daniel

I'm a little out-of-date with the issue, but is the Roman Catholic church consider Catholic/Protestant marriages mixed and are they still opposed to it?

If you are unable, for whatever reason, to provide evidence when asked then it seems reasonable to me to profess that. You can say something like, 'I have been unable to find the evidence which I thought I could and so I cannot back up my claim. While I still believe what I said to be true I will alter it in form so that it will read as my opinion. When, and if, I can find the evidence I need I will readress the point and press it again.'... Yes, that would be reasonable. I would try it and see how debating opponents would respond.

Freedom: Thanks for respecting my point of view and being able to identify a fundamental difference in our two country's perspective on the world. Most people don't respect that difference. 1) You disagreed with Ghandi's approach where most people in the rest of the world admire it. It's also no surprise that the UN isn't held with high regard by the US. The UN created after the failure of the League of Nations by Canada believed that the world's conflicts should be resolved at the discussion table instead of the battleground. This goes directly against the grain of America's reliance of violence. This reliance of violence hasn't changed in America's 200+ years. It's no surprise the Indians, who were no friends to the British rather sided with them than the Americans in your war of independance. And the Indian Wars after that further proved the point. Do I need to explain the mad rush to finish the CPR for you? 2) Since the Boar War, Canada had registered its self determination of entering wars with Britain. The draft during WWI was because the British Loyalists who were so eager to join needed further enforcement. The Quebecers, who never held any loyalty towards any British initiative, did not enlist with the enthusiasm the British Loyalists did. Thus the draft. Quebecers. Criticized for not eagerly joining WWI. But also praised because without Quebecers, there would be no United States. Think about Canada's influence on the United States. 3) This reliance on Military spending to support its states shows that no matter how advanced it is, the United States is no different from any other 3rd world military-run dictatorship. In those countries, you don't have controll of your country without the loyalty of the military chief. Case in point: 1)Pakistan, in particular Bhutto, Zia etc. 2) Feudal system; 3) Tiananmen Square. The American structure of government is no more than an expanded military organization. Note, the US President IS the Commander-in-Chief of the military.

Sometimes it's impossible to supply the proof simply because there is no web site to support it. That doesn't mean the proof doesn't exist. Web sites are made by people who want to post whatever information they want to post and not necessarily all the information available. Furthermore, sometimes discussions can relate to obscure issues that do back decades ago. Again information that may not be available on the web. Lastly, a poster may recall information heard, read or seen on the radio, newspaper, or tv newsbroadcast or documentary in which the exact date, time or page or even the source could be obscure.

Freedom: (how typical) You've never heard of the Newfie joke? or any other joke that people from one province makes about another? I suppose when an American jokes about someone from another state, you would call him anti-American. Well, I am quite aware of indidivual Americans who criticize France, Iraq, China, Britain, as well as Canada. You've never heard these criticisms? I have also heard Canadians making criticism of other countries. You've never heard them? Not sure what people in other countires do but if I guess it would be reasonable to guess that they do the same But your radar only picks up "anti-American" comments right?

You make it sound like Canada only played a minor role in WWII. (And not to mention WWI.) But you know, Canada is much too modesty go on endlessly bragging to the world how we won the war. The fact that Canada only had to ask the Queen should tell you something important about Canada. (And I shudder to think what you already think about this.) Yes, Virginia, independance without a drop of blood is possible. Gandhi tried it too. Canadians know about fighting for our own freedom. The last time we did it was when the Americans invaded in 1812. Also, Americans ought to learn a little more about their own history; how Canada was a major factor that helped push American colonists over the edge (so to speak). Some of your greatest heros were real Canada-haters. There's much more to freedom than spending on the military. That is why so much of our tax dollars go towards public education, healthcare, and other social issues. Knowledge is power. We don't try to create a need for people to enter the millitary as a career option as a last resort. Those who enter the military do so on their real intentions. And lastly (of course there is so much more), you tend to equate GWB-bashing as American-bashing. When Canadians bash our own PM, there is a distinction made. That it is the PM and his governing party that is criticized but not the whole country. We recognize our PM is a human being and not the supreme being so we can criticize him and his policies and actions accordingly. Bet you still can't understand this concept because Americans stand behind their Commander-in-Chief regardless of how wrong he or they believe he is.

No it doesn't make sense. Governments are bad and they waste taxpayers' hard earned money. It'll be inevitable that the government service who tests the poison pill will spend too much doing it. It's always more efficient to let private individuals perform that task because they know where to do the spending. Let the market forces decide. If the pill turns out to be poison, it's sales would slump and the company producing it would go out of business. Simple as that.

Flipflopflipflop. It's ok only on the right foot.

Of course, this is a discussion forum isn't it? When one is taking driving lessons, the instruction booklet does have pictures of mangled bodies in them. At least mine did when I learned many decades ago. But automobiles nowadays come from the factory packed with standard safety features. And I might add, those safety features are there due to legislation regardless of the lobbying by the auto manufacturers.

That is debatable. I won't get into it now, but suffice it to say that I know someone who decided they were gay and then changed their mind a year later and decided they were straight again. It is not clear-cut. I would diagnose your friend as bi-sexual. His current taste is opposite sex but favourite flavours change. People don't know themselves sometimes until they accidentally find out about it while reading or listening to the radio about similar experiences of others.

The Reformers in the party are against the GST. No wait, they support it now. The Conservative Party is against Same Sex Marriage, but want a free vote on the issue so they'll accept it if it passes even though they're still dead against it. The Conservative Party says Canada should stand Shoulder-to-shoulder on Iraq - but not in Iraq. The Conservative Party will support the United States on every issue except we're not sure what the Conservative Party wants Canada to do when it really counts.

Is this going to be another Fanatsee Gawwdens case?

I believe everything I said about the negative aspects of both homosexuality and marijuana. I also believe that it is absolutely none of my business what consensual acts other people get up to. Therefore, I believe passing laws against consensual acts is unethical no matter how destructive those acts may be. Sorry, I must clarify myself. I wasn't criticizing your position. I was questioning what your positions were. Those two paragraphs sounded like you were opposed to both homosexuality and pot. I was confused when I read in later posts that you supported legalized pot and homosexuality. Smoking is a habit that one can change. Homosexuality isn't. But the practice of non-safe sex is "stupid" regardless of gender preference.

If a poster is banned, how can you tell or prevent the same person from registering as a different poster?

These two paragraphs sound like you are on the same side of the issue opposing both. Sure didn't sound like you supported the legalization of pot. Maybe you support homosexuality too? Please clarify.

Here's the discussion trail beginning with the 2nd post on this thread: Ndpnic: I think all smokers should unite and picket fastfood places until the fastfood industry is subject to the same advertising standards as the tobacco industry! Hugo: I also assume from your previous posts that you think marijuana should be legalised, despite the fact that it causes brain damage, cancer and respiratory diseases. BBM: Get people to stop eating at McDonalds and fat food places. They are the mostly the cause of the obnesity. … Hugo: People are demanding healthier food and vendors are providing it. There is no role for the usual leftist demands to violate human rights on a large scale for the "common good" (as if such a thing could even exist). Daniel: Since when is the supply of trans-fats a human rights issue? Hugo: It violates the right of people to use their own property (money) and their own bodies, and the right to make decisions for themselves about their lives. Daniel: Wait a minute. That means marijuana should be legal because criminalizing it goes against 1) a person's right to choose how he spends his money (property); and 2) a person's right to do to his body as he pleases (fry his brain). Did you see that "human rights" was introduced into the conversation by you? And then I started to address it. So where was it that you got lost?

Hugo, have you forgotten what you youself have posted? You're the one who brought up property rights as a human rights issue, not me. I just expanded on it.

Wait a minute. That means marijuana should be legal because criminalizing it goes against 1) a person's right to choose how he spends his money (property); and 2) a person's right to do to his body as he pleases (fry his brain). Brian Mulroney put property rights into the Meech Lake Accord but human rights groups screamed because property owners especially corporations would have rights over individual rights as well as over local legislation and bylaws. Furthermore, not sure what your position on these are but the right to do with one's own body opens up the right to abortion, euthanasia, as well as self mutilation. We're only talking about a certain segment of food here. So what's wrong with just labelling it?

(As if I had to ask.) And who would you prefer to govern instead? The Reform/Canadian Alliance/neo-conservative party? Been there, done that. That's why we have Paul and Dalton. The best of the bunch.

Deja Vu. Has Craig Reed returned or just his ghost?

JK Galbraith a radical left winger? Just how young are you BBM?

I've donated to Doctors without Borders. And now I feel selfish and guilt-riddenbecause I've ignored further calls for donations from: 1) place of work; 2) Tim Horton's 3) my kids' school. How much more can I give? No matter how much, it won't compare to how much the survivors still need.

Freedom: You're not Jake Crew are you?

Life isn't as black and white as you hoped, eh? Not even one simple question. Tax cuts = 1)Budget cuts over every program including transfer payments to the provinces; and/or 2) increase the deficit. Military spending: 1)Tax hikes to pay for it; and/or 2) budget cuts the everything else to pay for it; and/or 3) increase the deficit

But it does matter. The practise of safe sex reduces STDs. It applies equally to heterosexuals as well. As for fast foods, it's the selection of which food. No one's going to get a heart attack on a salad but as for Big Macs? Marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol should be treated equally. Homosexuality is currently not illegal. Since when is the supply of trans-fats a human rights issue?