scribblet

I have not insulted you in any way. If you think that pointing out that you are wrong is a form of insult, then you ought to understand that this is a forum. Opposing views are most likely to prove each other wrong. There were a lot of other posts that came from others who opposed my views. Some would be considered as personal insults....but I understand that sometimes, highly controversial topics such as this can get the better of even some educated ladies and gentlemen. They were just said in the heat of the moment and should not be taken personally. However, you have embarked on a personal attack against me. Even after my suggestion that we should take a break from one another. You are persistently attacking me with my every posts that no longer directly address you. I can take the heat, mind you....obviously, you cannot. I'd like to remind you of the Rules and Guidelines in this forum. I have explained that this is not painting all gays with one brush. I even volunteered the information that majority of the gay members have no knowledge about NAMBLA or any pedophile groups being members under the same association...that only the high level officials knew of it until the scandal broke out. If it is your purpose to goad me into turning this forum into trash, then you ought to re-think how this is reflecting badly against you. Others may just totally dismiss your rant...while others may silently reflect that you protests too much. Too bad we can't discuss this issue without someone starting with the slurs etc. Maybe we should be using the word pederast rather than pedophile. People are gradually being conditioned into accepting the lower age of consent and will eventuality have been conditioned enough to accept the lower age of consent for young boys. Self righteous or not I would prefer to err on the side of caution and protect the children. I see no reason for anyone, straight or gay to want the age of consent lowered to 14 for homosexuality, if not for nefarious reasons. My preference would be to equalize it all to 16.

Shapiro is way beyond pro-Liberal. He comes from the Montreal anglo/McGill University communitee that routinely gives Irwin Cotler approximately 80% of the vote in TMR. I should add though that he was an EXCELLENT president of McGill...I liked what he did for the university and he should come back to the city if things don't get better over in Ottawa. Hahaha... so Harper didn't do what he is bound to do because Shapiro is Pro Liberal? Give me a break. You are starting sound like a paranoid American conservative. Like Ed Broadbent, who called for Shapiro to be fired? It might have been inapropriate for Grewal to make the tapes which wasn't illegal, but Shapiro was wrong in not castigating Dosanji. Shapiro said he based his ruling on information from other people, not from info. on the tapes. Gee, wonder why ? Coyne has a good article on this: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ The Commissioner's selective ethics Andrew Coyne, National Post Published: Saturday, January 28, 2006 Give Bernard Shapiro, the Ethics Commissioner, credit for one thing: His inquiry into the Gurmant Grewal affair has established, as a general principle, that it is "an extremely serious breach" of the conflict of interest rules to offer any "reward or inducement" to a Member of Parliament in exchange for crossing the floor. Otherwise the report is a travesty from start to finish. To read the report, you might come away thinking the only person who did anything wrong in the whole affair was Mr. Grewal himself: not the former health minister, Ujjal Dosanjh, and not the former chief of staff to the prime minister, Tim Murphy, his negotiating partners for several long sessions last spring. Certainly that is how it is being spun: Mr. Dosanjh is now threatening legal action against unnamed persons, although allowing that he is in a mood for "forgiveness." First point: Mr. Shapiro did not vindicate Mr. Murphy, because he was not a subject of the inquiry, indeed "could not be." This in itself is debatable. Under the Parliament of Canada Act, the commissioner is required "to administer any ethical principles, rules or obligations ... for public office holders," including "a person, other than a public servant, who works on behalf of a minister of the Crown or a minister of state." Mr. Shapiro instead preferred to rely on that section of the Act confining him to investigating "ministers of the Crown, ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries" for breaches of the Conflict of Interest Code. Whether it is possible to "administer" the code as it applies to ministerial staff without the odd bit of "investigating" is I suppose a judgment call. Perhaps the law should be amended, Mr. Shapiro says, but "I am not in a position to unilaterally exceed my legislated mandate." Fair enough. Except that's what he does for the rest of the report. Mr. Grewal is convicted of offences that appear nowhere in law, but which violate Mr. Shapiro's personal sense of what is "appropriate." Mr. Grewal's surreptitious taping of his conversations with Mr. Dosanjh and Mr. Murphy, he writes, "is neither an illegal act nor a contravention of a specific Rule of Conduct." However, "I believe such conduct is inconsistent with the Principles of the Code," notably that which requires members to "fulfill their public duties with honesty and uphold the highest standards so as to avoid real or apparent conflicts of interest." ]Again, fair enough -- except, why was the same standard not applied to Mr. Dosanjh? Mr. Shapiro finds that Mr. Dosanjh did not offer any "specific" reward to Mr. Grewal: the basis for Mr. Dosanjh's claims of vindication. Yet he also finds that the case "presents all parties to the events in an especially unattractive light," that "they at least appeared to have very little interest in principle," that they engaged in "a conversational dance in which each was trying to ascertain what, if anything, the other was offering." Yet only Mr. Grewal is held to account for this "inconsistency." ........more on second page

He does, he will - coulda fooled me.

Yep, kinda like the unbiased Fox news. Fox news isn't subsidized by the taxpayers. The founding principle behind the publicly funded CBC television was to ensure that Canadian programs were available to all citizens. Today there are many other stations which offer Canadian content so the gov't no longer needs to raid the public purse.

No, But the left wants us to...they want us to think Harper is being anti-American now... Jason Kenney said it best...he said, when you talk to your friends, sometimes you've got to show some tough love. I think he's right... When Paul was being anti-American, they were all cheering. Now that Harper only showed a bit of steely determination....they seem to be criticising. No matter what he does, they try to find fault. Its going to be an uphill battle for Harper now, he'll be damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. We do need to vigorously defend our territory, after all what is ours is ours and we should be vigilant and target intruders lest someone should sail right in and claim Hudson's Bay as their own, I mean, you never know about these things do you. As a matter of realpolitik, should we seek a deal with the USA such that they recognise our sovereignty in the area in exchange for a perpetual freedom of the NW passage for US shipping?

So you're equating being non-caucasian and a woman with campaign irrelgularities? Just another stigma that would prevent her from getting votes? Whether or not she seeks it she hasn't got a hope in hell of getting it but there are some voters out there who wouldn't consider your first two criteria automatically disqualify anyone. What would the next election slogan be? Vote for Harper. He's not a ______ _______ (supply your own racial and gender based slurs, two words maximum). Good grief, how did you come up with that one, I thought she was saying she'd have a better chance of winning in these politically correct times, because she is a woman and visible minority. Strange how comments can be twisted to suit a purpose. The problem with discussion anywhere is that the fear of being called names e.g. racist, homophobic etc. is crippling the ability to filter truth from falsehood, and stiffling any real discussion of some issues.

I havn't read the whole thing just skimmed, but it certainly gives a lot of backup. its quite a research paper. It does mention NAMBLA more than once. Most of the public is by now aware of NAMBLA, a group that openly promotes sex with minor boys and claims that boy-lovers respond to the needs of the boys they love. NAMBLA is currently the target of a class action lawsuit by parents of children molested and, in one case, murdered by individuals associated with NAMBLA.20 Publicly, the mainstream gay organizations distance themselves from NAMBLA.

SOLUTION: Legislation passed this term stating that all voters MUST provide photo ID and proof of residency before being given a ballot.

At one time the G & M was right wing, not to so much these days. Check out the table in the G &M (Tue. or Wed.) that lists the seat count of Monday's election In a table normally you would list the highest amount first (at either the top or the left of the table) then go to the lowest in numeric order. So why does the Globe and Mail list the Liberals first and then the rest in descending order?

I heard yesterday that Manley has said he won't run, too bad I think he would have been a decent leader.

Which election promise? I don't think he promised anything about PR - he has talked about set election dates and more free votes, and of course Senate reform.

If you want to "protect our young boys," and making the age of consent for same-sex relations the same as opposite sex relations doesn't do so, doesn't that say that the age of consent for heterosexual relations is too low and should be increased? Whatever - and I didn't say that, I just posted information. I also said I disagreed with that part of his statement. Definitely the age of consent for heterosexual relations is too low and should be increased. Please provide your documentation about the FBI and NAMBLA.

Well said, I also agree about Wikipedia, it is not always correct, I prefer other sources. Bill C-250 is really a gag law. It's all about silencing debate and opposition.

When they say they don't want to lose the Monarchy and become a Republic like the US they're really only anti Bush ? Again, not wanting Canada to give up on its historical identity and become a Republic is nothing against the Americans. I think the U.S. is a great country, and I don't think Americans are so insecure as to perceive differences of opinion or policy as acts of aggression toward their way of life. Again, it's not anti-American to be anti-Bush, and it's not anti-American to not want to do everything just like them. I agree with with that bubba, but what will they say when Bush is gone in 3 years ?

I don't know the answer to your question but Chretien was Prime Minster at the time and I suspect he required that the Liberal Cabinet voted as he wanted them to. Once Martin became Prime Minister, the Liberal Cabinet voted differently. Perhaps Chretien was homophobic. Martin and the entire Liberal Cabinet did vote for C-250, the bill to make gay bashing a hate crime. Harper and most of his party voted against C-250. Even Chretien supported C-250. You'd have to be remarkably intolerant not to. That's not what C-250 was about and you know it. Its been explained over and over again, guess he isn't reading or chooses to ignore what 250 is really aboutl

They aren't, since: 1) There's no "Gay and Lesbian Association"; 2) As has been pointed out to you at least twice now, and which you've ignored completely, they're not advocating lowering the age of consent, but bringing the age of consent for homosexual sex to the same level as the age of consent for heterosexual sex, which is typically lower. Same difference, they want it lowered in the name of equal rights, but protecting our young boys is preferable and more important than 'equal rights' in this case. Actually I thought NAMBLA was founded by Kaptain Kangaroo and Mr. Rogers.... Nice conspiracy theory about the FBI though. LOL http://www.ccchronicle.com/back/2002_fall/.../opinions4.html Pedophile propoganda should not be protected by free speech By Katie Walsh Commentary Editor John West/Chronicle www.johnwestcomics.com There are some pretty unbelievable things in America. But nothing is more unbelievable than the North American Man Boy Love Association. Some of you may have heard of this disgusting group and others may think it’s a joke. Well it isn’t. It is a recognized group of men who support sexual acts between boys as young as 8 years old and grown men. NAMBLA was started in 1978 as a split group from a radical gay paper in Boston that was shut down by Massachusetts authorities. They have a website that can be accessed easily. The goal of NAMBLA’s website, journals and bulletins is to “end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships.” snip If anyone’s civil rights are being violated, it’s young boys who are confused and have access to a sight like NAMBLA or fall victim to its members like Curley did. The ACLU should worry about the civil liberties of children before they fall all over themselves defending the indefensible.

He's not quite over the "shock" of it yet... Bet we are back to Grewal tomorrow

I've always agreed that unchecked population growth is the real problem, curb that, and we solve a lot of problems. Pollution, hunger, unemployment. Anyone remember Zero Population Growth and the book The Population Bomb?

These sources are just as credible as any other, simply because you don't like them doesn't mean they are not credible. It doesn't matter if you perceive a source to be biased as bias does not apply to corroborated facts, as established through multiple sources. A bias impacts on the level of factual selection and the point of view only. Simply claiming someone is biased or not credible does not eliminate the legitimacy of their information. Whats a 'fundie' Somebody from the Bay of Fundy, or what? That is true. I think she meant "fundamentalist" like Christian fundamentalist. You know? Those people that are taking over the world with the quest for oil and world domination? Thanks. Did you know that the ACLU has been defending NAMBLA ACLU defends child-molester group Asks judge to throw out lawsuit against NAMBLA for 10-year-old's murder -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: December 13, 2000 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Julie Foster © 2000 WorldNetDaily.com The American Civil Liberties Union has asked a judge to dismiss what it calls an "unconstitutional" lawsuit against a national pedophile organization being sued in a wrongful death case after two of the group's members brutally raped and murdered a 10-year-old boy. The $200 million civil lawsuit, which charges the North American Man-Boy Love Association with wrongful death, was originally filed in Massachusetts Federal District Court on May 16. I have a link here I'll post with no comments, I havn't read it all, and can't verify itl. I don't want to do any searching, I don't like having it on my computer. http://us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf - Sexual Ageism and age of Consent

Sure. At $15K per year, that's around $180K cash money. If she worked to 65, that would be a 18K per year payback. And that is the 'noble' purpose of MP pensions, to compensate you for the years you take out of your career, and out of pensionable service elswhere, including self-directed pensions. The idea is not at all unreasonable, but the level of payout may be. Where did you get the 15k from, sounds high?

First of all, your "sources" are not credible. World Net Daily? Fox News? Second, paedophilia involves adults being sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. How does this have anything to do with Homosexulaity? Give it up, this is a red herring argument/outright lie perpetrated on society by the fundies. These sources are just as credible as any other, simply because you don't like them doesn't mean they are not credible. It doesn't matter if you perceive a source to be biased as bias does not apply to corroborated facts, as established through multiple sources. A bias impacts on the level of factual selection and the point of view only. Simply claiming someone is biased or not credible does not eliminate the legitimacy of their information. Whats a 'fundie' Somebody from the Bay of Fundy, or what?

Sure, but missing 12 years out your pension plan at that age will most certainly affect the pension due to her from the U of A. The time cannot be recovered. It is more than replaced by her Parliamentary pension, as qualified in my previous post. All I'm saying is that some compensation, pension or payout, is appropriate. You'd get some compensation scheme almost anywhere you worked at that level of responsibility, why should an MP get less? Actually it can be recovered, usually you can buy back the years of service if you are rehired. Its costly you have to pay both employer and employee. However, I'm guessing she won't need to with the hefty MP's pension she'll get.

I am not painting everyone with one brush. Not all homosexuals are inherently pedophiles. But the lobbying that happened and succeeded in Europe...and happening in other parts of the world makes me wonder why the Gay Rights Movement would even think of lobbying for this...especially if they want to distance themselves with NAMBLA. http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/mar/04030105.html Isn't NAMBLA along with Egale et al lobbying the U.N. to have the age of consent lowered? I read about that some time ago but can't find the link again.

So do I, and I do believe it was changed somewhat at the same time it became compulsory. Not quite as much gold plating.

From what I've read I believe it was deliberate - not to mention sour grapes.