Canadian Blue

The state must always have control thus invalidating our individual liberties. People create the state for the protection or our liberties, not so they can do away with them whenever they like. However the United States has the same issue with eminent domain, however people often have too much faith in government bureaucrats: http://www.reason.tv/video/show/56.html

I feel the exact same way. They sound awfully similar on foriegn affairs, the economy, the oilsands, etc. Sounds like Stephen Harper before 2006. Needless to say politics has a way of corrupting otherwise decent and principled individuals. I'm sure Jean Chretien would have been an upstanding lawyer if it wasn't for his foray into the political scene.

Which is a frightening prospect. Regardless, I will always stand up for the farmer or the community that doesn't want to be forced to have a highway or powerline built through their land. It's their land, they should be able to decide what happens with it. That's where I agree with the Green's in Alberta, the rights of the rancher should to do with his property as he wishes shouldn't be given up to help some corporation.

Jdobbin, do you have any opinion on issues outside of what a man or woman in robes might say. After all they aren't incarnated with the sole opinion in the land, what's your opinion on this matter?

They have a natural right to property which is granted to them once they are born. I am of the view that people are born with inalienable rights and that the government is not meant to decide which rights they may have but to protect their rights. Would you feel comfortable if the government took away your house and everything you earned without getting even your input.

Yes I know, my feeling is that their's nothing wrong with politicians being slandered. That's absurd, would that mean the Liberals wouldn't be able to attack the stupidity of that Tory aide. Why should people who take a large role in the election be free from criticism, especially when they're spin doctors and nothing else.

If you thought the Macleans case was a sham, just wait for this proposal to be implemented. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1275352 http://www.slate.com/id/2212662/ Given this story, and the United Nations resolution which would essentially ban criticism of religion; it's a wonder if 50 years from now we'll be looking for another Magna Carta to give us back some essential freedoms. Needless to say, journalists don't require regulation, should be free to work without fear of being punished by a governing body, and should be allowed a degree of independence from the government. The freedom of a journalist to write what they want is more precious than the feelings of a malcontent Islamic fundamentalist. Could you imagine if this was in place in the 1920's, we may have never known the genius of HL Mencken.

Warren Kinsella, the guy who seems to believe freedom of speech is a liberty which can be expediently thrown in the trash whenever someone gets offended. I really don't care when Warren Kinsella gets offended, it's basically a "dog bites man" story.

First the Tories begin musing about putting Alberta back into debt after creating a deficit, now they're essentially contravening property rights to get public projects the go ahead. http://othernews.ca.myway.com/article//200...1052364029.html Needless to say I am mortified by this. If a farmer doesn't want a powerline to go through is property he should have the right to refuse it or at the very least get the compensation he demands. I'm glad I didn't vote PC in the last election as this government has thus far acted incompetently when it comes to finances and has been arrogant towards individuals who want just compensation if public projects go through their property.

Be honest, the polls don't show the Liberals getting a vast majority in Ontario, it'll likely be similar to 2006.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14042..._after_dion_win They were at the 40% mark which is generally acknowledged to amount to a majority with the NDP largely flatlining.

Now while I don't think either of you support abortion as a first option, I'll just point out that if you're going to make an argument you should realize that this debate is about more than just privacy rights.

According to the numbers after the last Liberal leadership convention Dion was also headed for a majority government. Probably not, more or less because the Bloc is always resilient. You'd be banking on the Liberals winning nearly all of the seats in Quebec or Ontario for that too happen, it won't since the right's been united. But then again most of Liberal Party policies aren't fondly looked upon in the west.

Except that it's been shown that the fetus is a separate entity and with more knowledge we get from pre-natal care we can show that said fetus is far more complicated than many pro-choice groups made it out to be. That should give the question on whether or not we can play god with other lives, or for that matter simply throw out what could be human beings for being inconveniances. No, because half of those fetuses are likely female which makes that point moot. Ironically enough their was a study which showed that abortion was being used as a gender selection technique, some of the advocates at the clinics would attempt to talk women out of their abortions only if it was a female and the reason given was that a female fetus had alot of "potential." That must give you pause to wonder why they would care so much if a fetus had no intricate value. Likely because it does give you pause to think that their might be more to a fetus than many may think. Yes, it does give a blueprint for future human development. You've just made my point. I find the right to life to be more concerning than the absolving an individual of their biological and human responsibilities. But they still require the mother for sustenance, as nature generally intends. How about Jane Roe? To argue that people should not be allowed to be part of this debate is foolish. As well you make a presumption that women will always be pro-choice, even though it isn't so. I'm sure plenty of men are pro-choice, for decent reasons and selfish reasons. Dorothy Day didn't care for expectant mothers? I'm hesitant to exterminate life considered unworthy of life. Real ethics aren't consumed by soley selfish desires. If a mother throws her child in a dumpster, then I'd say the right to life trumps that of privacy. Not really, especially if that other entity can be considered another human being. Humans cannot perfect society by simply killing off undesirable life. When exactly did pro-life groups start opposing adoption? Did they argue that laws should be in places to make sure adoption is no longer allowed in Canada. I'm not a Catholic, so I can't presume to defend the Catholic Church. To argue so is absurd, but I don't think those orphans should have been aborted and then thrown into a trash can either as you seem to suggest. But it seems Russia would be the ideal place since 2/3's of pregnancies result in abortion if that's any indication of the kind of society we should be moving towards. But I do feel somewhat repulsed if someone were to kick a pregnant woman in the stomach, much more than I would if she was not carrying a child. But after watching an abortion I became far more sickened and became pro-life afterwards. But here's an important question, why are so many people shocked if abortion is used for gender selection? What makes it more acceptable to abort a male than a female: http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_...40184e503787025 http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/...efoeticide.html http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../lifeMain/home/

World War 1 was aggravated more by nationalism than it was by monarchism. That might be an oversimplification, but that's that the jist of it.

You're going to have to point out where they said it. I've never heard of neighbourhood watches being in conflict with the Charter. Go ahead, record the call, then post it hear for all of us to listen. I require a good laugh. Neither, you don't know what sedition is, if you did you'd realize that people are free to criticize the law and government of this country without being thrown in jail. However if the RCMP member was breaking the law by encouraging illegal activity he or she would likely be fired. But neighborhood watches aren't illegal so the point is moot.

Not really, if it's against the law and violates an individuals right to live then nobody would legally be allowed to buy said procedure. To make that kind of argument is absurd however. Since the crux of the anti-abortion argument is that a fetus is a living human being that happens to be in an early stage of development. So by your logic even if 100% of society were to agree that a fetus is a person you would say that infanticide should be legal due to the fact that you don't want Dr. Coathanger. However I'd question if you even know what the debate about abortion is about ethically. Not that simple, if it's considered an act of aggression against another individual then it would be libertarian. As I stated before, when your dealing with human life it's much different, whether it be in the form of a fetus or an elderly person. Not really, if you bothered to read any of Progressive Tory's posts you'll note that they tend to shirke any substance in favour of platitudes you would often hear on daytime TV. Mr. Burke doesn't have your back, likely because he made politically incorrect statements himself. Edmund Burke would have known this since he was often attacked as being "mad" for writing "Reflections on the Revolution in France." No it isn't, if I were to base all my opinions around what the mainstream media says I would have no deeper knowledge of issues. In fact in George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" he often found himself amused at how inaccurate media reports in Britian on the situation in Spain were. The media is largely based on sensationalism instead of substance, always has been, always will be. Actually Burke argued that society is not simply a contract with the living, but with those who are dead, those who are living, and those about to be born. I'm not sure if he would have approved of infanticide or abortion since it doesn't give much concern to those about to be born. That's minarchism. I didn't call her Joseph Stalin. I pointed out that her definition of "conservative" in the political sense was so abstract that it could be used for any politician regardless of how little they might believe in tradition, natural law, aristocracy, or free enterprise.

They never said Obama was in danger, they merely pointed out that it happened while Obama was visiting. I'm surprised that Canadian's wouldn't want the Russians to notify us before they fly sorties nearing our airspace. Ironically enough Dewar wants Canada to get out of NORAD and NATO, so we likely wouldn't even have the capability to protect our airspace. Nice job on not quoting the entire article by the way. How exactly is our reputation damaged with NORAD? You do know what NORAD is right. The thing is that this is hardly as damaging to our reputation as the reaction Europe had when Russia invaded George or when they slaughtered Chechens. Hopefully they don't hire pacifists who don't have a clue what NATO or NORAD is. First of all, NATO has always been in conflict with Russia, whether it be over Kosovo or Georgia. Second, you're opinions somewhat moot because it seems you're not in favour of us having a national defence at all. As well I don't take your opinion seriously because you seem to think that we should placate the Kremlin at all times. I'll tell you the truth, I would rather have someone the head of NATO who is willing to tell the Russians when enough is enough as compared to another Chamberlain.

More than likely, and I'm sure the Liberals would have made the same arguments. But I doubt said coalition would have gone ahead since you stated before that Harper was angry about Canada not being part of the Star Wars program, and any vote on that would have led to the downfall of said government. However I still enjoy this conversation, when Ignatieff said "we Americans" in a speech regarding his support for the war in Iraq you seem to conveniently ignore it. Not really, the Nazis would have nationalized the companies. They did employ Keynesian economics to their country to move the country towards a fulltime war effort. Just because a nation isn't motivated by profit, it doesn't mean they won't be aggressive, just look at the Winter War between Finland and the USSR. So you're just neutral on the whole fighting Nazism issue then? Which is quite a brave stand in this day and age. If you are a pacifist, if Canada were to ever be attacked by a hostile nation would you support immediate surrender regardless of the consequences? People have been at war before the time of Jesus Christ. As well you seem to forget that the theory of Just War came from Saint Augustine, considered one of that fathers of the Church.

About a month ago a poll said the Green Party was leading in Quebec, that just goes to show you how useless polling is between elections. If their was an election today, I figure we'd have a reduced Tory minority, however the west would still be solidly Conservative with just enough support in Ontario and Atlantic Canada to form a government. But I will say this, the biggest loser seems to be the New Democrats. It would not surprise me if they were to lose close to half their seats to the Liberal Party. They had a chance to deliver a deathblow to their opposition and blew it. Ignatieff was showcasing his intelligence by not going forward with the coalition. It would have been disasterous for the Liberal Party brand, I doubt anyone would have wanted to be tainted with that disaster in waiting. Now Ignatieff can go around fundraising, delivering speeches, and building up grassroots support. This will make the Liberals a threatening force in the next election. With regards to having a majority or a minority, chances are we'll be in a perpetual minority situation in Canada. With a united right the CPC can shave off just enough seats in the east while maintaining their western stronghold to deny the LPC that chance. Without those 100+ seats the Liberals got in Ontario they'll have to build bridges out to western Canada, which will be difficult considering their support for centralized government and opposition to Senate reform.

You have to read the whole thing:

The Holocaust never came into it's full stages until 1942, as well Hitler took out more than just the Jews. Their is no such thing as a rewind button when it comes to history. In the darkest days of 1940 would you have supported surrendering to Nazi Germany? Unless you happened to be one of those unlucky Jewish Parisians, in which case it would have solved alot of problems. Not really, yes I've read the letter and it simply asks the GG to consult with the opposition if an election was called. I'm assuming a real Christian is someone who votes NDP and for nobody else, correct? So their is not such thing as self defence? But even with regards to greed you seem to believe that politicians should mandate compassion, so that's not really a Christian attribute since the state has absolved an individual of their duties. When was that exactly, I don't recall being told by my superiors that the Canadian Forces was in the business of ethnic cleansing. However you do realize that your pacifism would still result in massacres in the world and people being killed, the only difference is that you don't want any western nations to intervene. As for World War 1, yes I would have opposed that war and Woodrow Wilson screwed up the entire continent due to his intervention. However I'm not given the oppurtunity to rewind history and take an ambiguous position on whether or not I would have fought the Nazis.

What, I thought if we just sang "We are the world" while roasting marshmellows over a fire we'd have no more war.

Actually you do, that's why you seem to have a blind cultish attitude towards Ignatieff. Actually, that was those of us on the board pointing out that you were angry because Harper used the word separatist and was too friendly with the United States, then we pointed out Ignatieffs support for the war in Iraq and torture, which you conveniently ignore. Nice dodge, that still doesn't answer the question. Would you have supported taking action against Adolf Hitler when he attacked Poland. Would you also support disbanding the military as well in accordance with your pacifism? Actually we didn't have the government subsidizing political parties before and it wasn't the end of democracy. No, it doesn't Have you ever read how much money can be given by supporters of political parties, it isn't that much. Most of the money the CPC got came from the grassroots, something the Liberal Party and Bloc don't have. There you go again. Have you ever thought that their might be more to fundraising money for political causes than those evil evangelical Christians? You mean the separatists weren't separatists in 2004. You mean like the lie that the party that advocates an independent Quebec is a separatist party? That lie? But it's rich to see you complaining about rationality since your tirades tend to have no substance, mix in a hatred of Christians, and complete ignorance of any subject your talking about. This country's always been divided, you must have just come out of a deep sleep. But Stephen Harper is still technically the Prime Minister of country, whether you like it or not, it's a fact. No, they weren't. Can you actually name a single political party that has no fundraising activities? Ever notice that most political parties have websites where you can choose to donate money? You mean money that is taken from the evil evangelical Christians who want to turn us into an Aryan theocracy? PS: The last point was mocking PT's contention that if the CPC were to be in power only white males would have any say in politics.

Already been quoted, it's where you stated that you want to gut all the military, RCMP, CSIS, and the CBSA, so you could get a free college course. We can afford, it's just that our welfare state is also stretched to give unproductive people money. Actually, it is. Especially if said immigrants can use the welfare system and don't pay any taxes, which will be a net drain on the treasury. I never stated I hate them, I simply pointed out the problems in there system. I'm sorry if that offended you, perhaps if we lived in Cuba your socialist feelings wouldn't be so easily offended. Yes, back when they had no welfare state, low taxes, and assimilated said immigrants. Yes, and without money from provinces that encourage free enterprise it likely wouldn't be doing as well. He wasn't in Gitmo. Actually you can criticize the government in the United States. If you can't tell the difference between the United States and Cuba than you're already showing your far-left credentials. Batista was definitely better than Castro. But then again you likely have strong sympathy for the butcher of Cabana. I never stated Batista was my friend, I'm pointing out your love affair with Stalinist regimes is typical amongst suburban Marxists. So you're essentially the spoiled brat whose currently in rebellion against his parents and showcasing his full support for slave states. I actually stated before that the US shouldn't support dictators. The difference is that I don't have a dangerous love affair with totalitarian societies because they provide butter. Of course, who doesn't want a totalitarian system to fail. You remind me of a certain brand of leftist Orwell termed, a right wing communist.