bradco

I dunno..... I have absolutly no problem with religious people expressing their views but at the same time I deserve the right to express mine. As a liberal (small l) I believe in freedom of speech. There is nothing wrong with debating issues in public.... everyone has the right to criticize anything they want if they do it in a responsible manner (ie no hate speech allowed). The pope can go right ahead and scold Canada but I have the same right to point out his intolerance and bigotry and blind following of morals written in a book hundreds of years ago that show him to be an inferior intelligence. People of intelligence don't blindly follow anything, they question the logic of everything and expose it to rational thought.

Robert Gates and Zbigniew Brzezinski are, I think pretty good sources. But let's forget about the Taliban for a second. The fact remains that we've funded terrorist* organizations in the past because of the enemy of my enemy is my friend maxim. We've funded death squads, coups against democratically elected governments. and like I said replying to Argus' post: Kinda like how we funded the Taliban for years so they could fight against the soviets (who aren’t much better themselves of course) and still indirectly fund them through Pakistan or how we funded paramilitary death squads against the Sandinistas or better yet how we funded dozens of coups against democratically elected socialist government across the globe. I fear the Iranians still have much to learn from us. Do you not see the hypocrisy in this? We are allowed to openly fund "guerrillas" and yet we object to Iran funding Hezbollah (or Hamas even though Hamas was democratically elected!) You've done nothing but argue over semantics while totally ignoring the subject of my original post. *ever noticed how they only become terrorist organizations when we don't need them anymore **edit** We did not fund the Taliban only one time as you stated. Our government publicly supported the Taliban right up until September 11. Throughout the 1990s, the Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) was used by the CIA as a go-between linky When the CIA tells Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) to jump they ask how high. terribly biased source but interesting read nonetheless on american intervention http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/blum.htm

No one is calling for a theocracy. Because one guy is advocating his morality, he's evil? Then you go onto advocate your own views. Quite the hypocrit, religious people are all wackos that have no value, but my values do. Great outlook, grow up and realise other people have opinions too! The Pope is going beyond just lecturing Catholics on how to live their lives. He is even going beyond telling Catholic politicians that religion should dictate their legslative choices. He is now criticizing a secular state for not conforming to his religious view. Of course, he has the right to free speech and he can levy such criticism if he chooses, but it should then be fair game for states to openly criticize the Catholic church for their anti-Semitic and anti-Woman policies. And ya, it is fair game for people to be as critical as they want about the Church. What's your point? "Because one guy is advocating his morality, he's evil? Then you go onto advocate your own views. Quite the hypocrit, religious people are all wackos that have no value, but my values do. Great outlook, grow up and realise other people have opinions too!" Its not considering him "evil" purely for advocating his morality. Its considering him "evil" for the morality he is advocating. It is pointing out faults in his morality and suggesting a different set of morals that may have less faults. Its suggesting that being tolerant might be more moral than being intolerant.

You couldn't be more wrong. How is his direct criticism of my country, of which I am immensely proud, not my business. If someone wants to criticize the policies of my country, no matter who he is talking to, I have every right to respond. On the one hand you say way to go to him for calling it as he sees it but criticize me when I call it as I see it??? His comments are no purpose to me if I am not a member of the catholic church? We might not share the same church but we share the same world and if someone wants to spread intolerance and hate Im going to call him on it everytime.

Opinion polls are more than sometimes worded to obtain a desired response and could be used to manipulate the masses. If you believe you are in the fold replying or agreeing to an opinion poll ----please think again. The PM in Canada has more power than a president and is on the same level as a monarch. If you do not understand the damage done to Canada by previous federal governments behaving solely in a dictatorial manner and in the same manner as a totalitarian government, I really don't understand why you would be worried or object being ruled by a totalitarian religious government. granted opinion polls are manipulated.....Id still say in this case the majority of Canadians don't really mind if a couple of guys or a couple of girls get married prime minister has more power than the president....less than a monarch one difference Canadian governments of the past, present and future will always have with a dictatorship or totalitarian government.....they will eventually have to face the voters. A totalitarian religious government would never face the voters. Thats a pretty big difference you choose to ignore

well I for one refuse to follow your "gods" morality when it is so clearly immoral to me, and the majority of canadians Personally, i think, god doesn't ask our input on moral issues simply because he doesn't exist

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...ope-canada.html "In the name of tolerance, your country has had to endure the folly of the redefinition of spouse," the Pope told a group of bishops from Ontario -damn tolerance... so is he openly admitting being an intolerant bigot? Such laws, Benedict said, are the result of "the exclusion of God from the public sphere." -yup sure is....thats the idea...religous beliefs are a personal, private issue not a public one He lamented that Catholic politicians had yielded to "ephemeral social trends and the spurious demands of opinion polls." -ya honestly opinion polls, giving a crap about what the majority has to say......damn democracy! how much better it would be if we were ruled by a totalitarian religous government....like some in the middle east! what a tool

I was luck of the draw.....Bin Laden put the name of every country in the world in a hat.... I have troubles believing there wasn't more to it then that.... Even terrorists have more legitmate motivations than just randomly selecting countries to kill innocent civilians for sport. My arguement is that the majority of middle eastern hate towards the west comes from a long history of intervention, of which the US has been probably the most involved. I think it is fairly clear that Bin Laden has a specific hatred for America in particular.

Valid point. Let's just have a seperate court for Quebec's system, it is a completely different system. Their Criminal Code cases can be tried under the SCC and their civil system under the Quebec Court or whatnot. Gives them a little taste of soverignty to make the soft nationalists happy, balances the representation. I guess there could be a seperate higher court for Quebec... Does it matter a whole lot where the judges are from though anyways???

An equal, elected and effective Supreme Court? Ew no, elected judges have to be about the most ridiculous thing anyone has dreamed up. That's the last thing we need. But equal would be nice. The judges are supposed to come from a balance of Canada's population, but it works out something like this. 3 from Ontario... 3 from Quebec... 1 From BC... 1 From the praries... 1 from the Maritimes. There is a majority of sitting Francophones. In reality, it would be more like 3 from Ontario, 2 from Quebec, 1 from BC, 1 from Alberta, 1 from Sask/Man, 1 Maritimes. Even still those rock dwellers would be dramatically over-represented. And Ontario and BC under-represented yet. if im not mistaken you need to have at least three quebec judges who are trained in civil law rather than common law....two would be a headache if they have differing legal opinions on a case

That is the point of forcing the issue of an election. Canadians have been complacent for so long about Senate reform he is forcing the Senate to put up or shut up. Do we know exactly what form an elected Senate would take? Do we know what the relationship between the House of Commons and a new Senate would be? No on both counts. Harper is opening the door to a debate on the issue. Maybe the debate will be held during an election or maybe not... What bugs me I guess is that he brought up the issue long ago but hasn't put forth what he thinks the form of the elected senate and the relationship between the two chambers once they are both elected should be. What the relationship would be between the two chambers is the MOST important aspect of his policy to elect the senate and he has been completely silent on it. I find that confusing and to be honest, irresponsable. Maybe he has opened a door to debate but he should be stepping through it himself. He obviously has plans for what he thinks it should look like and he should be open about them now.

This isn't Isreal defending itself. It is placing Lebanese civilians at risk, regardless of their affiliation. Isreal has every right to defend itself with reasonable means, but this to me seems unreasonable. Fortunately for Israel it's not your call. So you would argue that the use of cluster bombs was a necessary policy choice to defend themselves? I would like to see you justify that.... background on cluster bombs from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/2805...weapons09.html: The failure rate for cluster weapons is between 5 percent and 30 percent. Failure to explode on impact doesn't mean they are harmless. On the contrary, they may explode with the slightest touch by a child or an innocent passerby. What makes them even more dangerous is that they become more unstable with each passing year, according to bomb-disposal experts working in Laos. Human Rights Watch said it has not found any evidence that Hezbollah is using cluster munitions. Currently, no treaty specifically regulates cluster munitions. However, Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions has some internationally accepted legal standards to assess the problems caused by those weapons. Although that protocol recognizes the inevitability of some civilian deaths, it also says states cannot legally target civilians or engage in indiscriminate attacks. Cluster munitions have the potential to be indiscriminate because they cannot be precisely targeted. In that regard, Article 51 (4) ( specifically prohibits attacks "which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective." Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, states, "Cluster munitions are unacceptably inaccurate and unreliable weapons when used around civilians, and should never be used in populated areas."

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...per-senate.html I am all for senate reform, specifically term limits. However I think a serious debate on elected senators is needed. Harper cries about giving democratic legitmacy to the senate, in my opinion, without really understanding the potential consequences of doing so. Right after saying the senate needs democratic legitmacy he threatens to hold an election if the senate stalls his legislation. Well with an elected senate they would have, theoretically, the democratic legitmacy to stall or deny legislation that comes from the lower chamber. If we have an elected senate what does Harper plan on doing in cases of disagreement? An election everytime? Now is he talking about an elected senate but limiting its powers to stall/block legislation? I have never heard anything from him regarding this part of the issue?

Apparently, the difference between rules and laws which can or should be applied to Canadians in how they conduct business and deal with government - and the requirements for immigration to Canada - confound you. Why should we let them into our country in the first place? We really don't need them. They bring endless social trouble, crime and problems with them. The least we can demand is they be able to speak the language of the nation they are puportedly attempting to become a citizen of. It also helps to get a job. What do you expect all those well-educated university grads to do here when the best their English can manage is "Ju being wanting of ketchup wit dat?" Why should we let immigrants into our country? -the simple answer? We NEED them. Canada, along with pretty much all other industrialized nations has seen a drastic decrease in natural population growth. The trend of declining natural growth will continue probably until natural growth is zero, possibly even negative. You way be aware, or maybe not, but there is a large bracket of people we refer to as the "baby boomers". In order to pay the social costs of keeping these people alive once they retire and reach the end of their lifes will be astronomical. We will need people working to pay taxes to pay for hip replacements. Its really not that hard to understand. Take a look at a population pyramid for Canada.... I guess the problem is that you possess a socially constructed belief (Albertan? Grew up in rural area? just kidding) that immigration is inherently evil. I get this from your comment that "They bring endless social trouble, crime and problems with them". Usually if I am to make a bold comment like that I would want to cite some sort of research that proves this statement. The prevalence of such things in the media doesn't count since I think we can all agree that isnt exactly a "scientific study". Anyways I am in agreement that if you are moving to a country you should learn the langauage. Its just common sense thats all. That being said there is no way to know how long anyone has lived here that you meet when picking up your BigMac and fries. Maybe they just moved here and they are only beginning to learn english. As someone currently working on learning French I can say acquiring a second langauge is not something that happens overnight.

And yet, you appear thoroughly incapable of countering arguments put up by others. Is it that you're only used to talking to those who already agree with you? Oh I'm sorry, was that an "argument"? I didn't recognize it assuch. What, exactly, is it arguing in the context of humans causing Global Warming? Anything? It's saying water vapour is much more responsible. Now I don't know if that's true or not. But you haven't done anything to counter it. Likewise, a previous poster suggested that putting out forest fires more quickly would do far more to lower our er, contribution to greenhouse gases than formal emissions cutbacks would. Again, I don't know whether that's true or not, but if it's not you've done nothing to make that case. I mean, are you here to bitch at people, or make a case? Because if it's the former then you're "full education" on the subject isn't being put to much use. I come out of my shell at university and encounter people who do not believe in the science of global warming. I am quite shocked to be honest. Get over it people....our actions effect our environment....it isnt really all that shocking. If you want to argue that the costs of lowering emissions outweigh any potential benefit, fine. If you want to say we could never possibly get the entire world to agree to lower emissions, then fine. But please, dont continue with trying to deny accepted science. Those in the scientific community who still deny that human activity effects the global glimate are the minority. On the subject of water vapour... Water vapour, as a greenhouse gas, I would assume is responsible for the greenhouse effect. There seems to be people here who don't realize that the greenhouse effect is something we depend upon for our climate....it isn't a bad thing. The water vapour in the air is there naturally....there is a relatively stable amount there and that is good. CO2 is there naturally as well....however our actions have greatly increased the amount of CO2 in the air which has increased the greenhouse effect above its natural level. "According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming....nt/climate.html "Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15%. These increases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of the earth’s atmosphere" "Scientists generally believe that the combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities are the primary reason for the increased concentration of carbon dioxide" I remember reading research that suggested that the global (natural) trend should not be in a warming period. Instead, the scientist (an academic, not some leftie tree hugger) argued that we should be in a natural cooling trend and therefore the impact we have had on the global temperature is actually more than the 1 degree increase in the last century. I have his essay around somewhere but can't seem to locate it....Ill keeplooking and post his results if/when I find it

Yes, I read the article, lose your condescending attitude smart *ss. Why would you think we believe that we are to blame for radical Islamic fanatics attacking and killing 3,000 of our civilians without warning or provocation? I think we were attacked b/c - We defend Israel's right to exist. - Islamic fundamentalists want to wage a jihad against those who are not Muslim. - Our culture is in contrast to much of what these fundamentalists believe in (we give women equal right, have many progressive ideas and cultural norms compared to these 12 century throw backs, we do business with many of their gvts that they dislike, etc). But mainly, I don't give a flying sh*t b/c none of the reasons justify sneak attacking us without warning on innocent civilians. For Canadians to say it OUR fault for being attacked is pathetic and speaks volumes about Canadians. Once again, Canadians prove that they are not our friends and will use almost any chance to try and rip us. You have, in your anger, mistaken blame and fault for what is in reality an honest analysis of american foreign policy. All the poll shows, if you had taken the time to actually read it and not just the headline, is that Canadians believe that American foreign policy (dating back to the end of world war two) is responsible, at least in part, for creating certain attitudes towards the united states in the middle east. I urge you to take off the blindfold that your government has thrown over your eyes. Ignore the rhetoric of the Bush administration. The government's claims about extremists hating american freedoms as their reason for attacking them is just BS they feed to the proletariat to garner support to continue the foreign policies that have led to this horrible tragedy. Such a vicious cycle of violence that could be ended with a fresh way of dealing with this part of the world. I recommend the following article (be warned it is long). Do yourself a favour and read it, become informed, know some history, be less ignorant. Sacrfiice 30 minutes of television time to get smart.... http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html as far as citing specific examples.....it gives load and loads

A large portion of Canadian economy was agrarian in nature before the second world war wasn't it? That changed because the American industry involved in the war effort sought and acquired both raw material and products from Canadian soiurces to fuel their growing capacity to fight wars. From this point forward our society changed in a dramatic manner. Check it out and see for yourself, granted we did it ourselves but tell me that the Americans had nothing to do with it. To a large degree we OWE our economic position to them. Take all of the American investment out of this country, all of the jobs, all of the advances we have made. Then tell me that we don't owe them a "thanks" for being a good neigbor. Well you answered you own question there......... You mention nothing that America did out of the goodness of their hearts. These were decisions made solely on their personal benefit which happened to be mutually beneficial. Nobody will deny that the Canadian economy has been, is and will always be very dependant on the United States. However this does not mean we owe them a dime or a thank you. These are arrangments that both are countries made for their own good. By your logic America "owes" us as well for providing goods and resources to them???

Certainly, good for comic relief. I was thinking more along the lines of having a party that fights for the environment, downtrodden etc.... but ya good for a laugh as well. I get a few chuckles from the blatant hypocracies of the conservatives, and the liberals are such a mess it might just be mean to laugh...but I will anyways

don't fool yourself....The NDP could do ridiculous damage to our country if in the position of power, and I say this as someone who voted NDP in the past two federal elections. They are a good voice to have in parliament but I would hate to see them in power.

If you consider this assignment to be too stressful dont pursue a post-secondary education, or a job, or a family I would imagine (have not got that far yet) Forced volunteer work sucks? So do a lot of other things we have to do...better learn to deal with it now Many kids don't know about technology so they should not have to write on it? Actually sounds to me they should be writing on it then. Unless I am mistaken that is the goal of education...to learn things you dont know anything about. Highschool should be about giving students a diverse education and opening them up to many fields so they can find what interests them and what does not. Highschools in BC do a poor job of this. Don't be to shocked that you are having work forced on you because you have a whole life ahead of you where people will be doing that. Teachers get paid (ok maybe not all that well) to assign and grade these assignments. That is their job so don't worry about trying to get them out of it. Where would Canada be without rebellions? Curious as to what rebellions in Canadian history you put yours on par with in regards to its impact on the development of our nation... Have fun with the assignment....It won't be nearly as bad as you think and won't be nearly as bad as ones you get in the future.

I would think you should be looking at the same thing happening on the Canadian side of the border. Under first Chretian and then Martin our freedoms were quickly deteriorating, even though both of these leaders were definitely anti-American. Under a Liberal government they were willing to allow the appointed, unaccountable Supreme Court looneytoon judges to have the last word on everything in this country, and both Chretien and Martin said so publically. I don't know about you, but if these clowns are going to be making decisions that affects the way we live our lives as Canadians, then I want those people to be elected to office so that they can not only be held responsible for their decisions, but we the people can fire their asses. Canada a democracy? What fairytale have you been reading? The final word on legislation is never fully given to the surpreme court "looneytoon" judges. Even if Chretien and Martin were willing to do so, if the majority of Canadian people fully disagreed with this practise, they could vote them out the next election. Personally I don't like the idea of an elected surpreme court. It is not elected for a reason....it is not supposed to be political. An unelected court is what makes Canada (and other western countries) a democracy. A democracy is not simply majority rule. A democracy is majority rule with respect for minorities and an unelected court is what provides for that protection. That being said I do believe the current process of selecting members is broken on the grounds that they are appointments made (in both the US and Canada) on the grounds of someones politics. We need to find a new way of making these appointments but elections is not the answer.

Invading Iraq was poor policy and it was not right to join the mission then... Overwhelming might be the wrong word to describe the evidence they had to prove that Iraq had WMD. If the evidence was truly overwhelming they would have had weapons. Thats beside the point. I wonder about your way of dealing with a nation that has WMD. Starting a war with a country that you can roll over in your sleep is probably the last thing you would like to do in a situation where you truly believe them to possess WMD. America should be lucky that he did not have any because faced with invasion is the ONLY time he would have ever used them. Hussein might have been a bad, bad man but I highly doubt he was a complete idiot. He would have known that if he ever used any WMD he would have the entire world allied against him. I just don't see how Iraq posed an "imminent threat" to the region or America. True they had invaded their neighbours but I think it is fair to say that Saddam learned exactly what he could get away with then. I don't see why a man who had pretty much absolute power would throw that away. He would have to be acting fairly irrationally to attack anyone and therefore I don't see how you can describe Iraq as an imminent threat to anyone. The only threat he could have possibly have posed would have been a WMD attack carried out via unconventional means so that it could not have been traced back to him. Such an attack would be expensive and risky and provide little or no benefit to himself so I find this hard to consider. I find the argument that this war was necessary to get rid of an imminent threat to be troublesome. The only argument that had real legitimacy was to free the Iraqi people from his brutal oppression. However I question whether this was at all a priority of this war. I wonder what the estimated death toll due to Saddam was because the death toll created by this war and the following insurgency is getting awfully high. Of course Canada should feel obliged to provide humanitarian aid once peace is established but the "coalition of the willing" should be responsible for cleaning up the mess that they have created.