jefferiah

Still I have never had an experience of someone coming to my door telling me I am going to hell. Have you really had this happen that often? But even so, if you think what they are saying is malarky well then you can just dismiss them. If they believe you are going to hell if you don't follow a certain religion that is their right. If you dont believe them, then dont believe them. They are not trying to offend you. You dont have to be so sensitive, Kimmy and Gnam. I have had lots of people put down things I like and believe in.

You do have a right, Gnam, to ask people not to preach to you. Most people are not big fans of it. But at the same time I think Betsy is defending Christians in general against an exaggerated claim that they are forcing their religious beliefs on people when the proselytize. And she is pointing out that if a young girl approaches someone to promote what she believes she is not forcing anything on anyone. If people don't like what she says they will survive. Idealogies don't have to be religious. There are political idealogies. Lets say I happen to agree with one political idealogy while I find another distasteful. But there is a man on television who argues in favour of this other idealogy. He is not forcing his beliefs on anyone. He is promoting them. I used to think the same thing of Christians. When I was younger I felt all Christians were judgemental, bigoted meanies. But I came to realize that most of this was just something that I picked up from other teens, rather than based on actual experience with Christians. Looking back I cant remember experiencing any attacks from Christians. And most of my friends who would say things about Christians and church-goer people---well, it just seemed to be a popular thing for them to say almost, without any reason. None of them had experienced any interference from the Church in their lives. Honestly Gnam. How often do Christians come in direct contact with you and literally force you to do things? Not promote their beliefs? But force you to recant heresies, and to swear allegiance to the Church. How often do you have to deal with religious people busting your door down and taking your family to be burned at the stake? How much difficulty are you really dealing with when it comes to the church?

What I am saying is not doing something that may be better just because it is more American would make you stupid. It may be better? Who says, you? Sorry if If I laugh at that thought. But you don't really know anyways do you? This is just your oppinion of what would be better. Maybe what we have is already better. Then you would be stupid to follow the American lead wouldn't you? If you love american values and lifestyle so much, I hear they let people move there. Staying somewhere a person isn't happy, when they could go where things are done the way they like them, sounds pretty stupid to me. He doesnt have to move there. He has a vote and an opinion. If a politician proposes a system more like America's (and for a good reason, might I add) and a Canadian voter chooses to support him what business is that of yours. In essence you are saying, if you don't like Liberal policies you aren't Canadian, and you can leave. And Liberals call Conservatives unfair. I agree with reducing federal power. Canada is a large country. With all the power concentrated in Ottawa you have a central government making decisions for every individual region of Canada, regions they may have lost touch with. Individual regions have individual situations. Creating one policy for all does not always work.

I dont know if this was posted before. Canada-based gangs dominate U.S. ecstasy trade http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/11/16/drugs-border.html

Stoning? The ten commandments I am familiar with pertaining to 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' or 'Traditional Catechetical formula'. No, I don't want to get religious but only quoted the ten commandment relating for a preliminary base pertaining to morals, nothing else. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/arch...ism/command.htm I think the penalty for smoking marijuana shoud be getting stoned.

sorry.... i made a mistake...."at the cost of not allowing free choice to prevail"

Liberals are certainly not very liberal, are they? I think they are not far from being communists. I ask that Liberal supporters consider these issues and understand why we dont support them. I ask that you reconsider supporting them yourself. I understand that people want equality. But it is not always because of discrimination that things do not even out. Employing interventionist policies that seek to eliminate discrimination by making the numbers even would only make sense if, in a society free from discrimination, everything would work out in even numbers. Although in some cases this might prevent certain acts of discrimination from happening, it would do it at the cost of allowing free choices to prevail....including choices that are not based on discrimination but on reason and attention to qualifications. What are the reasons that women are not as prevalent in politics? Is it simply because of discrimination? Ask all the conservatives on here whether or not they would vote for a Liberal male simply because the Conservative candidate was female. Maybe there are less women interested in politics. There could also be other factors. People look at the numbers in certain situations and when they are not even they say "Oh, well this must be discrimination." I dont think women should be discouraged from politics, but I am not trying to keep them out. If you want to see more women in politics then you could begin by trying to encourage more women. Consider this gender parity proposal. How would this be enacted? The most fair way to implement this very unfair policy, would be to require gender parity in each party. But then you could still not achieve gender parity in parliament. Let's say the Elephant party won the election, but the candidates who won were primarily from one sex and not another. Would we then have to go back and ask people to change their votes? This would be highly unfair, to both sexes, potentially. And if gender parity was not required of the parties then in some cases the party with more men or women would have to win seats simply because of their sex in order to fill the quota. This is the fallacy behind much Liberal thinking. It is certainly not liberal and does not allow freedom of choice or democracy. This is closer to communism. And this attempt to make everything even will end up being more unfair than the perceived problems in the first place.

You know this whole gender parity thing causes me some concern. I think a lot of voters might buy into this platform simply because it promises equality, and maybe many people won't see that these are the wrong means to equality. I have no problem voting for a woman, and I dont think most Canadians have a problem voting for a woman either. What matters is policy. If I agree with a candidates policies than I will vote for them, woman or man. But there is no way this gender parity could work at all without taking away the right to choose all canditates due to policy. Gender parity rather than making the political system not about sexuality, will make it more about sexuality. Male and female candidates will be guaranteed so many positions whether they are good politicians or not-----simply because they are male and female and the numbers will have to even out. I think voters should be made aware of this because I fear people supporting it because it promises a good result, but delivers them unfairly.

Agreed Geoffrey. Why should Quebec be given this special priviledge of being a distinct nation within a nation? Why not anybody else? If you want to be within this nation you should be part of this nation and thats it. Quebec is only as distinct as it's effort to be different and to highlight is difference, not by nature. Of course western Canada has its own culture. Are we going to have to start playing this game now of who is more a culture than anyone else?

Did the party have a policy about how to deal with income trusts or was that just a promise? Didn't the Conservative party appoint a floor crosser to a cabinet position, appoint an unelected man to the senate and fire an MP, without reason, who was nominated and elected by the people then refuse to allow that card carrying member of the party to seek nomination again? Considering that the entire reason for your existence on this forum seems to be for the promotion of the CPC it may be in your best interest to steer clear of using the word democracy in your arguments. Wot in ell does that all have to do with gender parity The point is you seem to have a problem with gender parity in parliament and its detremental affect on democracy yet you support every move made by a party that doesn't give a rats ass about it. Its not that people dont want women in politics, its that we dont want equality to be enforced by numbers. Imagine if society were completely free from prejudice. Do you think in such a society an equal number of people from each race and each sexuality and each gender would naturally just have the same career? Do you think this would all work out magically with an even number? Enforcing such a policy would be detrimental to democracy. It says you have to vote for so many women whether you like it or not. Not voting for a woman does not mean you dont like women, it means you didnt like the candidate no matter the gender. This is the same logical fallacy in affirmative action times 100.

Faith and reason do not go hand in hand. Faith is believing in something that has no proof. My question stands... on what grounds should any of your moral views, grounded as they are in a religious belief that you yourself say people are free to adopt or not as they see fit, carry any weight with anyone? In other words, why do you think your moral opinions should matter to anyone who does not shre your taste? Lol. Has the military wing of Jesus camp busted down your door, gnam, and forced you to join them?

Maybe we should take a list of people Carolina McBride doesnt like and refuse to acknowledge these people.

lol. This is funny.

I liked Kramer alot on the show. I liked them all actually. Kramer and George being my favourites. I think George was under-appreciated by many fans. Alot of great plots and story lines were based around his quirkiness. And lets not forget J Peterman, the soup nazi, Morty and Helen Seinfeld, Frank and Estelle, Uncle Leo.

Thats true. Proselytizing is annoying for alot of people no matter what the religion is. But nonetheless this is not forcing beliefs on people. Its just promoting them. Would you say campaign ads are forcing political ideas on people.

My fave Beethoven is the first movement of the 6th symphony....Pastorale.....

No I dont dislike the Beatles because they are rock and roll. I think there are some really really talented rock musicians out there. Queen was a pretty good example, Supertramp as well, Rush. I like the Beatles too, I just think they are quite overrated as musical geniuses.

So you can see how its possible for someone to believe that homosexuality is not morally correct and not be a hate monger? You admit this possibility Rue? It seems to me that you just did, and I appreciate that very much. Good point, I dont think people become gay out of viciousness. Even though we stand on opposite sides of the morality of this, I dont think gay people are vicious or renegades. My personal belief it is an illness, weakness though I dont think this has to be taken as an insult because I think most people are ill in some way.

Like I said, I don't have kids, but I would never hotbox one if I did. That would be totally wrong, and weed isn't even a carcinogen. Weed does contain carcinogens. Less variety of carcinogens than cigarettes yet there is a far great concentration of tar.

This is a pretty good story JBG. Sounds like a great fellow.

When the highest court in the land Gerry rules in favour of your own ideas they are "infallible elite geniuses". But when you disagree with a ruling Gerry you make it known to everyone. If Harper had a high-fat breakfast tomorrow you'd be telling us Gerry.

The highest court of our land had considered that question and ruled accordingly. I suspect you know substantially less than the court does about it. Gerry here you are walking in circles. When it comes to you making a complaint about society and its established rules you say what ever you want about "the man". But when I do it its because I am not as knowledgeable as the highest court in the land. What information does the highest court in the land have Gerry that I am not privy too? Maybe I am too dumb and uneducated Gerry to understand why a girl can be suspended from school for bringing a paring knife for her apple, and Sikh kids can wear daggers. Yes, thats it. Complete idiocy on my part Gerry. Maybe we need people like you to explain this to us. Maybe we are all racists unless we start leaving our eating utensils at home and start allowing people to bring knives to school because they are of another culture than our own, and to disagree with someone from another culture----thats pure racism...isnt it. We can only disagree with our own. If a person of another race says 2+2=5 well we all must agree.

Gerry to some degree I agree with this statement, to some degree I dont. I think you either don't understand or fail to aknowledge that alot of the disagreements with Muslims are over political issues. I could care less about whether someone is muslim or sikh. But when it comes to a Sikh wearing a kirpan to school while a girl in grade three gets kicked out for having a paring knife in her lunch kit, I think there is something ridiculous about that. Do you not see the reasoning behind this? Or does merely disagreeing with the political views of minorities make one a racist? I suppose people who think reparations for great great great grand parents who were slaves are all racist too. This could never have anything to do with the fact that some people might see it as ridiculous that people can claim that society owes them for something that happened to a very distant ancestor. You know what would you think if I sued you and your family if it was discovered tomorrow that your great great great grandpappy was Jack The Ripper and my great great great grandma was one of his victims.

If Hamas and Hezbollah don't want to face the wrath of Israel they should stop provoking them, instead of picking petty fights with a strong man and then later crying about how you got beat.

When it comes to acts of war, I have said this before. You can't blame Israel for having a better army. When they retaliate it will be stronger. If a man comes into my house to attack me with a baseball bat, and I have a gun in my hand do you expect me to look at the man and say "Wait a minute. He only has baseball bat, I have a gun. This is not a fair fight. I will go get my bat out of the shed.?