maldon_road

I always preferred dates with Jewish girls because they were much more aggressive.

Wait until the Bloc take the Outremont by-election. Any thoughts of Dion forcing an election will soon die after that.

Given the alternatives, by a country mile. Dief was a flop, Kim and Joe Who weren't around long enough to have an impact and it's too soon to tell about Harper.

This is not starting another club. This is the State providing for religious rituals for one specific religion in a state run institution. Open your eyes. I agree. If they want footbaths they should pay for them.

I guess we can never please everybody. If somebody wants to come up with another term, fine. But the first thing that would have to be done is to amend the EE Act. So long as the term stays in there it will continue to be used in all official papers from the CHRC and HRSDC. They will have no choice. They will have to conform to the law.

Right now it would Rudy/Hilly - that's clear. But I have a hard time seeing the GOP nominating a guy with his messy family history and a liberal on social issues. As for Clinton, maybe she just rubs me the wrong way but I can't see her sustaining her popularity over the next 15 months.

Generally I disagree. Depite media scepticism Guiliani continues to retain a surprisingly large prortion of core republican supporters. His support numbers within the party indicate a sizable number of supporters amongst those who are unlikely to agree with him on "social" or "family values" issues. Guiliani's biggert problem is that he has not concentrated enough in New Hampshire. Iowa is a loss for him and will probably give the "socially conservative" candidate momentum but with a right mix of pro-gun rights and other libertarian sounding mezsssages in New Hampshire Guiliani would have the ability to win that primary. Sucha win would break the back of any challanger. While Giliani has good support among conservatives (and arguably surprising support) he is in danger of lossing both of these key battles, while pursuing the larger nomination. Sometimes you have to ignore the forest of the few key trees. Clinton wins the dem nomination hands down. Obama is going to be forced to become negative really soon, unless he gives up and decides to "run" for VP instead. At this point Clinton is beginning to run away with it. To win the nomination Obama has to demonstrate that in a alrger election her baggage will bring her down, in order to start drawing some of the Dem supervoters away from her. To do that he has to go negative. Edwards does not have a chance in hell of winning that nomination. That's too bad for the republicans. Of the three he would be the least likely to win a general election. The man is a joke and he is not helping his credibility by kowtowing, at times, to the far fringes of the Democratic party. I'll point out to you that Dean crashed and burned by carrying out the same tactic and Edwards doesn't have nearly the momentum Dean had. Your analysis, I dare say, is not very serious. It's a long way from now until the conventions and many things can happen between now and then both caused by outside forces and by the candidates themselves. As Harold Wilson pointed out, a week is an eternity in politics. Clinton and Giuliani have opposite problems. It would be easier for him to win the general election than get the nomination and Clinton is more likely to win the nomination than win in the November election. I don't think Clinton's appeal with the public will last. The more you hear her the more grating she becomes. Giuliani comes across better than Clinton but I don't think he has long-term appeal to Repubs.

For the Repubs I would say none of the above. Perhaps at a stretch Romney. That's why they are reaching out to Fred Thompson. As for the Dems Clinton and Obama will be in burn out long before the convention. Maybe Edwards.

If it had been a Muslim or Jewish station I wonder whether the CRTC would have put the same requirements. Today Christianity is like a big wounded beast that just doesn't seem to be able to fight to protect itself.

That's what happens when you ban anything. You drive it underground. In Canada "hate speech" is illegal but it takes place all time. In no time at all you could find thousands of examples on the internet. What does the government do then? Ban the WWW? Remember, "hate speech" laws precede the internet. When it comes to free speech the feds are like some latter day King Canute, ordering the tide to roll back.

How can you possibly compare the aspect of abusing free speech when the country already incorporates laws relating to hate and discrimination? I think currently there are 27 on-going CHRC "hate speech" complaints. In the eyes of some therefore there is "abuse" of speech taking place.

Of course people can abuse free speech - just as the CHRC and CRTC can abuse their powers.

I've heard this about political broadcasts but with religious programming? Like a classical station have to play rock as "balance". Weird.