Figleaf

Oh golly gee! How exciting. What a thrill!!!

What? Tiny and low-lying? Why would they seek such a massive engineering requirement?

Since it appears that your first sentence is intended to introduce the example of an ad hominem that you supply in the following paragraph, you should have used a colon after the parenthesis rather than a period.

Boohoo. Read the article and form an intelligent comment. That's what these forums are for. Reading a Steyn article is not required in order to have an intelligent opinion of it. Having read even a small handful of his tripe, anyone knows that dumbed-down, insidiously prejudicial rightwing bullsh!t is the man's only stock in trade. Even thinking rightwingers know Steyn is worthless. If you must satisfy you urge for partisan polemic, read Krauthammer at least.

As usual, anything from the mouth of Steyn is offensive and stupid in equal parts. When someone bombed civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, his name was Ehud. When someone jailed disidents in Myanmar his name was Khin, when someone needlessly and illegally attacked Iraq, his name was George, when someone blew up the government building in Oklahoma, his name was Timothy. ANYWAY ... what does this have to do with the 'left' using the epithet 'racist'?

Excellent post, Argus.

Are you suggesting he was taking greater chances than any other air-traveller at the time? Are you suggesting that persons of Arab descent should have stayed grounded until white/western authorities agreed not to subject them to rendition and torture? What are you suggesting there? Again, what is the point there? In fact, he was never charged or tried in any court so the question of being found anything in a court appears completely beside any possible rational point. What exactly do you think Arar ought to have done differently? Your attempts to blame the victim here are ... weird.

Actually, it appeared Day said a lot. He's just not talking now. He had the opportunity to remove the Commissioner months ago. The head of the RCMP must have the confidence of the minister. It was Harper who wanted him to remain. Perhaps the Commissioner reminded him of how he announced an RCMP investigation during the election. That same investigation that evaporated as soon as the election was over. Doesn't it get tiring being so partisan all the time? Are you not ably equipped to comment on that very point?

Your use of the concept of an exclusive 'claim' runs close enough to the concept of unrestricted ownership that my comment still stands. As for 'administer', I invite you to make your own survey of constitutional jurisprudence if you seek details about its interpretation. I'll be interested in whatever results you find.

Solve? More like cover-up and perpetuate.

You've got to admit, the whole thing is deeply weird. What exactly was the Zackster thinking one or the other time he testified? Did he honestly expect he'd be able to stay on after telling a parliamentary committee that he'd 'not represented' the facts as the were? I'd say we should look abroad for a new RCMP commish -- recruit in the EU, find someone with direct counter-terrorism experience.

Where can we send our cheques?

Let's be precise about this. The 'notwithstanding' clause says (my emphasis added): The point being, that the notwithstanding clause can only except a narrow range of constititional provisions -- it cannot be used to grant carte blanche powers to the government.

I'm not sure why you see that as a 'bonus', but it's incorrect. The original vote on this matter under Paul Martin was unwhipped for the Liberals. If you were refering to the traditional requirement of cabinet solidarity that's something completely different. In fact, it appears cabinet solidarity may have been breached by the Tory neo-cons on this motion, but I guess since it was only a motion, not an act they're trying to finesse that. The bigger picture though, is that now Harper has shot himself in both feet. By having this motion at all, he's proved himself unacceptable to liberal democrats. By having this motion now, with such desultory effort to win, he's alienated the so-cons. I wonder who's doing Harper's thinking lately. First, he saves the Liberal party's bacon on Quebec. Now he blunders with this resolution.

So is each snowflake, but they are all snowflakes. You missed the point Figleaf. Each genocide, like each snow flake is unique. If you try mash themall together, of course they will all seem the same colour-white. That is why we must take care when we talk about ANY genocide not to compare them to others or try use others to suggest they are not unique or have lesser signiifigance since there have been other genocides. Think about it FigLeaf.... Hmmmm. Well, I have thought about it, and I cannot agree with your suggestion. You are seeking to make a line of thought and discussion taboo because it may give offense. I don't think we can endorse that principle. Furthermore, there may be legitimate reasons for 'comparing' genocides which ought not to be prohibited. Comparing illnesses is useful in finding ways to eradicate them, and so done sensibly it may be with genocide. Wait! Now you are lumping them together according to similarities: both tragedies, both had innocents suffer ... That suggestion is your imputation, not anyone elses statement, so far as I can recall.

No, that's not correct at all. In fact constitutionally the provincial governments "administer" the resources within their jurisdiction. So two important points: 1-this arrangement arises WITHIN the framework of the constitution and would be changeable if the constititional framework changes; and 2-'administering' is not the same thing as unrestricted ownership.

We'd? You and .... who else?? We, the broad-based law-abiding citizenry of Canada.

On what news today? "If true" is right.

DOOM! DOOM follows this man, Dion! Watch and Wait, see if THE GODS themselves do not STRIKE him down! WOE! WOE! and thrice WOE! Unto the party that electeth a man named Stephane, for the PROFECES speak clearly of the tragedy that lurks in his shadow ...

A point of background information for you ... the Liberal party doesn't call itself the "natural governing party". That's something that got attached to the party in the media, reflecting the fact of persistent Liberal electoral victories.

I love your posts. They're such a clear distillation of the CPC daily talking-points that I hardly need to watch Don Newman anymore.

What exactly do you think he got wrong? Would any of the leadership candidates have stood to do better in the west? Why?

Harper will go nowhere in Quebec against Dion. The battle in Quebec will be for marginal Liberal gains against the Bloc. These are likely since the high-water of the sponsorship scandal must have been reached by now. Dion's integrity will purge the taint to a large extent (though candidate selection will be important). Next election Liberals gain 5-10 seats in Quebec. Ontario will rally to Dion for his federalism, environmentalism, and social liberalism. If the Conservatives can hold their seats in Ontario they'll be lucky. The NDP is at risk in Ontario as well. What's Jack got that Stephane hasn't got? With Kennedy appointed deputy and a few key western power-candidates the Dion Liberals could make a concerted pitch to parts of the west untainted by knee-jerk anti-Canadianism, gaining additional seats. Many seats in BC will be succeptible. If Kennedy ran in Manitoba there is potential for inroads there as well.

We'd laugh them all the way to jail!

Interesting comment. You make it sound like Calgary has some claim to benefit from the oil sands of northern Alberta. But if (as Geoffrey asserts) Canada has no claim to benefit from the oil in a part of Canada, then why would Calgary have any claim to benefit from the oil in a completely other part of Alberta?