Catchme

Not my original comment but will respond with up most respect to you and ask: why do you discuss on political forums if you know so very little about it? Respectfully, it appears you are not trying to learn or become more aware of world history, as you vulgarly accuse people of making things up just because you do not know it. It had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. Iraq History Honestly how do you know that honestly they have not gained anything? because you need to support that. As there really are facts out there that say otherwise. The Bush Cheney families especially. Where did you get the 60% and 40 % numbers from, the post your commenting to be NOT mine BTW. Did you just make those numbers up, as looking at the post you were commenting on, I see no numbers at all stated by the poster. Nor did the poster say anything about real Canadians or Canadians that are not real. You imposed that connotation unfairly and fallaciously. The position presented by the poster regarding democracies is neither far stretched nor corrupt as you stated. It is actually factual and unbiased. In a democracy, majority rules end of story. Minority political ideologies, or marginalized groups have a voice just not the voice of the majority of Canadians. But they are Canadians nonetheless. No, respectfully, I think perhaps it is you who may need to think before they speak. Your leap from one perspective to another completely different topic and joining the 2, by putting words in peoples mouths are a good example of far stretched and corrupt. Harper and Day, as members of the opposition, had no business paying for ads out of their own pockets, appearing on TV, representing themselves as Canadian politicians, on behalf of Canadians and saying that Canadians wanted to be with the USA in Iraq and other nonsensical things that the majority of Canadians indeed did not believe, or want. AS I gave you the definition of traitor and it has nothing to do with totalitarianism. Nor does it have anything to do with differing political views; it has everything to do with their actions. They did not have the authority to speak on behalf of Canadians and Canada; they were NOT our designated spokes people. What happened in history to people who had differing political views and who, at that time, were considered traitors for doing so, has no bearing on this discussion. Funny how you seem to know some things but not others, but at any rate, I will respond in case you do have gaps in your knowledge base. Again it is for commonm public knowledge. USA funded Iraq, and were buddies with Saddam up until his invasion of Kuwait. Hence Jesse Jackson's commentary. Personally, I have not seen any evidence of a hot head or unsubstantiated things in the post that you are commenting to.

As I said no I don't have to provide any links for what is classified as common public knowledge. This common public knowledge had be known for decades, and it would seem you are the only person alive that does not know this and the reasons for. Anyway that is enough off this topic deflection. canadian blue provided in answer a link below to wikipedia as proof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_Debate#Pro-life Did you see all the citations that were needed for the pro-life stance in your link to give it any credibiliy? Not that it would any way no matter how many were actually given, even supposing they could be. FYI, Wikipedia is written by any joe or jane wanting to give their version of facts, that is why citations and other links are required to make what it says. Interestingly the link provides a good deal of pro-choice information that DOES NOT need citations, they are fully supported

No actually, Harper did write a letter to 65 or so "prominent establishment figures" Aka government lobbyists saying he was not following Gomery's recommendations. Perhaps you should watch the political scene and news more often and others would not have to catch you up to speed, while enduring unwarranted and caustic remarks while doing it? Everything, as I noted before, that I state as fact, either in a mocking or straight up way can be verified, unless of course I say it was/is my opinion. And of course the letter formatting was satire but no doubt accurate in its own way. After all Canadians have seen Harper's backroom deals put into public action. Darrel Reid gave Harper a chunk of the Christian vote and he got his Ottawa job, which he is completely unqualified for. 12 or so unqualified people were appointed to oversee the Canadian Genetics and Reproductive Board. A Calgary company gets to train all Canadian Border Crossing Guards, Harper puts un-elected people into cabinet positions, Status of Women programs were cut and offices closed as promised of right wing lobbyists that voted for Harper. That's enough examples to prove my point I believe but if you need more I got them. Harper's letter Actually, your comment does not make sense, did you mean "why in the hell would we want "the purchase of" military equipment to be driven....."? or other? And apparently the General prefers another airplane as opposed to the un-tendered contract that was given. As you can see from your own quote from the article below, he prefers the Spartan and we are not buying it apparently. Though I may be wrong in my interpretations and I am sure someone will correct me on whether or not we are indeed buying what the military thinks it should have, but I think I am correct. Because the civilians in question would be the elected officials who would be doing their job and it is not the military that plans our foreign affairs and future military actions, it is again our elected officals who make those decisions and that is what the military determines its needs upon. Perhaps it's more able to the job and they want Canada to up its requirements? This is rather a sexist remark and brings nothing to the discussion other than female bashing. How do you know that the Italian company did not? Or indeed who the shareholders are? The Vatican could even be a shareholder in the company. Have you researched your speculations of doubt to see if you are correct or is that empty rhetoric on your part? After all there is 1.5 million in undisclosed corporate donations to the CPC convention. You see that is the problem with lack of openess and accountability that is expressed by these un-tendered contracts, it makes them look corrupt, even if they're not. And Canadians have no reason to believe in the CPC's without a track record and without accountability measures in place. You had already quoted that portion of the article. And yes, it is a REAL ethics issue. We have a minority government with no track record giving out un-tendered contracts worth billions, with no elected official oversite.

Stephens Blog says, Khan may be announcing this tomorrow, as negotiations are still going on between the LIberals and Khan. So, thoughts that it will happem might be a bit premature.

Nice that you know what Muslims need to do for Muslims, too bad that premise did not work with Christians being able to teach other so called Christians about acceptance of other peoples customs, cultures and religions.

Where do you get your information that 3k per student is what is used by the public school system? I find that very hard to believe. Also, you do not take into consideration the direct costs parents pay for their children to go to scool, that is actually on top of what is paid for by taxation of those same parents. Plus, I thought that private schools do get a certain amount of public monies on top of privately paid tuition. Yes, funnily enough they do not see that though, weird eh?! The contract exhists because it is in effect and working all around you, there is no assumption. If the rich think to change the rules, I am sure they would have more than a few surprises in store.

vs. Look at the adjectives used in both leads. Clearly embattled is more negative than widely-anticipated. Guess which one is from the CBC web site... Yes, I know it is only one case, but this is an example you can engage. I would say you got it from the CTV website, I was listening this am to CTV and heard the announcer use the words "embattled" Ambrose.

There is a difference between "conventional wisdom" and common public knowledge that is easily provable by just looking at male to female ratios in job positions. Plus, you need only google, women under-employed, stats on wage or job parity between genders You get literally millions of official reports and stats on the FACT that women are paid lower than men in equivalent jobs, that are non-union positions as I pointed out and that you decided to over look. You also get millions of reports from around the world that show women have a glass ceiling and are underrepresented in the majority of highly skilled highly paid job positions. Please I ask again that you refrain from personal commentary!

Your thoughts are wrong. Your preserve marriage link is in accurate at best, hate mongering at worst. Stats show the largest % of pedophiles were "white" males, and the largest proportion of children that were/are sexually abused is girls. http://www.cpiu.us/statistics.php Pedophiles are mainly men sexually abusing girls Oh so you're back tracking now? What does being able to sustain a country have to do with anything? What are the civilized countries that say SSM is corrupt and against the concepts of human nature? I do not find total incompatibility at all, but I am sure the LGBT would have have difficulties finding a compatible point with you. Why? You have the problem with it, you should move.

Frankly, do not mind discussing with you, but I do mind your unfounded slurrs and find it hard to respond with pleasnt responses. The fact that women have a glass ceiling and are paid lower, is common for public knowledge. It does not require endless stats to support, you need only google gender imbalance in the work force, and you get 2 million hits. Your comments are disengenuous at best. The 2 job positions you refer to are in the union sector, wage discrimination based upon genderdoes not occur in union jobs. I have supported where needed to, and you just tried to deflect away from your lack. Good try. No, a man cannot have a stance on that issue, it simply is not any man's right to say anything regarding a woman's right to self determination of her own body. And no it is not an issue of morals or ethics. It is an issue of rights. And please do stop with trying to make belittling personal comments about other posters, they do not look good on you, nor or they pertinent to the topic. 'Canadian Blue' said= I'm pro-choice, however am personally pro-life. Meaning I find that abortion will happen anyway, however social attitudes should change to reduce abortion's, as well as program's to help mothers with raising children. No, you are either pro-choice, or you are not, there is no mushy middle. Do not confuse the issue of right to self determine with poverty issues amongst women and children needing to be fixed. No I would say the shoe is onthe other foot, if I wished to discuss the person posting not the topic. I don't! Sorry don't have to do that with common public knowledge.

Seems like there is a lot of statements being given as facts or examples, and when links are asked for none are being given, or being told look it up yourself. But yet some are being asked back for more proof , even when they have gone to great lengths to support their statements and well beyond what those asking have done with their own. The CBC did do producton for LMoTP, who it was done in partnership with I cannot find.

You are not partisan C Blue? I am not !

Care to tell us about Rand, The left behind series and what they have to do with OAS? I would say it has to do with the topic , and the comment why the right never get it right, as opposed to the off shoot topic of OAS.

Hmmm, very *unique* analysis. There is the rub with the leftists. Ignore basic rules of accounting and economics when convenient to make the case. No its no so unique, it is how media stations work. Well there you are red baiting instead of discussing. But I will ignore it. The huge over head has nothing to do with independantly funded productions, the sponsors pay the overhead NOT the taxpayers. With independantly funding shows that the CBC picks up, which I may add is a large portion of their programing, they do not pay "on air talent". Nor do they pay for producers for independant programing. The technical cost would only be that of slapping the episode tapes in and running and again that would only be fore CBC shows not sponsored programming. Sponsored programing means just that, the sponsor pays costs affliated. Did you not read the break down I gave re producers and payers of costs? That is not true, both Global annd CTV have shows they produce and air that came about as a result of them accessing provincial and federal production money. If they did not get this funding they would not have Canadian content shows. Please provide a link to where you get your figures from, thank you. Without seeing the disbursement figures, common sense tells me that the permanent funding covers CBC original programming and associated costs for CBC personalities. Which is what I have been stating, CBC funded programs, as opposed to airing independant shows, is something completely different. Independant programming they air, like LMoTP, or Fraser, or Corantion Street, is where they get their revenues from. Why is this so hard to grasp? 0, or money into general revenues, and I do get it.

Strangely enough two of the profession's I want to go into have about 80% females, and 65% females in the occupation, I wonder if I should complain about the female dominated profession's. How is it exactly pointless, especially with regards to abortion since some people have a valid argument why they think a fetus deserves the same rights as any other human. I am pro-choice, but I'm not with the crowd that seem's to love seeing a high rate of abortion's. Wow, 2 professions dominated by women, now that is equality isn't it, this means there are only 1,999,998 professions now dominated by men then. Denial of the fact they we are still male dominated world is pointless. The whole statement of some people have a valid argument is a very broad and opinionated, meaning unsupported commentary. Your telling me something is valid does not mean in fact that it is. Your stance choice or not if you are a woman is your own. If your a man you have no stance at all to give. And who do you determine are: "the crowd that seems to love seeing a high rate of abortions"? Cause if you are "pro-choice" your one of em.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/03/...e-contract.html Well, Harper did send out all those letters telling governmental lobbyists he would not be following Gomery's recommendations to stop things like adscam and government paybacks from happening. They musta read something tlike this: Hi Guys; Thanks for the funding of my campaign, don't worry the trough is open, I will be awarding contracts directly with NO open bidding. Please find the attached list of new programs, and old ones, that are coming open for tender, if one or mor suits, please forward to appropriate ministry for immediate rubber stamp approval. There is also a list attached of public office appointments that are open. Should you be interested, please submit your resume to the appropriate Ministry for rubber stamp appproval, if Darrel Reid can do it, you can too.

Yet, CTV, Global and all other private broadcasters are free to buy programming from around the world. CBC must air Canadian only programming. In that light, funding is only an leveling of the playing field. They kinda got it all, all wrong though in the first place, on Canadian programs being shown on the CBC in regards to; the funding, the sponsorship, and the platform from which to view said programs. Assumption 1 - CBC funds, produces and airs all the programs it shows. INCORRECT Assumption 2 - CBC takesmoney away from other Canadian stations, by depriving them of access to monies from the government and advertising dollars. INCORRECT Assumption 3 - The CBC is a governmental mouth piece. INCORRECT There are more but those are the top 3 assumptions that are so incorrect. CBC does produces and air some of its own shows. However, if you watch the end of any show on the CBC it will tell you who the producers were/are, producers being the ones fronting/managing the cash sources for the programing. For example someone took an idea like that of LMoTP and sold their idea to a org, or group, that had funding available to do such a show, on such a topic. Funding sources to make the show happen could be the Gov of Canada, of BC, AB, or Sask, or the University of Sask, the National Film Board of Canada, or the National Geographic or any of the other privately funded production companies in Canada. Now the new show "idea" has "backers", the creators and/or producers need to find a station to air it on. So they set out and let's say they first go to Global and they hear; "no, too risky for my sponsors, they can't use it until its proven" or "I won't be able to sell it to my sponsors", and then they go to CTV/Comedy Network and they get told again "no, too risky" etc etc. Now who is left that has a Canada wide viewing audience and who has an actual mandate to fill niche markets with programs created by Canadians, that main line Canadian stations can't or won't fill? The CBC. So the CBC Programming Directors (or whoever makes programing selections) says;" okay, no one else wants to touch it, we will see if we can get sponsorship on Sunday nights from 9-10 for 9 weeks, and then we see". Sure enough, they go to their sponsors some of whom obviously said; "yes, I will sponsor this for a pilot 9 weeks", as the show is on the air. The cost out lay for the CBC at this point is; a meeting to see if they wanted to pick it up for 9 weeks, some telephone calls to sponsors, a meeting to sign contracts, and then meetings to plan to air and advertise it. And the only cash outlay that can be seen as coming from the Canadian taxpayers pockets is the initial meeting costs with the creator(s) and/or producer(s). After that advertising dollars from sponsors cover everything. Now what did that initial meeting cost? 50 bucks or less? Wow, heavy burden on individual taxpayers in Canada And most likely that initial meeting costs would have been billed to the sponsors to. Cost to taxpayers = 0

No those opposing the show don't feel that and haven't argued that. You have to misstate the argument because the true argument cannot be disputed. No those opposing the show don't feel that and haven't argued that. Well I have read several pages of posts that that is a very good paraphrase, when taken in context of my whole post, of what is being said by, not just you rickibobbi, but by a other posters too. Go back and read the thread over. hard to miss as i gave direct quotes in words from some posts. You have to misstate the argument because the true argument cannot be disputed. What have I misstated by way of the argument? I gave a synopsis of the entire thread and dialogue line as one of the reading public view points. What is the true arguement that can't be disputed, and according to whom is it true?

Actually those shows with fat stupid men and slim hot wives are a very destructive force upon some young, and maybe old, male minds. Some men grow up thinking in order to get a hot slim wife all you need is to be fat and stupid. Then later in life they wonder why no hot slim woman wants them. No, I think there is more to it than the CBC, and it is more to do with some thinking along the lines of what one poster said about LMoTP depicting Canadians as lesser than Muslims. The poster went on to infer how dare they as we know just who is "creating all the havoc" in the world. It is bigotry and/or ethnic/ religious bias. Also, involved in this black/white, good/evil, view of the world, some hold, is the example given here of the 2 second show snippet about Canadian men wanting to see a Muslim woman's cleavage. For "some", it translated into, a stereotype put down that ALL Canadians are perverted and immoral which they also feel/presume is according to Muslims lving amongst us, and is represented by the evidence.of "the cleavage" remark in LMoTP. Some even went so far as to deny feeling that way, or holding any interest in "Muslim cleavage" whatsoever, they took it so personally without even know full context and content! It seems, there are those that feel, without even actually seeing the whole show, that there is negative portrayal of ALL WESTERN Canadians. It also seems they feel they are being called evil by those they perceive as being true evil. Moreover, it seems they also feel the "evil Muslims" are being given the voice to do it by the evil Socialists on the left. Further than that, it seems they feel, albeit wrongly yet again, that they are paying for their own "terrorist" abuse by CBC's airing the show.

Wow, so much intelligence from such a simple mind. Maybe she's just not in the "Abortions make me horny crowd". Insults aside, You cannot escape the fact that Canada and indeed a great deal of world still suffers under a male dominated, male priviledged society. Denial of it is pointless. And yes, it seems the world has gone nuts after reading the last response to comments on May's outing as a regressive.

And stil,l no one is talking about the million in corporate donations, just the individual ones!

This is a very old thread brought back to life, and the question is awkward as how can you save a life that is going to be terminal, so I am not answering the poll. What you do with terminal illness is provide palliative care.

Please explain why not. I went to the thread that Riverwind linked to and found this: When people are advocating for right to "access" to be based upon: history, age, lifestyle or other are advocating for something that is dangerously close to the superior race/people mentality and with economics as a determining factor tied in we are talking about a movement back towards feudalistic serfs and peasants. Econmic circumstance is not so simplistic or black and white as some portray. With the fault laying upon those for not getting a better education, or having more family support etc, and saying that the dirty 30's is the fault of the individuals for not planning for the future better is remarkedly devoid of any actual historical facts. What some are advocating by "health insurance" in the end result, would mean that priviledged access to health care, would be for those that economically have the ability to genetically engineer a "perfect" human. It does not exist because most people are mature and rational thinkers after they have been out of their parents homes for a while. What would proper behaviour mean, and who would determine "proper" behaviour? This is an interesting thread in its own right.

Why would the Government do that? Still shaking my head over Ricki Bobbi stating and believing apparently that: " why would a government stand on their own 2 feet and govern and take ownership of a problem. There is a big difference between a government standing on its own 2 feet and "actually" governing, and doing nothing but demonizing the opposition. The Liberals spent a good deal of time actually governing Canada, and doing what apparently the majority of Canadians wanted as they kept having majority governments. The hallmark of the CPC Harper driven "minority" government is: NOT doing what the majority of Canadians want, doing things they do not have a mandate to do, doing exactly what they condemned the Liberals for,and saying they have a right to do it cause the Liberals did, and the final hallmark is their inability to keep "the Liberals did" out of their sentences. This is confused at best! Why wouldn't the CPC take ownership of their own actions if at fault? They didn't bring up the CPC every 2 mins, why would've they? The CPC can't govern on their own merits hence the 3 card monty show. Oh, I missed the Rhona Ambrose put down, could you please share it with me? Though even before knowing what it is, I can say I am not surprised something inappropriate was said. The CPC are so isolated in their relationships/echo chamber, that they really think the rest of the world thinks like they do, and then they say the darnedest things. Proving again to the majority of Canadians and indeed the world how incredibly out of touch they are.

Oh, the blindness. In the course of one 30 second advertisement for the show I saw parodied: Muslim treatment of women, non-muslim treatment of women, and Torontonians. Corner Gas is a show that mocks hick, white, Christian people from the Prairies; but, I guess because it's made by CTV and not CBC it's a perfectly acceptable show. Later note: I see now the Corner Gas issue has already been raised, and is being dealt with amply by others. My apologies. Note that there is no denial that there are "hick, white christian people from the prairies", it seems they just do not want satirical depictions of them to occur. Why not? Particularily when all the other demographics are being mocked as well? Personally, I think they are afraid!