Black Dog

And, as recently as one year ago, the Supreme Court of Canada concurred with the decision of lower courts in Ontario and BC thatthat definition is unconstitutional. Civil unions, as I said, are provincial juridstiction. The feds are responsible for marriage. Why is that fact, which torpedos the basic premise of the Cons proposal, so difficult to grasp. Not a wedge, but simply a demonstration of the Cons' willingness to sell voters a bill of goods by presenting a position that doesn't hold water.

Why not? It would simly be a matter of getting the rest of the parties onside and beating the Bloc that way. IMO, I think it would be mighty silly of the Bloc to bitch about PR when PR is being looked at in Quebec. I'd like to hear the opinion of one of our resident seccessionists on this issue. What about the thousands of non-BQ supporters who's votes don't count? Why would they swing to the seperatist side?

We're not talking about SSM as a broad issue, but the CPC's stance on it. If the position is, as I maintain, unteneable, is it not disingeneuous for the Cons to put it forward? IANAL. But I am aware of the history of the SSM fights and the many court decisions regarding it. Those decisions (which have not been contested) reaffirm the federal government's authority over civil marriage (not civil unions, which are a provincial responsibility), as wells the unconstitutinality of the current definition of marriage. Given these realities, its entierly appropriate to question the CPC's stance. To me, it's disingenous and an indicator of why the Cons can't be trusted: basically, if they can't put forward an honest position on this one issue, what makes one think they will on any others?

You'll still pay taxes for the services you use. Sorry. On the far right. What's so hard to understand about seperating church and state? Believe what you want, don't make me pay for it. Simple. A pluralistic society can only survive with a secular govrnment.

Obvioulsy people would support the least contenteous option, which is what the Cons are peddling. However, the Cons position is fundamentally untenable, as same sex marriage is already legal in most provinces and territories, a fact Con supporters constantly overlook. What will the Cons do to those thousands of same sex couples already married? Furthermore, given the courts' support for same sex marriage, how would the Cons resist a legal challenge to their position?

? And Mussolini made the trains run on time. No. Homegrown propaganda refers to the perceptiosn about Alberta generated here in Alberta. You don't have to be born here to get sucked in by it. You forgot to mention the homosexuals. It usually comes down to the homosexuals with your kind. Actually, that's exactly what people in Alberta have done. They've been lulled into a stupor by self-congratulatory rhetoric and swelling ol and gas revenues and have exchanged a democratic, representative and accountable government for a arrogant, out of touch and power-hungry regime, all for the promise of continued prosperity. I got news for you, sunshine: one day the god times will end, the oil will run out or the market will tank. Maybe then Albertans wil step back, survey their decaying streets and schools, their overcrowded hospitals and realize that the Alberta Advantage was all about short term gain. It says a lot about your attitude that the worst insult you can come up with is welfare recipient. But that's typical of your ilk, who fancy themselves tough and indpendent types, even as you fawn and cringe at the feet of your betters.

PR works in countries far more regionalised and ethinically diverse than Canada. It can work here. Also, depending on the method adapted, a change in the voting system would not require a constitutional change. No, we're not stuck. We just need the leadership and political will to make the change.

Right wingers don't like PR because, despite their frequent posturing about "democratic deficits" and such, they know that the Cons popularity is exaggerated by the FPTP system. Moving to a system of PR would undercut the illusion of widespread conservative support and put them furthe rout of reach of power, which is their only real concern.

Cybercoma, your pronouincments about the NDP are completely fallacious. You piss and moan the second someone talks about the CPC's hidden agendam, yet continue to make sweeping, ignorant, factually unsound proouncments about the ND's. In short: liar liar, your pants are on fire. That was the P.C.'s, not the current batch of Reformatories. Of course the reason the ND's have such trouble making headway is the neverending stream of unadulterated horseshit speweing from the likes of you that only serves to drive people to the Liberal party. Way to go.

Well tha t about sums up the whole "Who cares as long as I get mine?" attitude so prevelant in this province. You must be from Calgary. As for the Klein government "making us what we are today", the qquestion should really be "why aren't we beer off?" why are our cities and towns facing crumbling infrastructure? Why is our health care system in tatters? Why are our classrooms swelling? Why is homelessness and hunger rampant? Why does the province that wails most about the country's democratic defecit remain a one-party state with no opposition and no electroral system of equitable representation? I know folks like you have ahard time seeing beyond your own pocketbook, but I think these things matter.

That would guarantee the further marginalization of the Cons. To which I say: go to it! 2004 election results: LIB 29.05% NDP 9.79% GRN 2.75% Total: 41.49 Right. Whereas in Alberta, if you don't support the PCs you're screwed. We live in a one-party state which is run by rich Calgary oil execs, American insuransce companies and their lackeys in government who play off the phantom of western alienation to dominate people here in ways the federal Liberals could only dream of. Maybe its time you opened your eyes and cleaned up your own backyard before bitching about the feds. For a bunch of tough, independant minded folks, you Alberta cons sure are a bunch of crybabies. Your statement above is a perfect example of vacuous, unsupported b.s. playing on latent prejudices and typically Albertan "woe is me" paranoia. You liv ein a country run by rich white men, in a province run by rich white men for other rich white men. If you're feeling put upon, mabe you should ask the rich white men why they are screwing you over. proof? People like you are the reason people don't trust the Conservatives. they see you and assume all the Cons are liars. Uh..Alberta is a uniform political state. So which is it you guys? the stupid and ignorant? Or the rich elite? I do find the modern working classes' tendancy to vote for the party least likely to represent their interests to be very intriguing. The working class tends to be to focussed on getting buy and thus don't have the education or time to devote to political analysis and are thus more likely to desire simple solutions to complex problems and are more succeptiable to the folksy, "down home" bromides favoured by right wing elitists such as Ralph Klein. As evidenced by this thread, they are also more likely to look for scapegoats for the inevitable failure of their political choices, be they "immigrants" "easterners" or "the well-off, the wine and cheese eating, gucci loving double income BMW drivers". No one likes admitting their wrong and Albertans seem especially prone to such thickheadedness, given their willingness to buy into the homegrown propaganda generated by the Klein Tories.

Took me some time to get back to this... Lowest? But who bears the burden? For instance, a family with an annual income of $15,000 pays the same premiums as a family making $100,000. It's a regressive tax (ditto Alberta's vaunted "flat tax"). Actually, Newfoundland is still spending the most per capita on health care. More importantly, however, health care spending as a percentage of GDP has barely budged in the last decade. In other words, the increased per capita spending barely keeps pace with economic growth. Whoopty doo. That still doesn't come close to undoing or mitigating the damage cost by the Klein cuts. The funding added to date does not bring the levels back up to the where they were prior to the cuts in the 1990s. In the meantime, Alberta's post-secondary participation rate lags behind teh rest of the country, university tuition in Alberta has increased by 169.5% in real dollars since 1990-91 and college tuition in Alberta has jumped 290% over the same period. Alberta’s rate of tuition increase was the highest in the country. It's funny: Albertans of th econservative stripe look down on the rest of the country for voting Liberal. "how can you support a crooked government that has marginalized the people and is only interested in power?" is the plaintive cry. Meanwhile at home, they continue to unflinchingly back a regime that has chopped services, abandoned communities and jealousy horded the wealth of the province even as they consoloidated their grip on all levels of political power and centralize authority in the provincial government. This leaves me to believe that PC supporters in Alberta are either patent idiots, gullible rubes, or obsequious wretches.

Well, you stated the Taliban were not indiginous Afghans, which they are/were. As I said, the recieved foreign backing, but so did a lot of other factions. And I'm sure the Taliban's rule keft a lot of bad taste in the mouhs of Afghanis, but then I'm also fairly certain that's exactly what I'd tell the people who deposed them.

The Sates has no business funding religious institutions. Period. I fpeople want to raise their kids to believe in invisible superheroes, that's there business and their responisbility, not mine. Why don't we secular humanists and you religious folks cut a deal. We won't dictate what you have to believe or teach your children. And, in exchange, you keep your nonsense out of public policy. That means no more religious-based opposition to same sex civil marriage, no more tax breaks for churches, no more public funds for religious schools. Sound good?

For soemone claiming to have first-hand knowledge of Afghanistan, there's siome significant gaps in the knowledge you are presenting AG. The Taliban was one of many factions that vied for control of post-Soviet Afghanistan. They did recieve support from foreign countries (ie. Pakistan) but were ann indiginous group. Actually, the Taliban enjoyed a good measure of popular support when they grabbed power precisely because they represented the best hope for peace and law and order, which the Afghan people craved after decades of instability and in-fighting.

His hair. It doesn't move. Ever. Honestly, I think the hair is actually the one running the show. Stephen Harper is a hairpiece astride a humanoid robot. That's pretty scary to me.

How do youi know they are terrorists if they are being held without trial? I'm not willing to accept such definitions soley on the government's say so. That way lies tyrrany. Read the rest: "In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be." When are the trials? Again, I call bullshit. There's no way of knowing whether those detained are guilty or innocent because there's no trials. If these individuals are guilty of terrorist activity or other war crimes, why aren't they being put up for it? ...sodomized with light sticks, beaten, starved, murdered.... Again: who is this "they" you are talking about? Like I said: in a "combzt zone" where the indiginous population is heavily armed, how do you separate the "good guys" from the "bad guys". Seeing how its their country, and all. But they haven't been charged. Sleep and sensory deprivation techniques are soft torture. Sure, its not electrodes to the balls, but it's still undoubtedly amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment Because there's a big difference between the criminal acts of a few individuals and the policies of the world's only superpower.

Army Guy: so many errors, so little time! First: no state of war exists. Secondly, those held in Gitmo and elsewhere are not classified as terrorists, but as "unlawful combatants", a designation which does not exist in the Geneva Conventions. In any case, Article 5 clearly states that "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons ... belong to any of the categories in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." In other words, detainees in Gitmo should be accorded all the rights of P.O.W's, including the right to not be interrogated. Those holding POW's are only allowed to ask for name, rank and serial number. The U.S. obvioulsy wants more info, hence their reluctance to abide by the rules. How can you be sure any are guilty when none have been tried? How many were just in the wrong place at the wrong time? After all in a country like Afghanistan where everyone carries an AK, how do foreign occupiers know who's who? A look at Abu Ghriab, where more than 70-90% of the prisoners are innocent (according to the Red Cross and CIA). As I said, any interregation methos that demands more than name, rank and serial number is a violation of the Convention. Who's "they"? The people guilty of atrocities such as beheadings should be held accountable for their actions. In other words, the low-ranking grunts will take the fall for carrying out orders. We're seeing that happen now.

You gota wonder why, in a country where millions can't even afford basic health care, it is okay to spend more than the rest of the world combined on the military. Does that make sense to you? The U.S. government has stood idly by during its share of death. caused a fair bit themselves, too.

Well, i at least applaud your honesty and realism, but I hope you realize how much "we in the West just want a fair say in how much corruption we will tolerate" sounds like "we really want to get ours".

Uh... The rest of the west doesn't seem affronted. So your original statement should have read: "Albertans take it personally as an affront to Albertans who oppose Eastern corruption (as oppossed to Alberta corruption, which we think is just dandy)"

So who incited the riots? According to the chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff, the Newsweek report had nothing to do with it. It seesm to me that attempts to pin the blame on news week is part of a concentrated effort by the right-wing to cow the so-called liberal media into not reporting any news that could damage the administration. It has nothing to do with how these stories (which hhave been circulating for a long time) damage the credibility of the U.S. aborad. That's already in the shitter. The target of this media crackdown is the domestic population. And, by knuckling under, Newsweek is complicit.

Desperate? I don't think so. The Cons have stalle dout. We're back to where we started and he Libs should be savvy enouh to know no to rock the boat. The Cons, too have a history of dirty tricks (see: Sgro). (Also: isn't wiretapping illegal?) EDIT: Andre Coyne's blog mentions that trafficking in offices is a Criminal Code offense. So if Grewal is telling the truth, he should hand over copies of the tape and demand an RCMP investigation. Also: Go-between says Tory MP approached Liberals

Alberta!=the West