theloniusfleabag

Dear Leafless, Well said. From a pragmatic viewpoint, 'that's just the way it is'. From a 'pope-ular' viewpoint, it's wrong. I am not religious, but I don't think it's good either.

Dear ClearWest, Thanks for moving this topic here. While I understand that you consider this a 'federal issue', (which it might become if the Libertarian party grows), it is for now more of a philisophical argument. That being said, 'libertarianism' is an unworkable pipe-dream.

Dear Leafless, I am not against having 'one official language' for the country, and of course, selfishly, I would prefer it to be English. I think all culture (and language' should stand on it's own merits, Frenc included. If someone wishes their storefront sign to be in Urdu, Chinese or French, they should be free to decide. This should include Quebec. However, federally, one has a choice to conduct business in front of a judge or the taxman in English or French, whether in Quebec City or in Kelowna. If you wished to change that, as I say, you would have to 'take away' one of the official languages.

Dear Leafless, Au contraire, mon ami...from:http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/O-3.01/text.html I didn't write it, I merely cut&pasted it from the CIA World Factbook. If you wish to claim the numbers fraudulent, take it up with the CIA. English is certainly the main language of Canada, and if we had to choose 'just one official language', that would likely be the one. 85%?? Perhaps those living in Canada that can speak some English. Those that speak only English, I would put at about the 60-70% range. I would also wager that more Canadians speak Cantonese at home (and/or punjabi) than French.

Dear Leafless, oops, please read post below

Dear August1991, It was also Tacitus who wrote about Jews,

Dear Leafless, No, most everyone knows Canada has two official languages...from: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html So, to have just one, you would have to take away one.

Dear Leafless, Indeed, some computer software comes with language choices, including :English(US) or English (UK). Canada uses some of each, really. Other than that, I think Black Dog was teasing. He does make errors, as do I sometimes, but BD's seem to be mostly from typing too fast.

Dear Black Dog, Perhaps he meant 'adapts to English'. Just be thankful they didn't adopt Ebonics or Esperanto!

Dear Clearwest, There was a fellow named Hugo that used to haunt this place as a staunch 'libertarian', I suggest you look up some of his posts. He hasn't been around for a while, but he had put up many a good argument. Borderline genius, I should say, but devout in his line of thinking...which can make one look more like a 'savant' at times.

Dear PocketRocket, I believe that if there is only one item, it is called an agendum.

Dear Argus, from the Anti-Defamation League report on this conference... http://www.adl.org/durban/ Here is the link to the UN document to which you refer, http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.ns...69?Opendocument but I can't find the one with 'anti-semitism' stricken out. Mind you, I don't have a lot of time, must be off to work. I will look further upon my return.

Montgomery Burns, Looks like Mr. Ahmadinejad is covering his 'religiously legal' butt with this 'invitation', as Osama did before 9/11. It may or may not preclude an intent to strike, but as an open-ended offer, he won't have to do it again later if that is his intent. He could attempt to initiate any sort of hostility in the future and still be 'holy' since he, at one time, jumped through this dogmatic hoop.As Sun Tzu said in "The Art of War", "Those who come seeking peace without a treaty are plotting."

Dear geoffrey, Glad to see you are open-minded on this point. I am an anti-zionist, but not anti-semitic. I just don't think religion should give the legal right to establish borders.The trouble is, too many people cry 'anti-semite' the second Israel, or the US' unquestioning support of Israeli policy, is criticized.

Dear Leafless, They are a big chain, with enormous purchasing power. Their prices are very competitive on a lot of products, and they have very good warranty service. It is prudent to consider them sometimes when shopping around on certain products.

Dear August1991, (Very funny, BHS, but I am trying to reveal a little cosmic truth here lol) Yes, indeed, literally. Do you find this so odd? The Jews believe that the deed and title to 'the promised land' is in those pages (which, especially the first four books, several Jews wrote 'while on the road' by the way) , as promised by G-d. Muslims take the Koran as the literal word of God. It doesn't hold the same power if it isn't literal. The Holy Sacrament of Communion is based solely on transubstantiation, they just don't use the words "Abra-cadabra". Only you can tell me if my opinion matters. I would say that the message is the most important, but the message and, (as all religious texts) the 'symbolism' (coupled with human falliability) has always demanded a manifestation. "Prove it", everyone demands. So, instead of glorious acts, we see glorious churches. The church has always done better at the collection plate than at 'home plate'. In my view, no one who charges for 'the answer' has got it right. I honestly don't think that a 'one true god' would demand a gilded likeness, nor 'share a bed with Mammon at the will of the electorate'. Indeed, he likely spoke Aramaic. Yiddish wasn't invented until the 12 or 13 century.

Dear shoop, Indeed, if one hasn't the cojones to see something through, best step aside. Besides, the last thing Canada needs on the international stage is another leader with a speech impediment. This may seem harsh, but appearances sometimes sell, and I thought (a while ago) that had John Manley succeded Chretien (a man with a cast eye replacing a man with a facial musculature disease) and then by Manning (whom many see as showing signs of mild retardation), the rest of the world might think Canada is a 'hillbilly nation' of 30 million, with only 3 surnames.

Dear scriblett, No, you logically cannot come from another country as one. What was once good is now bad, but only from some points of view. The US better get it's act in gear or US workers will be going to India and Mexico. That is where their jobs are going, and it will only take a few executives to 'outsource their offices' (for the glorious 'lower cost of living', which is used to justify slave labour on occasion) to bring the US economy to a crumbled heap.

No, you should stop trolling on this website.

Dear August1991, On the contrary, it is central to the belief system of Christians. With the life, death and ressurection of Christ, it is believed that this also 'proves' the existence of God, making him historically 'actual'.So, it was and is meant to be taken literally by those who adhere to it's faith.

Dear BHS, Yes and no. A heart surgeon may try to keep you alive, but if you are beyond help, he/she won't be involved in your palliative care. If you are beyond medical help, the best your doctor can do is tell you exactly how and why you are going to die, and for some it isn't very pleasant.

Dear August1991, Actually, this way costs more. Never mind the fact that the projected project budget may be on last year's gas prices, real estate and labour costs. If your chief project engineer is told that there will be a delay, he'll still get paid (along with many, many others) or he would go elsewhere.

Dear August1991, Well, Muslims aren't allowed to depict Mohammed, so there would be no 'lead role'. Secondly, Muslims believe the Koran to be the literal word of God, so any 'examination' of, or questioning of, would be blasphemy (like the Satanic Verses)Perhaps Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber could pen "Muhammed Christ, Superstar". If it were to be presented as 'factual', then there would most likely be, at best, limited appeal. Funding would probably only be available from the National Film Board of Canada. Again, back to the first point above, how appealing would the movie billing be if the marquee read : "The life and times of Mohammed the Prophet...starring 'nobody' as Mohammed".

Dear BHS, Correct. Partially correct. The claim is that until 1991, they had WMDs. This part may well be false. They were unaccounted for, as was the paperwork documenting their alleged destruction. Very true, however...

Dear August1991, It is all about having will. (Your example could be straight out of Mein Kampf.) Hitler believed that not only were the strong meant to win out, they should take it in hand to eradicate the weak. This would 'purify' the stronger, ensuring their continued dominance. So, they started with eradicating the 'weakest eaglets', the mentally ill, with their T4 program. (You'll also note what sort of animal was glorified on the 'Reichsadler')In another thread, BHS opines that 'altruism is irrational' in economic theory. Indeed, if one holds 'the will to power' dear, then this itself is logical. Hitler's reasoning will also become more logical to you. Oppression isn't about the one eaglet being larger and getting more food, it is about realizing that this is happening, to decide it is a good thing, and then working to ensure it continues to happen. We must ask ourselves: "Are retards a burden on society or 'free meat'? Or do we grant them equal rights?" Having a choice is what makes us different from the animals.