Criminals? There's 30 years of ongoing precident that seems to indicate it's not criminal at all. -k It's not criminal to desire to separate from Canada and try doing it through lobbying for, and proposing constitutional amendments. It would be criminal for a provincial government to confiscate federal property, prevent federal activities, or defy federal law.

You wouldn't care if he was anyways. Of course I don't care if he was beaten. I really don't care about him and want him our of my country. Do you want me out of 'your' country too?

Ummm, no -- An innocent Canadian gets smeared by the RCMP, reditioned to torture by the US, tortured in Syria and some amount of our tax money (probably less than $37M) will go to him to atone for the mistakes our police made. Yes, the people responsible should be identified and chastised. ? Why?

Now that kind of statement makes you a bigot. Yes? No. Or at least I don't see how. Law is enacted through the formal structures provided by the social contract. In Canada, those structures are Parliament and the Legislatures. It seems you are intolerant of Canadians to continue to pursue the SSM issue. I tolerate them. But I also oppose what they want, and why they want it. Parliament can pass legislation with NO discussion, as long as it follows it's defined process. Interesting choice of words: "properly decode". Let's try a little. During the national debate that has proceeded on this topic for some time now, SSM opponents have been invited, asked, challenged, and pleaded with to give a single shred of reason for sustaining their view. Never, not once, was any single valid objection advanced. So, in the absense of any reason for a policy of marriage-apartheid, what explanation is there for pursuing it? If it isn't a judicious choice, mustn't it be a prejudicious choice?

On the other hand, there is some strong appeal in their message... -God is your enemy. -no human being is innocent, -if anything happens, bad or good, it's what God meant to happen. {And by #uck!, did she ever tell those guys off in that second segment!}

Sweet! kimmy channels the voice of Hunter S. Thompson!

Bush and his gang put US troops in harm's way in Iraq for absolutely no valid reason. That's a horrific breach of the implicit trust placed in him as a commander. The Bush regime acted like old-time biblical potentates, imperiously throwing away the lives of soldiers in service of their personal greed or vanity. For the Iraq debacle, 2300 needless American deaths lie on Bush's conscience, if he has one. Who knows ... in the next two years, his record might surpass 9/11.

iuoio

That's just utterly false. If Spain attempted to conquer Alberta, I'm sure Canada would try to defend it. Likewise if homegrown criminals in Alberta attempted to usurp legal sovereignty. With due respect, you appear to have little grasp of this topic. There is no such thing as "a referendum under the Constitution". And, there are no constitutional tools whatsoever (other than proposing a normal constitutional amendment) that are provided for provincial separation. I would advise you to read up on this subject before you try to argue about it any more. There is absolutely nothing 'legal' about a unilateral attempt to separate a province from Canada.

Now that kind of statement makes you a bigot. Yes? No. Or at least I don't see how. Law is enacted through the formal structures provided by the social contract. In Canada, those structures are Parliament and the Legislatures.

There's that weird rhetoric again. The UN doesn't refuse. The UN is neither willing or unwilling. And it doesn't make decisions. Those are all choices the member states make collectively. Blaming the institution for being what the members make it simply doesn't make any sense.

May I pose a hypothetical question to you? Drawing from the above quote: If you could provide more opportunities for employment by increasing the amount of taxation, which way would you go? And let me if you will, ask another question. If you could have garbage pickup provided privately for $1000/yr, or publicly for $500 in taxes, which would you prefer?

Oh come on. WTF would you know?

My friend, have you heard of Google? http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Maher+...=cr%3DcountryCA

You don't have to. It's anyone's option. Irrespective of where anyone lives or what her grievances are, she is free to assess her needs and act on them. What people can't expect is that an entire body politic can or will adjust itself for demands that cannot be accomodated. Better yet, don't convince them. Provincial Whining Industries in all parts of the country should be held to account for their persistent irresponsible propaganda and citizens should begin to see them for what they are. Indeed. Frankly I see no reason that any province attempting separation cannot be divided constituency by constituency, requiring a majority in each to choose to stay in Canada or not. Let the separatists make their pitch convincing to everyone everywhere in their province. If they won't or can't, then they should stop trying to deprive loyal Canadians of their state.

BTW, no, we should not have a referendum on this issue. This nonsense has blighted the public discourse for months now, and it's been through all our formal decisionmaking processes quite thoroughly. At no time in any of all of that did the opponents of SSM offer any sensible argument to sustain their objections. People who continue to pursue this issue now that any real public policy making element to it has long passed must be seen to be engaged in mere bigotry.

Totally correct. The issue of free votes is only relevant in relation to the government party and whether it continues to have the 'confidence' of the majority of the house. Formally, members of opposition parties are always free to vote any way the want. If in truth they bow to their party's wishes when they personally want to do otherwise, all that means is they are showing how co-opted they personally are. It has no parliamentary significance.

They were both a pair of lacklustre incompetents, but at least Chretien wasn't actively destroying us.

Your opinion is factually incorrect in several respects: 1) the Canadian federation has 'split sovereignty'. Each provincial government, as you say, is sovereign, but only in respect of the jurisditional areas assigned to the provinces under s.92 of the constitution and ancillary provisions. The federal government is sovereign in respect of all other matters. 2) I don't know exactly what you mean by 'belongs to Canada'. Certainly every province is a member of the Canadian federation. And constitutionally, there is no contemplation of a separate free-standing existence of provinces from Canada. 3) Regarding 'the people of each province owning that province', you are mistaken. In fact, every citizen of Canada has an equal interest in the sovereignty of Canada over every inch of her territory. 4) My argument is not childish or immature. Rather your resort to a ludicrous ad hominem at the very outset of our conversation is childish and immature -- even moreso than your assertion of unsupported nonsense as useful constitutional comment. 5) No province can secede on its own sole initiative. To attempt to do so would involve criminal illegality. Any legal secession would require a constitutional amendment. 6) You are right, though, that citizens are no-one's chattels. Any citizens of any province who object to conditions anywhere in Canada are totally free to emigrate.

I would have liked to vote for 'economy', but unfortunately the poll lumped it together with 'taxes'.