Figleaf

What stats are necessary? The gov't treats churches as charities which means that all stats regarding charitable giving includes donations to churches unless someone has gone to the effort to separate them out. It doubt Frum would bother to do that since separating them out would undermine his arguments. I also know from experience that the overwhelming majority of monies donated to Catholic churches go to pay for priests and buildings. The priests do some charity work but the majority of time they spend working with parishioners. What a asinine assertion. You think it's cheaper to run a church or Unicef? feel embarrassed yet? It's not the cost, its who benefits. If you give 10% of your income to your church, but in return your church entertains you on Sunday, babysits your kid, gives you networking opportunities, keeps up a fine physical plant, and pays clergy to minister to you, then that's nothing more than quid pro quo, not charity unless the church really does put significant resources into truly charitable projects.

By "virtually every measure" employed by Prof. Neocon.

Hear, hear!!!

I never said that the constitutional ammendment formula had changed or was over-ruled. Nor did I even suggest that the feds must actually conclude an agreement. Once again for your learning curve, I said a process was outlined that the government was obligated to follow. I apologize. I had naively assumed you were trying to make a point. Income trusts, the gun registry, same sex marriage, the track record is being recorded. Or is breaking election promises okay Fig? What would you base your continued support on? Perhaps you like being lied to, we don't out here in the West. It kinda cuts into the credibility of the effort don't you think. Its a little obvious that Harper is doing whatever he thinks he can get away with just to position himself for a majority, maybe not to you though.

Complaining about the UN is like complaining about democracy -- The majority is always so stupid, at least when they vote against our own view.

But less needful

Read the act and quote me the section that: A- says the constitutional amendment formula is changed or over-ruled; or B- says the fed. gov. must conclude an agreement with a seceding province. I don't see how. I don't see why. Mystifying. Canada created Alberta, so you'd think a little more gratitude would prevail. Are you saying the Harper gov. is stimulating Alberta separatism?

That should tell you how very little trouble the NEP and 80s recession really caused. Equalization is calculated based on a formula. If Alberta had been experiencing any real problem the formula would have led to a $ injection. How so?

Interesting analysis. A couple of comments: I think the Liberal party benefits more overall than Iggy does. The party gets to make a positive symbolic gesture that Harper takes the blame for instead of making a negative practical gesture that the party (or worse, the new leader) would have to take the blame for. Iggy is still toast. If anything, this helps Dion. You're right on about the meaning of the action, however. It's limited at best. It's not any kind of constitutional change. It sure helps muddy the waters with 'Quebecois' v. 'Quebec' though, don't you think? BTW, Harper's speech was fantastic.

We can only hope that with time people on both sides will come to inderstanding that their lives mean more than any sacred symbols. Till then, I don't have much hope for the lasting peace in the region. And surrendering Jerusalem is going to lead to peace, how? I believe that in the context of an otherwise just settlement the question of Jerusalem could be finessed as follows: -City declared a world heritage trust; -Any state of the world allowed to have Jerusalem as a 'Ceremonial Capital City' (meaning no substantial government operations or infrastructure should be put there); -Israel granted the trusteeship of the area for 50 years, renewable.

If the average voter starts to care more about preventing categories of sexual activity between consenting adults than it does about liberty then our claim to be a free society will evaporate.

Vital Information

Bilge. I've seen plenty of yer 'valid argument' types make completely erroneous arguments and vice versa.

Who exactly are you talking about using force??? Canadians are not going to go to war against Canadians. But that's the whole premise of the discussion: a rogue provincial government proposes to coercively overthrow the constitution -- how does Canada respond.

Sounds like Sandra Buckler's weekly talking-points for Tory ministers!

Why stop short of force? If criminal elements in a province employ coercive violation of valid constitutional authority, opposing force with force is acceptable.

Right, sure. Just like I said, those on the left so hate Harper that if it was him or Satan they'd choose Satan. What? I think he's saying that no matter what Harper did, the left would disagree. He could walk on water and they'd find something wrong with it, their ideology and hatred blinds them to any non partisan dialogue. Hm. That would be an odd digression -- but this is ARGus we're talking about, so it's possible.

Right, sure. Just like I said, those on the left so hate Harper that if it was him or Satan they'd choose Satan. What?

The Chinese are handing Canada's 'new Conservative government' its diplomatic ass.

This is the type of thinking that bothers me as I get the distinct impression that some people think that those they consider 'socon' (definition of which is open to debate) or Christians even, should not have a political voice. We agree on separation of Church and State, but where is it written that only atheists or secularists are entitled to a voice in the political process. The attempts to demonize people because they are supposedly the 'religious right' are extremely transparent, and a definite form of McCarthyism. Yeah! Shame on you Argus!

So? Agreeing or disagreeing with me is beside the point. If socons aren't a special interest group then there's no such thing as a special interest group. What? What manifestation of paranoia makes you see that as my position? All I've said is they're out of step with the majority and if the Tories hope to govern they won't get there by currying favor with a special interest group.

Do you see Canadians going to civil-war to defend one bureaucracy over an other??? This whole line of discussion is in the realm of speculation. Of course in reality I don't expect any provincial authority to attempt an illegal uprising against Canada. It would be folly.

First, the Clarity Act says no such thing. Second, it's impossible. No act of Parliament alone can amend the constitution in that way. ... That's true, but the requirements don't say that the fed gov. has to actually to let the province go.

There's rules against flaming, but is it forbidden to inflame? The poster was using the example of a particular state of mind found in dedicated partisans of different organizations. The choice of Nazis was perhaps injudicious, but the intended point was not to morally equate the two.

That's totally unnecessary. Anyone who doesn't want to be part of Canada is totally free to pack their bags and seek a new home. Read the context of my comments. We were discussing whether or not the country should go to war if a province decides to secede. Well then, your original question mistated the issue. You should have asked are we willing to kill people who would, by force of arms, dissect the sovereign state and appropriate for themselves some part of our country.