scribblet

I think they are, it would be better to discuss policy rather than label people. Heck, I'm conservative but I've no idea if I'm blue or red.

Good Lord thats hardly 'fanatical religious propagation of irrational thought', if thats all you can come up with I guess can breath a sigh of relief.

The municipality of Kingston recently announced that it may have to rethink' its child care plan in light of the fact that Harper intends to cancel federal funding for provinces creating child care 'spaces'. Get this!; the $2.3 million earmarked for the project was touted to be creating 160 child care spaces.- thats about $14,375 per space. What in ell are these seats, in a pre-kindergarten class or rescue helicopters?! Gee whiz folks, am I the only one who is shocked and appalled that the Liberals could shill for a National Day Care program that will cost Canadian tax payers nearly $15k per child per year? If their stated goal of providing 1 million new 'spaces' were realized, it would add $15 Billion! to the federal budget. That is insane. Of course by liberal government standards they might think its a bargain - before Harris the Ontario government was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for every "affordable" housing unit built by the government. I suspect that the McGuinty Liberals are back at it now with their spending on new "affordable" housing in Toronto. This is one of the reasons why government shouldn't be in the business of running business. Of course they're not really in business. The Liberal plan wasn't about providing child care, it was about lining the pockets of the Liberal establishment. The more government spending there is, the more that can be siphoned off for friends. This is one of the reasons that they are so hysterically opposed to the Conservative plan. So many people are being cut off from the gravy train.

No, get out and give them a chance. Get out and reduce thier suffering. It's quite simple. When almost half of the population says it's OK to attack US troops and 80% want the US out it's time for the US to leave. Regardless of intentions they're no longer effective...no longer able to rally any positive movement. Stop speaking in purely rhetorical terms and address the realities. Please. If you think their suffering will be reduced when the U.S. leaves, I think you need to take your head out of the sand, the country will fall into complete anarchy. Many more will die at the hands of their own people, as they are now. If they had a referendum, and the people voted the U.S. out, then I would say they should leave, but until these different religious factions can learn to control themselves and get along peacefully it will be a mess. That is, until another Saddam like dictator comes along and takes control, hopefully he will be more benign.

http://www.realwomenca.com/analyses/analyses_01.htm Radical fem. groups have gone beyond wanting equality, they have become as bad as the establishment they were trying to overturn. Their agendas are not about equality anymore but about overturning the nuclear family. Even Betty Friedan warned, that this anti-marriage agenda places radical feminists profoundly at odds with the family aspirations of mainstream feminists and most other American women. The true force behind this, is nothing but a hate movement against all things male in Canada. A good example of this kind of hate driven male bashing, can be clearly seen by the Federal Liberal Government, and The Status of Women radical report they funded. Father's rights groups are now under attack by radical feminists, they are slandering them and taking away their rights on the taxpayer's dime. Like many of these groups, the radical feminist groups have passed their best before date, and we now see the pendulum swinging too far the other way. Real Women to me, are a more moderate and representaive of women today. I don't agree with everything they do or say, but prefer them to NAC, they jumped the shark a long time ago. Real Women are

Tommy Douglas was an anti-semite, he wrote a telling thesis while in University, I used to have a link to it, will see if I can find it. I agree it was a different time and era and he wasn't much different than many at that time, but he isn't the saint some people would have us believe.

Say what you want about Bush, but at least you know where he stands. No governing by polls, or whatever way the political wind is blowing at any given moment *cough* Clinton *cough*. Good for Bush. He's taking a political chance with this stand as many people, and not just in the bible belts, firmly believe that abortion under any circumstance is wrong, to ell with the life or health of the mother. Can he do anything about this, or do they have to take it to SCOTUS ?

People only make those accusations when posts bashing Harper and the U.S. become different from normal constructive critique of a government and policies and go well beyond that. It becomes anti Americanism/Harper at its most radical. It differs from normal constructive criticism in that the goal is not to advise, suggest or fix what is seen as wrong, but to repudiate and destroy. It views every U.S. or Harper action, no matter what, from the beginning until now as oppressive and evil. It does not see the U.S. or even Harper as being wrong in some instances, but everything they do is wrong, no matter what. There is a mean spirited conviction that the U.S. cannot now or ever do anything right and these convictions hold even when the U.S. is giving aid and helping and their soldiers are dying while peacekeeping. There is a feigned self righteous intellectual and cultural superiority over Americans and there is no satisfying them. This often results in painting anyone who remotely likes or agrees with anything the U.S. , as being un-Canadian, and anyone who critiques the liberal government and doesn't uphold what is seen as 'liberal values' are now anti-Canadian and should of course 'leave' This type of knee jerk bashing usually stems from a feeling of inferiority and has resulted in Canada's once proud military being reduced to penury and has prevented Canada from playing a role in the global battle against terrorism.

You really believe in Real Women, you're kidding aren't you???? Why would she be kidding, I'd take Real Women over that other radical group, and Real Women do not get government funding.

Then you need new glasses, because I was heavily involved in pay equity and the process and have never been threatened. I'm still not clear on your response, I assume, but correct me if I'm wrong, that you are trying to compare the situation of Muslim women to that of Canadian women in general its not clear. Pay equity is a well meaning attempt to equalize wages by comparing apples to oranges & who would object for equal pay for equal work, but really, think about beauocrats assessing different jobs for their "value" by weighing skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions - how objective is that - its not, -it can't be done. Pay equity is basically a kind of wage control since it takes wages out of the marketplace and turns them over to the arbitrary attention of government workers & their politically appointed tribunals. What they should be doing is comparing wages on a job to job basis. The wage gap is closing as today's women are better educated, choose more skilled positions, have children later, or not at all in order to get ahead, systemic discrimination is no longer an issue for the most part. The fairer way is to make sure that women are paid equally is to guarrantee equal access to education, skills training & job opportunities. Canada is no Afghanistan or Iraq. Ah so I suspected, you were heavily involved in pay equity, Ha Ha. I heard those arguments, you were against it obviously. You were not in a small town where the good old boys gave the plum jobs to their friends and then made nasty comments to because well educated clerks were expected to work for minimum wage and were told that women should not be working anyway and they should be glad to have a job. You had not worked and improved yourself and were told that you were only worth minimum wage. You did not see your staff fired illegaly and saw them forced to accept it because family worked in the community and would be punished if they said anything. People like you are what I am talking about, you have no idea of what some women are up against in this country and it never changes. I don't know exactly what you 'suspected', and things do change and have. I am certainly in favour of full equality, that is equal pay for equal work. I am not in favour of a politisized, beauracratic establishment making subjective decisions based on a usually puffed up account of the actual position. Although, from my experiences there were some valid cases and the women were compensated. As I said, women are making and have made strong gains and will continue to do so as long as they acquire the education and skills necessary to advancement and job requirements. I'm female, and have worked since 1962, so I know exactly what you speak of so please don't try to suggest I don't know what I'm talking about. If you can provide a source or backup for your statements it would be useful, otherwise it is simply a subjective view of what happened, it would be interesting to read both sides of the issue. I don't doubt that a small town would be further behind in accepting equality for women, but that too will change. However, any kind of harrassment and illegal firings can be taken to court or a human rights tribunal, the laws are there to back up such claims. There is absolutely no comparison between Muslim women under an Islamist theocracy and Canadian women. Canadian women can if they choose acquire the skills necessary for advancement, but there are some jobs that women cannot do for obvious reasons. I've never been a radical feminist, but have always had independence and have worked my way up the ladder. I worked full time taking two mat. leaves, and am reaping the benefits of a good pension and security. (I do work part time on contract because I still enjoy being involved). As an aside, from my experiences I would rather work for a man than a woman anyday.

There's a good article here from a local newspaper in Jutland (ever heard of Jutland before?, I think it says it very well. We should all support Denmark. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/810 It is true that the Western press has been grossly offensive to religious people in the past, mocking their beliefs and morals, hurting their feelings, insulting them. From the BBC to CNN, from The Guardian to The New York Times, the dominant media have never been squeamish about giving offense. snip Last Friday Jyllands-Posten [The Jutland Post], the paper that published the original drawings, ran a remarkable article “Man pisser på os” by Per Nyholm, one of its journalists. Here it is, translated for you into English by one of our Danish readers. This is how the Danes feel today: [b[We are being pissed upon [/b] snip And yet Denmark is being pissed upon. The spokesman of the US State Department is pissing on Denmark, the British Secretary of Foreign Affairs is pissing on Denmark, the President of Afghanistan is pissing on Denmark, the Government of Iraq is pissing on Denmark, other Muslim regimes are pissing on Denmark. In Gaza, where Danes for years have provided humanitarian aid, crazed Imams encourage people to cut off the hands and heads of the cartoonists who made the drawings of Mohammed for the Jyllands-Posten newspaper. Excuse my choice of words, but all this pissing is pissing me off. What is going on? I am not referring so much to the threats against Danish citizens and Danish commerce. Nor to the burnt down Embassies. I am thinking of a word that keeps popping up whenever the Mohammed cartoons are mentioned. That word is BUT. A sneaky word. It is used to deny or qualify what one has just said. How many times lately have we not heard people of power, the Opinion Makers and others say that of course we have freedom of speech, BUT. They have said it, all of them, from Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, to our own Bendt Bendtsen [a Danish Politician]. Once we had to be sensitive to the easily hurt feelings of the Nazis, then came the Communists, now it is the Islamists. The reason I say ‘Islamists’ is that I do not for a moment believe all the world’s Muslims are pissing on us. I think we are dealing with thugs, fools and misled people. Those are the ones we have to deal with, and then the chickenshit politicians. The cartoons are no longer something Jyllands-Posten can control. They have already been manipulated and misrepresented to the point that few know what is going on and fewer know how to stop it. This affair is artifically being kept buoyant in a sea of lies, suppressions of the truth, misconceptions, lunacy and hypocrisy, for which this newspaper bears no blame. The only thing Jyllands-Posten did was provide a pin-prick which has made a boil of nastiness erupt. This would have happened sooner or later. That it happened more than four months after the publication of the cartoons, raises a question of its own. Are we dealing with random events or with a staged clash of civilizations? One might hope for the former yet be prepared to expect the latter. That is why I say: Freedom of Speech is Freedom of Speech is Freedom of Speech. There is no but. Initially I was doubtful of the timeliness of publishing the cartoons. Later events have convinced me that it was both just and useful to do so. That they are consistent with Danish law and Danish custom seem to me less important than this: that we now know that remote, primitive countries deem themselves justified in telling us what to do. Unfortunately we must also note that governments close to us are agreeing with them in the name of expedience. It was right and just for this newspaper to launch an offensive for Freedom of Speech, and useful, as we have now acquired new knowledge. Welcome to a brave new world where even our Prime Minister – in spite of his laudable firmness – must gaze out upon a scorched political landscape. True, his friend in Washington, George Bush, has uttered the customary condemnation of the torching of our embassies, but his State Department alludes to us as being the guilty ones in this case. The suggestion that Danish troops might contribute to democratization is buried under the charred remains of our diplomatic representations in Beirut and Damascus. Perhaps it is time we started mopping up this mess. Perhaps Editor-in-Chief Carsten Juste ought to remove his apology which has gone stale sitting so long on the front page of our internet edition and which does not seem to interest the madmen. Perhaps our government ought to announce to Mona Omar Attia, the strange Ambassador of Egypt, that she is persona non grata. Perhaps the ambassadors that have been called home to fictitious consultations in the Middle East should be told that they may spare themselves the cost of the return ticket. In so far as possible The Lying Imams probably ought to be expelled. And then we ought to make an effort to support those Muslims who in a difficult situation have proven themselves to be true Citizens. We, for our part, have no wish to be a burden to the Arab governments. We will happily withdraw our soldiers, policemen and diplomats. If they think our money smells, we will retract our aid. Our trade must make do as well as it can. We promise to not bear a grudge and, in time, we will be glad to return, but we are through with the hypocrisy. We have better things to do than being pissed upon at our own expense. Cut down our activities in the Middle East. The world holds plenty of other opportunities.

Easy to see that you never had to fight for "pay eqity" for your staff. They still threaten one in Canada for standing up for their rights especially women. Then you need new glasses, because I was heavily involved in pay equity and the process and have never been threatened. I'm still not clear on your response, I assume, but correct me if I'm wrong, that you are trying to compare the situation of Muslim women to that of Canadian women in general its not clear. Pay equity is a well meaning attempt to equalize wages by comparing apples to oranges & who would object for equal pay for equal work, but really, think about beauocrats assessing different jobs for their "value" by weighing skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions - how objective is that - its not, -it can't be done. Pay equity is basically a kind of wage control since it takes wages out of the marketplace and turns them over to the arbitrary attention of government workers & their politically appointed tribunals. What they should be doing is comparing wages on a job to job basis. The wage gap is closing as today's women are better educated, choose more skilled positions, have children later, or not at all in order to get ahead, systemic discrimination is no longer an issue for the most part. The fairer way is to make sure that women are paid equally is to guarrantee equal access to education, skills training & job opportunities. Canada is no Afghanistan or Iraq.

I'm not surprised, there's little difference between the two.

To Margrace, just asking again in case you missed it., Could you explain that and what you mean by "attitudes of supposedly enlightened countries such as Canada." I always thought Canada was one of the more 'enlightened countries', but Canadian sensibilities won't allow us to send the military anywhere to free women, or anyone else. We are only supposed to be peacekeepers, we don't go into any country to liberate anyone, so can you please clarify your statement. Are you saying that Canada should take a firmer stand and send in troops to liberate Muslim women?

Oh it goes a lot further than that. If your cottage is under the 100 flood levels then you may not even be able to sell it. A property that had frontage on the river has now lost it and has seen their properties left devalued. Many people own properies of more than 100 acres, through which the Magnetewan River meanders. Our neighbours own property on both sides of it now within the protected wet lands. You see Geoffrey is right when he says that people do not pay attention to what is going on. That's why they get government and laws that they suddenly find are taking away their rights. The USA has much stronger private property rights than we do but it is becoming increasingly the habit of local governments there to seize private lands. Not for roadways, railways or other needful things, but for increasing a tax base. An older couple were losing their home because a high rise would create more of a tax base for the city. Evidently this has become a common practise there. If the MNR is allowed to set a prescident by their actions then you all could suffer. Isn't it time we looked into some of these supposed protective actions of theirs. We don't have property rights enshrined in the constitution as do the Americans, the NDP is totally against it, liberals have never wanted it either. Whether or not the Ontario liberals would be willing to review this, I don't know. Does this Lands for Life allow the MNR to sieze property, I doubt it. However, it all seems draconian, but I'm wondering if we have to make a choice between conservation and property rights. The U.S. has the Eminent Domain, which has been expanded by their supreme court, thus enabling municipalities to sieze property 'for the public good' . The reason given is that an expanded tax base provides more funding for the whole community, thus, more libraries parks etc. In some cases, its a crock, but at least under eminent domain, homeowners are paid market value.

Actually, what is happening around the world seems to be ignored, or at least political correctness doesn't allow the media to say it; but if you want the short version, a Muslim demonstrator in Toronto the other day put it very well: ''We won't stop the protests until the world obeys Islamic law.''

Many Muslim women can't read or write. In fact, the more severe Muslims believe it is wrong to educate women at all. The Taliban banned girls from schools. No, there are no female imams or prayer leaders. Hell, the Saudis won't even let them drive cars. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060224/wl_ca...wN5bnN1YmNhdA-- In the 1860's a civil war was fought in the US, supposedly to free the slaves. For the next 100 years these same slaved were pursecuted. Before the Talaban took over in Afghanistan the Afghan women had a lot of freesom, there was mass pursecution when the Men too back their country form these women and many were left to starve to death. This was used as part of the excuse to attack Afghan. The women in the Moslim world are no better than the Slaves of the US, will it take another 100 years to promote freedom given the attitudes of supposedly enlightened countries such as Canada. Could you explain that and what you mean by "attitudes of supposedly enlightened countries such as Canada." I always thought Canada was one of the more 'enlightened countries', but Canadian sensibilities won't allow us to send the military anywhere to free women, or anyone else. We are only supposed to be peacekeepers, we don't go into any country to liberate anyone, so can you please clarify your statement. Are you saying that Canada should take a firmer stand and send in troops to liberate Muslim women?

They always have been combat troups, do people think they are using rubber bullets or what? Harper's doing good so far, hate to see the complaining when Parliament actually resumes.

????? If that is humour its a poor attempt, please read the rules of the forum.

Any people involved in terrorist training or similar activities should be deported. Google does seem to be messing with some areas and is censoring some corporate ads. They have discontinued some ads because of “unacceptable content” and/or “language that advocates against an individual, group or organization.” Google seems to going against some with core values of free speech and assembly.

I agree it is a 'code' word for left wing, in fact, I read a thread on rabble where they would like to see progressive incorporated in the NDP title, but can't because progressive conservative is still in use (Joe Hugelin's party). It is also used to infer that anyone not left wing is not progressive, actually a clever use of the word to disseminate intolerance towards anything remotely conservative. http://www.funkmeisters.net/2006_02_01_iamfunk_archive.html WHAT IS "PROGRESSIVE CANADIANISM" "Progressive Canadianism" is the assumption that everyone is "progressive Canadian" and the belief in the inherent normality and superiority of being a "progressive Canadian". "Progressive Canadian" assumptions are made and reinforced in all areas of society. Some examples that occur in schools are: Albertans are crazy, Christians are radical right-wing extremists, and there is not such thing as a "radical left-wing extremist".

Here is a link explaining it, I'm not clear on all of it myself. http://www.wildontario.org/whatis.html My understanding is that more land is protected for conservation. I don't think the land was siezed or taken from the owners, just protected from development. It means ifor example, thqat in many cases cottagers cannot build docks or improve their shoreline in anyway. I don't think this has devalued the property, its just a nuisance, and irritating to think that an owner cannot improve their own property. I guess we have to weigh the pros and cons and how much do we really care about the environment and our wild life.

I agree that the threads on prayer mats could be considered offensive by some. However, if you ask people to not post anything derogatory or offensive to Muslims then you must also ask the same of those who insult Christianity, and other religions. It is not too bad in these forums, but there are other forums where the attacks on Christianity are almost paranoia and a phobia. How far should we take this, should we not discuss pigs or pork for fear of offending some one? The cartoon issue has certainly reinforced the stereotyping of Muslims, not to mention that the violence and rage over this is offensive to westerners. I would hope that the more moderate Muslims will prevail in these issues, and maybe some clarification on some of the verses in the would be helpful. Maybe it would be helpful for us to know why some Mullahs and others continually preach 'Death to the Infidel' etc. and why they put a bounty on the heads of journalists and writers. I'm sorry that you find some of this offensive and wish that more Muslims were like yourself, however, the Muslim world has not given us any reason to believe that our freedoms are not at risk. By asking people to not discuss some issues, it is also reinforcing the belief that that we must give up our rights in order to pacify one religion.

I have seen video of Muslim women protesting, dressed in the full Burkas. When I do, I often wonder how much they really know about an issue, I have a feeling that many of them (maybe not in Jordan for instance) are only there because they are told to be there. How much are these women allowed to read or know outside of what the men want them to know? Havn't done any research, but I doubt that Muslim women would be allowed to be in movies, well at least not without male chaperones.

It sure does, usual double standards, its only wrong if the U.S. or Bush does it. I'm pretty sure if Bush was vetoing the deal, he would be wrong. But should we or the U.S. really outsource the running of our Ports to any foreign gov't. I'd say not