jefferiah

There is point at which the battle for good health is good and healthy, and also a point at which trying to control your environment so as to eliminate all toxins becomes obsessive.

Good point Riverwind I dont have any argument with that. But I think now there are some examples of almost phobic revulsion against tobacco smoke, comparable to germaphobia. A little bit of smoke now and again isnt the end of the world. Smokers inhale smoke directly from cigarettes daily for years and years and years. Having to put up with a smoker in a doorway, or put up with a smoker once in a while is not going to kill you.

You cant always judge a leader by the situation of the country while that leader is in power. Mulroney inherited the legacy of the Liberals who came before him, while Chretien and Martin inherited the legacy of the PC Mulroney government.

I think there are a lot of people who would disagree with you. I have heard many people say that Mulroney initiated the climb out of the debt with the GST, but the changes did not take affect until after his career in office. Could the liberals be taking credit for Mulroney's work?

I think somewhere between the rudest of smokers who dont even try to be considerate about their smoking and do not extinguish cigarettes when asked politely by the parents of a severe asthmatic in a restaurant and the equally militant extreme anti-smokers there is a happy medium. Alot of smokers I know are very considerate of others, while some seem ignorant of how annoying it can be for non-smokers. Also I find many anti-smokers make a big a deal about the slightest whiff of smoke. In an enclosed place with multiple people smoking it can be very very overwhelming-a house more so than a bar. I know many smokers who would agree with this. But things are pretty good now. It was only a decade ago when smoking was anywhere and everywhere. Malls, bars, stores.....you name it. So once in a while if a friend who smokes picks me up to go for a coffee and they crack their window for a puff, its not so unbearable and I dont get all worried about my health because as I said....ten years ago smoke was everywhere.

That's why it doesn't have to be an an all-or-nothing approach. Let them by all means wear a burqa walking down the street but when it comes to going into a business establishment perhaps other rules need to apply. Well this might be a better idea. I think you understand I am not trying to dictate what people should wear. I never even said I agreed with the ban or not. I am undecided. I just said that I think there are some good reasons for it. You mentioned girls scantily clad and Hasidic Jews, etc....but as far as I know none of these examples can compare to the disguise aspect of a burqa, which I fully realize is not the intent in the burqa in the first place...but nonetheless.

I think you know people often misjudge what people mean when they say when you are in the west you should act western. What most people mean when they say this is that they should have respect for our culture over here and not try to complain about it so much or soften it because it is offensive to them, or change our rules to suit them. I think it is ridiculous that Sikhs can wear kirpans to school. In Canada you dont bring daggers to school. Sikh or not. This isnt about turning immigrants into Moosehead swilling hockey fans. Its about expecting them to be tolerant of the established traditions in our country without making complaint about them when they are not hurting anyone. An RCMP officer wears a particular uniform. So this is what is expected of all RCMP officers. We are not talking about forcing people to become Canadianized. But if I get a job for the RCMP I wont fight for the right to wear my Habs Jersey as part of my uniform. This isnt about starting an assimilation police as the leftists seem to say. Its about keeping our own policies in place for everyone and expecting people who move here to comply with them.

The burqa issue could be about more than a dress code issue. Whether you agree with it or not, I think the motivation behind it has more to do with the face being covered than making an actual statement against Islam. There could be a man under there with a gun. You could conceal anything, and this is scary if you work in a bank. In a lot of cases the burqa is like a ninja suit complete with a baliklava.

And also because you later referred to Leafless having a gay hissy fit. YOu can say that you meant it only as an insult in leaflesses world, while you think it is not. I am not imposing anything anti-gay on you at all. Your use of Christian sense of humor is tacky. I think mostly because your use of wit is weak, and no matter what your opinions are on this matter, you are no comedian. But you tout yourself as one it seems since those who dont laugh at you are Christians with no sense of humor.

How is that insulting? I think being gay and showing one's balls to others is wonderful. I am not the one connotating being gay with something bad. Stop imposing your anti-gay concepts on me. I just love Christians with no sense of humour! Imagine Adam being Leafless. Is it so hard for you to laugh at flapping testacles or is this subject so frightful that all we can do is talk about sex in simplistic terms such as bad and good and dirty and evil. Sexuality is not frightening and need not be. You are backtracking on your use of it as an insult Rue. I cant prove it to the other posters here can I. BUt you know it.

Perhaps the reason that calling homosexuality a sin is treated as bigotry (even when it does not necessarily mean one is hating them but that one does not condone it) could be because of the fact that homosexuals have endured much hatred from people. So the distinction between those who believe it is wrong and are understanding, and those who use wrong-doing as an excuse to laugh and joke about it and have a gay-bashing holocaust is reluctantly made. Even though I sympathize with this reasoning it does not make it right. The fact that someone has historically been a victim of something does not make them right on every issue and does not mean that those who disagree with them are promoting hatred against them.

Actually I dont think we can conclude Rue that Leafless hates gays. I basically what his posts meant are that he believes it is wrong and unnatural. To believe something is wrong is not hatred. One can like, love, enjoy people who they think are doing wrong. My parents loved me when I did wrong. I may have missed something in his posts. But I dont think he ever said gays should be denied jobs, or food, or should be victims of a Holocaust as you afore mentioned. Maybe he does harbour hatred. But I don't think we can conclude that from anything he has said. Also, I believe that simply believing homosexuality is a sin is not bigotry or hatred. Whether you agree with it or not it is a moral standard according to this mans faith. Having this moral standard does not mean one should go out and mete out punishments for those who do not comply. Zen Buddhists do not punish meat-eaters. Hindus don't punish hamburger eaters. Do you understand? Believing something is sinful is not always hatred.

Actually Rue the "insult" was exchanged twice. And you were the first one to use it. Back when you said you knew why he was called Leafless.

If you had any balls you would be addressing the topic and not this heterosexual poster. Obviously you don't. Only a homosexual would post the type of post you did trying to belittle, embarrass and intimidate in a truly homosexual fashion. Actually I did respond directly to what you said. Leafless I also note in your response you became obsessed about my testacles which again proves my point. Tsk tsk. Listen Leafless, you started a post but it is painfully obvious you are engaging in expressing hatred about gays and their lifestyle and not engaging in debate as to a political issue. Not only do I have the "balls" to call you on it, I also say without hesitation you are a hate mongerer because you can't come to grips with your own unresolved issues of being gay and I think your last comments to me evidence that. If you think my analysis is unfair then think before you write. Think about why you attack gay people with such nasty generalizations. You aren't the first nor will you be the last anti-gay basher who in his late 60's will finally come to terms with himself. Until then if you can't deal with it, do us all a favour and stay in the closet and keep yourself away from gays because in case you haven't noticed, they have the right to live in peace and freedom and do what ever you think it is you do as an alleged straight man. p.s. I would have told you my last post was tongue in cheek but you probably would have had a gay panic attack over that expression too. Miss Jay rules. Play fair Rue. To say that someone being anti-gay means he is actually repressing homosexuality is like saying that someone who is anti-war wants to go to war. It's like saying when a person does not consent to sex that they really want it deep down. I am playing fair. To try use a political forum as a pretense to intellectualize hatred for the gay lifestyle is what I am confronting. It is no more unfair then making generalizations that necessarily slur each and every person who is born gay. It is no more unfair then labelling gays as being abnormal and being singled out for discriminatory treatment. Think it is unfair? Ask yourself this. Why is it and you have seen blatant examples of it, recently in the U.S., why is it, when a politician usually quoting the Christian Bible condemns gays and homo-sexuality, he is himself living a closeted gay life style? How many times do we see people preaching the virtues of a clean Christian life, and trotting off to prostitutes in their spare time? Sorry but when I read such diatribes must ask, what is it that generates someone to feel the need to single out gays and atempt to rationalize that we should discriminate against them and talk about them in a hateful way? Not fair? Is it fair to try use Christianity as a pretense to justify hating gays and discriminating against them? No Leafless opens himself up for such comments tonque in cheek or not because all of us are allowed to ask, why the hatred? What is at the root of such dialogue? Do we have people writing in posts saying hetero-sexuals should be discriminated against? Why the preoccupation about what gay people do unless it frightens Leafless. Sorry when I read such diatribes I can easily take out the word gay and replace it with blacks, Jews, what-ever-and it comes down to one thing-the person doing the condemning is externalizing his own anxiety and fears outwards on these people because he won't deal with it internally. Hitler found it easier to blame Jews then admit he hated himself and used Jews as an extrenalization agent to make him feel better about himself, and that is precisely what hatred and prejudice is, individuals who blame others and externalize their negative thoughts on these people, rather then come to grips with them. No one, absolutely no one who tries to bastardize Christianity or any religion to justify hating and discriminating against gays is playing fair and they deserve to be called on it for precisely what it is. And I am proud that Leafless thinks I am gay. Gays died in the holocaust precisely because they were gay and of course I will never forget that. It would be hippocritical of me to fight anti-semitism and look the other way when people preach hatred for any other group. I am not being self-righteous, just saying it like it is when I see someone spreading hatred. Well Rue, I dont know. If a pastor in a million is discovered to be homosexual I dont think it means that all people who believe homosexuality is sin because the they believe the Bible says it is sin are secretly gay. Do you believe this genuinely? Also, the thing is whether you agree with Leafless calling homosexuality abnormal or not, you were out of line. This is how you dealt with it. Rather than arguing in favor of your own point, you called Leafless a closet homosexual. It seems you were using homosexuality as an insult, although you claim to be on their side. Now you could claim that you were using homosexuality as an insult simply because it would be an insult to Leafless, and not the really believe it is an insult. But I think you ruled out this possibility with this comment: "but you probably would have had a gay panic attack over that expression too."

Beatles are highly over-rated. Musical genius my butt. Mozart, Beethoven, Dvorak.......this is music.

If you had any balls you would be addressing the topic and not this heterosexual poster. Obviously you don't. Only a homosexual would post the type of post you did trying to belittle, embarrass and intimidate in a truly homosexual fashion. Actually I did respond directly to what you said. Leafless I also note in your response you became obsessed about my testacles which again proves my point. Tsk tsk. Listen Leafless, you started a post but it is painfully obvious you are engaging in expressing hatred about gays and their lifestyle and not engaging in debate as to a political issue. Not only do I have the "balls" to call you on it, I also say without hesitation you are a hate mongerer because you can't come to grips with your own unresolved issues of being gay and I think your last comments to me evidence that. If you think my analysis is unfair then think before you write. Think about why you attack gay people with such nasty generalizations. You aren't the first nor will you be the last anti-gay basher who in his late 60's will finally come to terms with himself. Until then if you can't deal with it, do us all a favour and stay in the closet and keep yourself away from gays because in case you haven't noticed, they have the right to live in peace and freedom and do what ever you think it is you do as an alleged straight man. p.s. I would have told you my last post was tongue in cheek but you probably would have had a gay panic attack over that expression too. Miss Jay rules. Play fair Rue. To say that someone being anti-gay means he is actually repressing homosexuality is like saying that someone who is anti-war wants to go to war. It's like saying when a person does not consent to sex that they really want it deep down.

26

While Christians do believe in end times I have never heard any preachers talking about speeding it up and blowing something up to initiate armageddon. I think maybe these examples are a few wing-nuts. Christianity teaches that no one knows the day or the hour when the end will come. It does not teach not having a future. I think there may be those who corrupt this teaching but they are wing-nuts, not the general God-fearing Christian population.

Our trade balance with the Chinese is lop-sided, to say the least. We export mostly raw materials(about $7b), and we import manufactured goods(about $25b) Chinese imports undermine our own manufacturers, and China routinely violates all international trade laws, from mislabelling to using slave labour to counterfeiting. China sells finished goods abroad, but they don't like to buy them. If Bomardier, say, gets a contract to supply trains in China it will be required to go over there, build a factory, teach local workers, and then build the trains there. They will then be heavily pressured to re-invest what profits there are in China. If they want further contracts they'll go along. This helps Bombardier's bottom line. But it does not much help Canada. How about we make a deal with China? They want to sell electronic goods, etc., here, they come here and build factories. Elsewise, get lost. Of course we have to beg!When one of my sales leads cancels an appointment I don't give up. The onus is on the salesperson (Canada) to sell the product. The onus is not on the customer (China) to take the first step. In the face of rejection, a salesperson makes follow up calls, sends free hockey tickets, whatever it takes to get "in the door" and promote the commodity. If I waited for the customer to make the buying decision without my input I woudn't be much of a sales rep! We have commodities to sell and need buyers to buy them Let's reserve begging for better customers.

The Chinese cancelled the meeting. We aren't going to beg them to buy from us. Harper acted with dignity in this case.

I am sure Betsy knows smoking is not healthy. She is just saying she does not believe that second hand smoke is the terror some people make it out to be. I don't agree with her, but I do think that there are people who do make it worse than it is. But it is definitely unhealthy. I think when they say it is worse than actually smoking they are not being rational though. Smoke from the end of the cigarette is stronger than filtered smoke, but a smoker is inhaling clouds directly through a tube, whereas second hand smoke scatters. Second hand smokers cannot exhale clouds of smoke. But I know that it is unhealthy and I think smokers should step outside, especially if there are children in the house. And the public smoking ban has been a great thing. Alot of smokers even agree now. I know a lot of smokers who smoke alot less now and find it more enjoyable not to be in a smoke saturated atmosphere. But as for the advertising. The tobacco companies can no longer say smoking is healthy. Its been like this for years. They have warnings on their product. But people still choose to do so. And I dont see why they cant have taste or pleasure related ads to promote it.

Because it's a cartoon character, which appeals to children. Do you have no problem with this Flintstones ad? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ikOTXbxwhM As a former child, I can tell you right now: Camels dont make you want to try smoking. Thats ridiculous. Its just an ad. And I think businesses should have the right to advertise their product. If they advertise cigarettes as being pleasurable and having great taste I think that is just business. You wouldn't advertise a product by saying it tastes horrible and telling people not to buy it. Same with people who are now trying to stop fast food ads. McDonalds is not forcing people to eat there. People have to take some amount of responsibility for their own actions. People nowadays know that smoking is bad for them. Some people enjoy it and still choose to do it in spite of the risks. Nobody can claim ignorance any longer though. No one buys light cigarettes cuz they think these are the vitamin rich healthy cigarettes. The tobacco companies are not brainwashing people. Sometimes a camel is just a camel.

I dont know if I am in favour of out-lawing smoking in the home. That seems pretty harsh. But I know that for a non-smoking kid growing up in that environment can be very annoying. I think the anti-smoking lobby does get pretty out of hand sometimes nowadays. At one time there were ads of cigarettes that are good for you, and such things like that. And tobacco was a big bad guy. But now in some cases I think the anti-smoking groups are getting a little wierd. For instance, I dont see why RJ Reynolds cant portray a camel smoking if he wants. And alot of anti-smokers make a really big huff about passing smokers outdoors. Little things like that. Like smokers are lepers or something. But I think alot of people nowadays do not smoke in their homes anyway. Its hard to judge really. I mean would this proposed ban on smoking in the home mean a person could be fined. for having one cigarette once in a while in their homes when their kids are away. Or something. Or sneaking one by the window. Could these people be prosecuted as criminals because of this proposition. There is a lot to think about here.

It is not necesssarily a power play as you see it and you should not interpret other's opinions as such without them stating it is. It is a testing of the waters to see how many people just lay back and take it without comment to see how far he can actually go. Harper has stated he wants Canada to be a major world player and do you honestly think he will willingly take a back seat to the GG on that world stage? I think not. He wants to be as glorified as an American president is both domestically and around the world. No matter how Americans feel about their current prez or no matter how the world thinks about the current "world leader", the position is one of the highest ranking, if not the highest ranked. Harper wants a ranking on par. Thats another assumption on your part. Testing the waters to see how far he can go. You don't know what Harper's motive was.

Well, yes Bambino, I understand that. But the thing is people are automatically assuming Harper's intent in standing next to the GG is a power play. I think they are making something out of nothing. If I were in the army personally I would want to see the PM there.