noahbody

In my opinion, the most damning false information in the whole fiasco was given by Arar himself. During interrogation, he was asked if he knew a known terrorist, a brother of a co-worker. Arar replied he only met him once while at the co-worker's house. Apparently, he had forgotten the time the terrorist had signed his rental lease. If he'd given an accurate response, he wouldn't have made himself look guilty.

What do you have against the public system?

Agreed. But what really needs to be put to rest is "The time for debate is over." There is plenty of time for study.

Jorge, this is what you wrote in a letter to Mr. Dion. Let's compare the actions of Trudeau to Harper. You praise Trudeau, when his NEP devastated a province's economy, put thousands out of work and had many losing their homes. Harper, who you find catastrophic, is providing Newfoundland with more weatlh than they previously had. As for the environment file, I assume you voted for the party responsible for signing onto an Accord willy nilly with no intention of honouring it. The party that didn't get it done. We need to get them back, quick!

Being "principled" as in opposed to being self-serving. Uprightness. With integrity. Motivated by the belief of doing what is right. Motivated by the belief of doing what is right. Interesting, but again these beliefs must be based on something and if it is NOT based on morals or a defined standard of rightness, 'principled' cannot really be used. Therefore all politicians in Canada would be classified as 'unprincipled' since none follow morals or a defined standard of rightness. Would you agree or disagree that this is the case ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adj. 1. principled - based on or manifesting objectively defined standards of rightness or morality; "principled pragmatism and unprincipled expediency"; "a principled person" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/principled ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Mirriam Webster, a dictionary for which people will actually pay: (2): habitual devotion to right

A Mohammed doll that says "Jihad! Jihad!" might be a good seller.

Yes, the proper way to run a ship is to refer to your trading partners as morons and bastards.

That's no doubt how the Human Rights groups will measure the success. I do assume Harper will bring up the issue tactfully, as he should. Realistially, Canada first needs to first develop a relationship before it will have any influence human rights. Will Human Rights groups say Harper didn't go far enough? Most likely. But that's their purpose. It's the same as asking environmental groups to judge the governments enviro plan.

Since many human rights groups have spoken up today in advance of the meeting, it puts emphasis on the subject. The drama will be if Harper appears too cozy to a leader who may eventually be implicated in death squads. The irony would be if Harper treates him like a guilty man when he hasn't been implicated, while discussing the topic of human rights.

The government announced human rights was on the agenda a week earlier. Nice slant to the story though. Adds drama.

Senators need lovin' too.

Disagree. Profit-making does not save money. The mission becomes maximizing profits. Instaed, put the monwy toward more public delivery of service. Ensure a high level of care for less. This depends on who pays for the profit. If a user-pay system is run parallel to our publicly funded system, it will save the public purse. In our current system though, profit-making is an large problem. Every doctor's office is a private business that generates income through number of visits. Doctors make more if they're inefficient and ineffective. One thing to consider would be to having salaried doctors in walk-in clinics. You might not get the best in the class to fill the job, the walk-in cases don't require top doctors.

1,000 aliens are going to give Topaz an anal probe tonight. It's been said, therefore it must be true. Enjoy!

"But–and I cannot stress this enough–we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.” Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences, contributer to Chapter 4 of the “IPCC Second Assessment”, “Climate Change 1995″.

Right. So you equate large scale killing of people with the potential to shave a point or two of GDP as equal dangers of comparable impact. Okie dokie! Actually it is very accurate and highly applicable in terms of the epistemology of science. Only non-scientists and fanatical partisans deal in absolute truths and certainty. Point taken. So which would best describe Gore, the non-scientist or fanatical partisan? And do you agree the "consensus of scientific opinion" should be continually debated? Or should we agree the earth is flat and move on?

Right. So you equate large scale killing of people with the potential to shave a point or two of GDP as equal dangers of comparable impact. Okie dokie! Actually it is very accurate and highly applicable in terms of the epistemology of science. Only non-scientists and fanatical partisans deal in absolute truths and certainty.

There is consensus that the earth is warming and that man contributes to some degree. But that's about as far as the consensus goes. Saying his plan doesn't involve killing anyone or actual risks is foolish. Canada is a country of natural resources. Take them out of the equation and the economy and services it supports collapse. Without oil, our health care system would be reduced to that of a thrid world nation. Canada's best solution involves the development of technology that would keep our industry and country productive. Throwing the baby out with the bath water willy nilly is idiotic. "Scientific opinion" is an oxymoron.

A few years ago, a similar post could have started "What if Bush is right?" Both the Bush Administration and the GW environmentalists have used a similar approach to gain support - create mass hysteria by talking about danger and destruction and the need to act immediately or else. With this hysteria action is necessary, there is no time for debate. There is only one solution; the one that is currently on the table. Gore is right that the earth is warming, but he is wrong to generate hysteria. Kyoto is a poor solution in any event.

I'm still waiting for Gore to breakout in a chorus of "we've got trouble..." from The Music Man.

Might be good to bring clarity to Freedom of Religion. Canada has always has placed restrictions on some "white" religions. Mormons are only allowed one wife in Canada. Considering Sharia Law and allowing Kirpan in schools is dangerous. A line has to be drawn somewhere. I'm all for welcoming people, just not any beliefs that are uncivilized.

I think with Harper's move on the Afghan front (having parliament requiring support for an extension beyond 2009) he's taken all of the bullets away from the opposition. The only thing left is the environment. A Dion win would cost Canada between $10Billion-$20Billion if he were elected though Kyoto. Who in their right might would want that?

I'd say the biggest threat to the Canadian economy is the global warming movement.

The simple solution would be for the insurance companies to refuse coverage to those who caused accidents while talking on cell phones.

Did some come back twice?

Is unemployment and no health care a good thing? Might be wise to consider the effect on our resource-based ecomomy before you jump on the 'going away from using non-renewable energy" bandwagon. No need to throw the baby away with the bath water.