Canadian Blue

Good, I'd like to see a large reduction in stockpiles of nuclear weapons right around the country. However I doubt the US will ever be completely rid of nukes, I'd say they should keep a couple just to act as a deterrent more than anything else. Their is no reason for their to be thousands of nuclear weapons stockpiles in todays world.

No, only you. So you're just supportive of money going to crappy films that many Canadian's would find offensive. How vague, I find most polls to be not respectable. Actually you did, that's why you posted a single article. Yes, and I'm sure if I was a teenager with cable I would have enjoyed it on Showcase on a friday night for one reason only. Is that why you have no issue with money going to the Walrus, a magazine which does discuss politics. Well their you go, I'm glad that you now recognize that all grants are bad, regardless of which party does it. This is a big first step for you since you first confined your criticism to one party only instead of the program in general. Perhaps you will be able to criticize government policies based on the policies instead of soley on which party is advocating it.

If the Conservatives are far from the Centre I can only assume the NDP is the equivalent to the Mike Harris Tories.

You mean you feel superior to other people based soley on the fact that you walk around with a sign that says "End Poverty" instead of actually working at a homeless shelter or soup kitchen?

Yes, and Baywatch was one of the most watched television series of all time. Doesn't mean we should fund every single piece of crap that comes onto the market. If you like "Young People Fucking" so much you should stop forcing other Canadian's to fund it. But this has been enlightening, I think I might get a video camera and just film penises flapping in the wind for about an hour and a half since people like you think that's worth funding from the Canadian taxpayer. I could make a decent living off it.

Who cares, it's much like how the Liberals are only pro-Toronto/Montreal when it comes to most policies they espouse. They rarely care about the rest of the country and why should they if those people don't vote for them. Well considering the fact that separation has been a topic in the west for some time then it's not outside of the realm of reason to allow a magazine to print an article on it. I would rather the media report on such topics as compared to your tactic of digging your head in the sand or screaming "lalalala" whenever it comes up. Key difference, said blackmail is telling Ottawa to butt out, not asking Ottawa for more art subsidies. I've seen many polls by respectable organizations which have asked westerners about their support for western separation. All you're saying is that the magazine "fans the flames of separation" by pointing out what issues these people have with confederation. Perhaps if someone like yourself would actually respond to them instead of saying we should all bow down to the Liberal Party you'd be touting a different line. I think you should give me a break friend, you're the one arguing that a piddly amount given by bureaucrats to a magazine with a single article on western separation is tantamount to being anti-Canadian. They've reported on polls on separatism, which apparently is akin to fanning the flames of separation in your world. Yes, we all know that you think Canadian's should be forced to fund crappy movies. I didn't object to the movie because of the title, I objected to it because it was a crappy piece of art. Really, is that why you're so angry about a tiny amount given to a magazine in the west but fully supportive of funding the Walrus. No, more or less because the comment was true. Since you can't tell the difference between those who advocate for more power to the provinces and full fledged separatists you just have to make things up. So any person who opposed the National Energy Program or supports Senate Reform is "fanning the flames of separation." You've likely never read the "firewall letter" more or less because it's better to be ignorant and make idiotic statements then know the truth, plus it confirms your pleasent fiction that all Conservatives secretly want to break up the country while only politicians from Toronto can save us.

Actually Roe vs Wade took the issue out of the hands of the states and made it legal right across the nation. Most countries have restrictions on abortions, European countries have restrictions for example. You've missed the point, again. You've stated that we should allow abortion under any circumstance, with the exception of sex selection because you deem it to be morally wrong. You are just as guilty of "shoving morality" down peoples throats as pro-life individuals in that you do oppose abortion if it's done for politically incorrect reasons. You're for abortion in just about every other circumstance unless it's done for sex selection, which is a hideous double standard. Yes, because men have never taken roles as a parent in relationship of a child at any time in history. As well I haven't heard of a single case where males were involved in the reproductive process either. You might have a point if a father had no emotion attachment to his child or children, but they unfortunately do. As well it's doubtful that men have no effect on whether or not a woman gets an abortion, infact I'd venture to state that most men do support abortion because it allows them to sleep around and never have to take responsibility for their own stupidity and lack of common decency. We haven't been quite successful in abolishing humanity yet, but I'm sure we're getting close. Awe yes, if someone doesn't support abortion they are automatically indoctrinated. First of all it's already been proven that you don't have to religious to be pro-life as you've stupidly claimed ad nauseum. Why 23 weeks gestation, a fetus has been found to survive outside the womb at 21 weeks. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article597136.ece http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/feb...h.lifeandhealth Unfortunately many on the pro-life side in the United States fail to mention that such procedures are costly. It's hideous that few members of the "religious right" have ever supported universal healthcare to ensure all children in the United States can get access to healthcare. Apparently the difference between a human being and a meaningless fetus is a couple of days.

Really, so you have never once had sympathy with any of the policies of the Bloc Quebecois? Yes it is, the "firewall" was meant to give Alberta more power under the Constitution. Stop being blatantly dishonest, nobody was fanning the flames of separation, the only people who fan the flames of separation are people like yourself who say that anyone who disagrees with the Liberal Party has to be anti-Canadian. The Liberals and most of the left in the 2008 election. Which was reporting on the separatist movement in Western Canada, hardly out of the range of a political magazine and if it influencing politics then I'd hope someone would acknowledge it instead of putting their head in the sand as you seem to prefer. If anything we do have solid proof that the best way to get what you want out of Ontario is to become separatists. It's worked for Quebec after all and Ottawa was more than happy to do everything they could to please the government there. By stating that a magazine which only reported on the separatist movement was for the separatist movement, which is idiotic since we have newsreports on the Quebec separatist movement all the time. Second, by stating any support for a firewall to protect Alberta from intrusions by a hostile federal government is akin to separatism. Which once again, isn't true. No, the difference is that I've stated I'm against all subsidies to the media. You on the other hand want Canadian taxpayers to fund Liberal friendly media only. Big difference, I believe in a diversity of opinion in the media, you believe people should be forced to fund newsmedia that agrees with the Liberal Party and the left. Really, their have been no stories on the separatist movement in Quebec? I've read plenty of articles and stories by seccessionists and decentralists, whom you seem to think have no real differences. Needless to say I'm not hypocrite unlike yourself in that I'd oppose funding for the CBC, Young People Fucking, the Walrus, and the Report. If you weren't such a partisan hack you would oppose funding all media, but of course, you only want what's best for the Liberal Party.

Hold on, Progressive Tory is on to something, recently noted social conservative/religious fundamentalist/neoconservative intellectual Noam Chomsky has stated his opposition to Human Rights Commissions. http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2...ion-period.html

How is reading statements from Ignatieff's book akin to the government "saving souls." But you basically have stated people who disagree with you are evil. Much like when you stated all pro-lifers only care about human life up until the actual birth, which has been thoroughly refuted. Either way, I love how you talk up this fanciful notion that you're a "Red Tory." Which doesn't really ring true considering your support for a massive managerial state in Ottawa to run peoples lives instead of the communitarian conservative based upon tradition and prudence which was once espoused.

Yes, I've never heard of ethics ever coming into the abortion debate. [this is sarcastic for a reason] Do you know anything about Christianity? Do you know how many sins one is capable of committing, according to Christian, Jewish, and Islamic, doctrine homosexuality is considered a sin in the same vein as sex before marriage and adultery. Why you think religious people shouldn't be able to hold those beliefs amongst their community is beyond me. Needless to say I'm sure with your ilk you wouldn't mind jailing Mennonites, Hutterites, Christians, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Hindus, and many others who view homosexuality as a sin. By the way, plenty of people hate the CHRC. Including Johann Hari, a gay journalist in the United Kingdom who was vehemently opposed to the case brought against Macleans. Perhaps he's a homophobe in league with the conservatives as well. Protection is relegated to the police service and military, everthing else is secondary. Protection is a different concept than providing welfare for citizens and abolishing the duties and responsibilities of citizens to their fellow man. You do realize you just contradicted yourself in that you pointed out that voluntary organizations are able to keep people fed but should essentially be abandoned in favour of a bureaucrat in Ottawa attempting to redistribute food.

This has already been disproven PT. You still can't argue coherently and continue to hold this belief that Conservatism has it's basis in the Jacobins and the Cult of Reason instead of Edmund Burke and the Monarchy. First of all, the hippies who are protesting war aren't really protesting war as much as our involvement in it. They really don't care if 250,000 people get slaughtered in Sudan as long as Canadian soldiers don't intervene. With reference to poverty, once again it's easy to walk around with a sign that says "End Poverty," any idiot can do that. But it takes far more time and commitment to actually work at a soup kitchen and homeless shelter, to actually put your own money towards charity, and to fund a daycare for single mothers as many Churches in my community have done. This might come as a shock to you but people who might disagree with your political viewpoints are sometimes compassionate and charitable and not the evil demagogues you make them out to be.

Probably because it does inhibit their freedom to speech and religion. What you're basically saying is that parents shouldn't be allowed to raise their children as they wish, then you might as well ban parenting and the Church and replace it with the state. If someone doesn't approve of homosexuality, anal sex, or other promiscuous lifestyles, they shouldn't be punished by some bureaucrat for it. I don't approve of sexuality aimed at children in advertising and some sexual behaviors, it hardly means I'm guilty of a hate crime. Yes, people who argue that sexual promiscuity, pre-marital sex, and homosexuality, are immoral should be guilty of hate crimes. That would make our society so much better. What? I have not seen any mainstream church's which have supported criminalizing homosexuality in Canada, that might be true of the dominionist movement but not of Christianity in general. I've heard plenty of religious people argue that their children shouldn't be exposed to pro-gay material at an early age due to a conflict of religious beliefs, but that's hardly an example of criminalizing homosexuality. Relatively recent laws by the way. If a person says something stupid they shouldn't be jailed for it, they should be ridiculed. Believe it or not Progressive Tory you don't have ownership of other peoples tongues. This idea that we should give all power over to the state when it comes to what we say is authoritarian at best. I'd even go so far to say that you're far more authoritarian than must Christian's in Canada considering you opposition to freedom of speech, thought, and religion. You just stated Church and State shouldn't be divided, and that it's perfectly reasonable for the state to shutdown Church's and imprison religious folk who dissaprove of non-traditional sexual behaviors. What you're essentially saying is that the state should have supreme control over the Church in all matters. Therefore you do not believe in a separation of Church and state. Yes, I really wish politicians would discuss those things. Is this just some pleasent fiction you have where everyone that disagrees with you is evil. Anybody who pays attention to politics will realize that the lionshare of political debate in the commons is about the economy, the environment and healthcare.

Sympathy isn't the same thing as supporting full fledged separation. As well it's not blackmail if the calls are more or less for the government to butt out of the affairs of their community. Don't you think that most people in communities want to have some say over how their federal taxdollars are spent instead of seeing their incomes lost to buy votes in Toronto and Quebec. That's what Harper proposed, you're the one who's comparing it to full fledged separation. Which it really isn't. How many people have shown some sympathy with the goals of the Bloc Quebecois? With that kind of abstract thinking I'm sure most people would be considered "separatist sympathizers." Yes, which is why you still haven't posted it here. Yes, we all know that you only want tax money to be funnelled to media outlets supportive of the Liberal Party. You still can't provide any articles, not to mention the fact that you basically stated that those who support decentralization are no different from separatists. So considering the fact your belief that separatist is anyone who once in a while attacks the Parliament of Whores in Ottawa, I'm not sure you can make a half decent case that this magazine is a full fledged separatist magazine. But I like how you're all for funding shitty art but then are aghast that a tiny amount of money goes to a magazine devoted to political discussion. According to your logic we should never have the Bloc Quebecois or PQ members on the CBC as that would fund "separatist views."

Who would y'all support? I have to admit that I'd be somewhat hard pressed to choose one party over another. While I largely reject the NDP I find many things admirable about the Conservatives when it comes to education [school choice] and the Greens when it comes to political decentralization and renewable energy. However the Greens have some idiotic policies, like removing all tasers which shows a genuine ignorance when it comes to the realities of law enforcement and use of force. While the Liberals have provided a fairly steady hand during tough economic times, I'm somewhat galled by their overturning of their balanced budget legislation which was meant for times such as these. My vote for a provincial party would likely go to either the Greens or the Conservatives. When it comes to the referendum for STV, I would fully support the change and vote yes. I find STV to be a good balance between proportional representation and the old first past the post system.

I should rephrase that, the government should ensure that in the transition those who are selling it aren't tied to organized crime as it is now. Agreed. The only reason people are supportive of "decriminalization" is because they think it's a nice middle ground between fighting organized crime and allowing a few teenagers to smoke up without getting a criminal record. However it's absurd when you think about it since it could very well allow organized crime to make more money off of that policy. We might as well legalize it and tax it instead of take these baby steps that won't solve anything.

Bush/Cheney, you don't understand. Everyone realizes that the human emotions of hate and intolerance are confined to only those people who vote Conservative and go to Church more than once a year. The Liberals, NDP, and Green Party never suffer from the emotions of hatred and intolerance and are only ever compassionate and loving. The research bears this out: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...iberal_giv.html Now if only those evil Christian right wingers would stop being so damn charitable and instead let the government handle the work of compassion.

Yes PT, our government fuels so much hate and intolerance. Before Stephen Harper their was no hate and intolerance in Canada and we all played in the grass under the rainbow with gumdrop smiles.

Funny thing is that George Grant would likely never be welcomed in your group. More or less because he was absolutely opposed to abortion and supported a public role for Christianity. A Red Tory is someone who is socially conservative with reference to conserving institutions like the monarchy, church, and tradition, while economically nationalist. They favour a communitarian verson of conservatism. I wish people would stop bastardizing conservatism to mean implicit support for the central managerial state. Yes, I'm sure all conservatives hate homosexuals PT, what a great insight. That's odd, I could have sworn I've known many Christian Conservatives in my community who volunteered at the food bank and in their community, donated to charitable organizations, and were generally compassionate towards their fellow man. Perhaps they, unlike yourself, think compassion isn't relegated to marking an 'X' on a ballot. It's just that your not really all that conservative, have no real support for a decentralized government which puts more decision making power to townhalls rather than a bureaucrat in Ottawa, nor do you seem to support tradition that much considering your entire modus operandi is to argue that these Christians hate homosexuals, which really isn't the case. Atleast not in the Church's I've been to.

Can you link me all the articles in the Report which supported western separation? I have not seen many and in most cases it seems the magazine is in favour of a DECENTRALIZED federal government. No, you're pro-Ottawa. That's why you're opposed to any politician defending their province against intrusions by the federal government. Wow, who would have thought that a magazine with an obvious philosophy would have opinion columns. I gotta say though I love the double standard as you have no problem with funding the Walrus which tends to lean to the left. I was responding to the ignorance of Progressive Tory. Which is a frivilous claim at the moment, since from the contents of the magazine I've read they are calling for DECENTRALIZED government. Something which is different from full fledged separation. As well most of the magazines content is CRITICAL of Stephen Harper's government and the budget. No, because you weren't able to provide any cites showing that it's a full fledged separatist magazine. The only sympathies with separation is IF the federal government takes more power away from the west and put's it back east, thus creating a situation where separation would occur. It's amazing that you can't tell the difference between stating what conditions might come about for separatism and supporting a full fledged separatist movement. However you aren't very principled in your argument since you still support funding the media as long as it's touting the pro-Ottawa managerial state line.

Canada shouldn't decriminalize marijuana as that would still allow profits to go to organized crime. I would favour a moderate route to legalization with stringest regulations on the trade.

Then by that logic since a baby cannot survive without it's mother if it is in the wild it's not really a human being since it comes at the expense of it's mother. No, it comes from the ultra-right wing pro-life media at the CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/06/21/...-selection.html This is absurd, especially considering that notable atheists Nat Hentoff and Christopher Hitchens have both espoused pro-life views. As well women are serving a unwilling incubators because they had the unfortunate disposition of being born human with certain human responsibilities. Many recognize the processes of decivilization. So which arbitrary stage should a person be considered worthy of life exactly. Is it based merely on the ability to survive independently of others. But the child still cannot survive without the care of another human being, and it's considered a human responsibility to care for a child. Not to merely throw a baby in a dumpster when it becomes inconvenient. Actually the reference my dear sir was to laws put in place to end sex selection abortions. Unfortunately you didn't really recognize the irony in people saying abortion is fine and great and should be used for the most frivilous of reasons with the exception of sex selection abortions. It's ironic that many of these clinics will do everything they can to prevent a female from being aborted and talk about the possibility of the fetus doing great things, but no so when it comes to a male. Awe yes, so we should acheive equality of oppurtunity when it comes to abortion. It's funny that you're in favour of abortion for just about any reason at all, but get angry that it's being used for a purpose you find offensive. I thought that their was no intrinsic value to such an entity, but I suppose I was wrong. You should take your own advice and "stop shoving your morals down peoples throats." What fun to watch someone make an idiotic point which somehow infers that all women are pro-choice. Perhaps in the minority of cases, but in the vast majority it was due to a lack of birth control use. That's a great way to end a discussion by saying any person with an opposing view should simply butt out. Perhaps we should have that kind of logic with every issue, when it comes to education the only people who have a say should be parents. On welfare the only people to have a say are actual welfare recipients. With regards to the military the only people to have a say on funding and overseas expeditions should be military members. With criminal justice the only people to have a say will be the legal profession and law enforcement. But this debate will go nowhere, especially if the best the other side can come up with is that people shouldn't have any say on the issue and that they're not for abortion when it's done for politically incorrect reasons. It'd be nice if their were some principled defenders on the pro-choice side who'd argue for full rights to abortion regardless of the reasoning behind it.

Jdobbin, a question if I may. Do you honestly think that any person who favour more decision making power being made at the provincial and local level instead of a central managerial state is automatically a separatist intent on destroying the country? I'll be awaiting your answer. Or are you of the mind that Ottawa is far more intune with the needs of St. Johns and Red Deer than the actual residents of those communities.

Here is what I can tell so far from the debate: Jdobbin thinks that any person who wants to see more power devolved to the provinces and municipalites at the expense of a federal bureaucracy and the Liberal Party is a separatist intent on destroying Canada. Progressive Tory still has no clue what a "Tory" is, but has taken up the word because she's extremely ignorant when it comes to political philosophy and doesn't seem to understand she's a welfare liberal.

Which would be Constitutional by the way, but then again I guess the Constitution is anti-Canadian. So you do support funding newsmedia as long as it's extremely pro-Ottawa. Yes, he's basically abandoned all of his principles while in power. What exactly is "fanning" the flames jdobbin? What are you talking about? Is this the same Richard Nixon who brought troops back from Vietnam, created the EPA, and put in place the Endangered Species Act. Much like saying any person who supports decentralization is automatically Richard Nixon or a separatist. No, you're just saying that only central Canada should have a voice in how it's run.