BC_chick

Some people bash, some people priase the US. Our Liberals bash Conservatives and vice versa. Some love Europe, others don't. We discuss domestic social-issues, as well as economic ones. I'm not sure if you're only seeing what you want to see, but there is a lot more going on on these boards than US bashing.

Very interesting. Two conflicting parts in the article though. One carefully placed as the opening statement of the article: "An RCMP spokesman says the force is taking "very seriously" a recent threatening letter signed by a group claiming to be a new cell of the FLQ, a Quebec militant group active in the 1960s and 1970s. " Yet, at the very end of the article (where one is to assume the people have given up reading), we have the following: "The RCMP stressed there was no indication those responsible for the letter could carry out their threats. 'So far we have no indication they can do what they're saying,' Bessette added. " Hmmmmm

Just the more reason why we need more moles like the one who outed our would-be terrorists rather than alienating the entire community.

lol BRILLIANT!

Only minorities. Did I catch that right? Are you trying to compare yourself to a Palestinian living in Israel? Okay fine. But remember, even if certain provisions may not have been specifically written to protect you, the rest of the rights and freedoms in our charter apply equally to you. In contrast, Israel is a democracy whose rights are not equally extended to its citizens.

Sorry, I took the "cut out as much of the quote out as possible" a little too far. The quote I was responding to was agreeing with another poster who had just listed a number of available jobs in AB, illustrating that the wages in AB are not that much better than anywhere else. I was therefore saying that the reason everyone says jobs pay so much better in AB, is not because the rate of pay for the same jobs is better, but because the per-capita in so much higher. I then went on to imply that if you factor in the fact that the top earners of the province are making incredible amounts of wealth, but there are not enough average-income earners to balance this out (compared to say ON), then the figures are misleading. Hence, it is true per-capita wages are high, but every-day jobs (outside the oil industry) do not pay that much better than anywhere else.

Bush's social-spending was more liberal and put Bill Clinton to shame (38% more), but Harper's social policies have (reluctantly) been more liberal. Both are catering to their base. If Harper thought people would support him, he would love to take away gay-marriage and abortion. But he's a politician first....

The average Albertan earns $67,000/year which is well above the national average, and well-above the second highest-earning province of Ontario. That's where all the hype comes from. But obviously people are forgetting that the province is not very populated, therefore the top-income brackets bring up all the average figures, giving an illusion of wealth throughout the province. The labour shortage is a fact though.

I agree that the issue won't ever see the light of day, but just to point out - there is quite a difference in a totalitarian regime which does not provide freedoms to its citizens, and an apartheid state where freedoms are extended.... but only to the "correct" portion of its citizens. Many countries in the world fall into the former category. But I can't think of any other democracy in the world that still OPENLY adopts racist policies. I say openly because there is always a marginalised group in every country, but real democracies at least have a charter or bill of rights which supposedly works to protect all its citizens.

The NPT was two-part. First, the five members of the nuclear-club were supposed to disarm, and the non-nuclear countries were supposed to give up nuclear ambitions. The nuclear-club didn't honour the treaty, and instead went scrambling trying to get OTHER countries to honour the treaty. Meanwhile they had what - almost 40 years to work on the issue? Now all we get is a stupid clock telling us what we all know. Gee, thanks.

He's got great support amongst 7 and 8 year olds apparently. I'm not sure if leaving links is against the rules or not, but this is funny.... http://www.youthforvolpe.ca/

Volpe needs to go! He's a serious anchor for the party. The rest were pretty predictable... except maybe Dosanjh. But in hindsight, he's perfect for the position.

That's because studies show that a universal standard of beauty applies more to men than to women. What a woman finds attractive is very personal and no real consitency amongst women. Yet there are all types of women that most men find attractive. Oh, and ps, just a personal observation here (no hard data to back it up) but I notice men AND women look at women more than they do men. When I'm put together nice, I find more women looking at me than men. My boyfriend even once mentioned the same thing. So who knows, maybe we are the fairer sex for more reasons than one.

Really? I understood it as Muslims are not a monolithic people.

I caught the show for the first time tonight. Some funny parts, some stereo-types, and a lot of wishful thinking. But I laughed at this (paraphrased) part.... "But it's a natural fact, that men get distracted when there are women around." "Well, maybe they can get those cones that you put around dog's faces." LOL

True. But the article cited discusses teaching about human-rights violations in Israel which are indisputable facts (whether or not such human rights violations are justified or not is where the politics actually begin, and that is not what is being expressed here). Given that we hear about suicide-bombings every day, yet we hardly ever hear about the human-rights violations on the part of Israel, I can understand why the teacher's union would propose balancing the two FACTS. I did not see where you got the exclusively part from. First off, there is no indication that such a curriculum would excuse terrorism as somehow being acceptable. Criticising Israel and rejecting terrorism are not mutually exclusive. Secondly, your justification that Palestinians voted for Hamas thereby creating a fair-game of collective punishment against them, is the exact same rationale terrorists use when blowing up pizza parlours and crashing planes into buildings. They also believe civilians are fair game since they voted for, and since they support their politicians. You may want to reconsider your stance. Civilians must always remain sacred no matter who they voted for. Remember, we call people terrorists when they can't make that distinction.

Oh God, first it was evolution, then Global-warming, now criticism of Israel?!?!? Geez, these lefty-hysterics can never tell fact from fiction eh?

jefferiah, I try and be reasonable, but I am human and we all have have our moments. I do agree that it's not "fair" that a woman gets to choose to have an abortion when/if the man may want the child - and she also gets to choose to keep it when/if he doesn't - yet he still has to be pay for that child for the next 18 years. But hey, many things in life aren't fair and since women end up carrying the child, and becoming the primary caretakers, it is an unforunate fact (for men) that it's our bodies, and it's therefore our decision what to do with them. The best course of action in this current situation for a man, is to use protection when you don't want a child (you meaning men, not you personally), and to communicate openly with the woman about where to go should she become pregnant. That way everyone knows where they stand on the issue. But according to the supreme court, nobody is taking "a life" because "life" doesn't start at conception. As for catchme calling you a misogynist for not agreeing with her on this issue - I can't comment because I wan't there. Maybe she over-reacted, or maybe you said some things as supporting evidence for your argument (of why women should not be subsidized for abortion) which she took as misogynist. Either way, I wasn't there, so I don't know what happened.

I guess I was lucky, I learned of feminism in a first-year course from professors whose strongest belief was that feminism's biggest challenge is to not fall into the same dogma it fights to overcome. I remember hearing that the year before a couple of radical professors had taught that same first-year course, and needless to say they were no longer teaching that class when I started it. From what I hear, it put off a lot of the students. I remember wondering what I may have thought of feminism if such extreme views had been my first introduction to it. So don't worry, these women are the fringes of feminism - if they're not ridiculed by their peers, they're more likely to turn women OFF of feminism, than they are in "converting" anyone to such preposterousness.

Yes, many elements of Muslim culture do not mix with our way of life, yes, the jihadists walk amongst us every day, and yes they are a real threat to our way of life. Nobody denies these facts. But we are repeatedly told of this threat, yet we do nothing about it - "it" being the radical elements in our society, funded by the peace-loving Saudis as stated in the Guardian article. Instead, we (the west and in particular the US) befriend these puppet regimes so long as they say what we want them to say in public, and for that we turn a blind eye to the REAL threat facing us - their backing of hate-preaching fundamentalist clerics who live amongst us. Meanwhile, we create a farce called the "war on terror" and go after two-bit dictators like Saddam, who committed all his "crimes against humanity" when he was in fact an ally when committing these crimes, thereby demonstrating to the thinking that something other than his crimes was the cause of animosity. Hmmm, perhaps the fact that his vast oil-reserves were no longer available to us. How does throwing out Saddam help us with addressing Saudi-backed, hate-preaching clerics who are brainwashing our Muslim community that they need to kill us? Nobody can yet answer that. It's as though the REAL threat about the dangerous clerics is constantly spoon-fed to us to keep fear and paranoia, which in turn provides support to wage wars which do absolutely ZERO to alleviate the actual threat with which we are kept in fear. You can go on all you want about the hate-preaching clerics and how we need to address them. But until we stop accepting this farce of a war, and demand that instead of declaring war on energy-rich countries while turning a blind-eye to the real threat (Saudi-backed clerics living here given that we depend on the Saudis for energy).... then we will never "win" against terrorism.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...04?hub=Politics So much for all the times we heard otherwise on this forum by the Harper supporters. Case in point of this reflection - the following paragraph: Among respondents who claimed partisan affiliations, only Conservative supporters did not say the environment was the top issue. Self-identified Conservative voters put health care and the environment in a statistical dead heat, 13 per cent to 12 per cent. Safe to say that the CPC supporters on these forums are projecting their own views when claiming that the environment is not the biggest issue facing Canadians.

For the better or worse? Much better - despite the hopes and prayers of the New York Times, CNN and your friendly neighbourhood anti-bush zealot. How so?

I'm halfway through Carter's Palestine, Peace not Apartheid right now and I have learned so much that is not mentioned in the official "Israel wants peace" argument.... It's interesting to note that before the Palestinian identity was defined with the struggle against Israel, a preoccupation with violence was not the modus operandi for them. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that their land was taken away from them, their arab neighbours stopped fighting for them, the West stopped working for peace on their behalf and Israel gave up the charade that the occupied land will ever be exchanged for peace. Subsequently, their way of life went from farming and free-enterprise to doing menial job for Israelis, in allocated neighbourhoods where they can't move without humiliation and intimidation, they pay up to four times as much for water, their houses were taken from them and flattened to make room for new Jewish emigres, their criticism thereof resulted in being tried and imprisoned in military tribunals where the judges brand them as terrorists and lock them up with or without proof. Without autonomy or the environment to flourish, where do you suppose they should come up with the RESOURCES for social improvement?

For the better or worse?

I've edited my post since you wrote this response. We actually do agree. In fact, we agreed right from the beginning, I think you misunderstood my initial post.