Wild Bill

Don't know, but it's obviously the reason that during that time human males steer clear of women!

I won't comment on your premise but we should pay attention to the fact that we don't KNOW for sure if the Aboriginal population is truly at a higher risk! We have only a quote from Dr. Sweet, the island's provincial health minister, which means he's a political appointment as much as a medical doctor. It would be more productive to the debate if someone could dig up some firm evidence either way as to the true risk to those people. That would tell us if the decision was really medical or just political.

:lol:

I think your last point is the most important one. We witnessed for so long how the Liberal Party had Chretien in power, Martin in the wings and that seemed to be all for leaders and potential leaders. After Martin had his brief fling it would seem the Liberals had failed to have many truly powerful contenders coming up through the farm teams. Particularly after Adscam! The Liberal brand was so tarnished that who of substance wanted the role? Any big guns (with the big money!) likely decided to sit things out for a term or two. Real Liberal Leaders don't want to waste their time as Opposition Leaders! So they watched as they let Dion take over, expecting him to serve as caretaker to give some time for the 'negative vibes' to die down. Unfortunately for them, Dion had ambition! He may not have been very practical but he really seemed to think he could return his party to power as the worlds greatest eco-warriors! When he pulled them down even further the backroom boys must have panicked. They abandoned all pretense of having enough candidates for a real leadership race and anointed Ingatieff unopposed! He was supposedly the new Philosopher King, a la Trudeau. Unfortunately for them, he has proven to be very little like Trudeau. Trudeau for all his faults was more than just some gold splattered academic credentials. He also was plugged in to the 'real world'! Any man who spent his youth bombing around on a motorcycle wearing a WWI german helmet and hiking across Canada, Europe and other parts of the world would have a far closer connection to ordinary people and how they think than we have seen from Ignatieff. It's like the common complaint from shop floor managers today, in a society that has made hiring a process of some HR clerk checking off all the pertinent certificates and courses on some list! That being: "Great resume but dammit, he can't do the job!" The situation now is such that any would-be contender in the lower Liberal ranks most likely has no interest at all in trying for the leadership at any time in the foreseeable future. They desperately need someone who WILL fill the interim! Someone willing to be a strong and effective Opposition leader who can reverse the popular polls to the point where their party has another shot at the brass ring! He or she would be well aware that at that point there would be a REAL leadership race and they may not win! I guess I'm describing someone who isn't 100% ego, which is unlikely for a politician!

They have no problem understanding. They simply don't care! They don't like Harper so they approve of anything bad being done to him, regardless of legalities! Legalities only apply to people they like! It's quite simple, really!

Ah, but don't you see what's the REAL reason for the apparent non sequitur? If it is legal for Greenpeace protesters then it is also legal for Aboriginals! CR appears to have only one agenda.

Man, are you naive! First off, most Quebecois are blissfully unaware that they get more than they give but that's not the most important thing. This is politics! This is perception and emotion! And nothing is more emotional than the idea of separatism! It is tribalism at its most powerful. Human beings are often illogical. Especially in groups, when the bigger the group the more emotional it seems to become. Some sage once defined Intelligence as a mathematical Constant divided by the number of members of the group. Quebecers would be perfectly capable of doing something purely emotional like separating even if it meant cutting their own noses off. Afterwards they might regret it or more likely blaming the very politicians they voted in for getting them into the mess but that's just another facet of human nature. If you are as versed in politics as you claim I would have thought that you'd understand that.

That has got to be the most illogical argument I've heard from you yet! As TB said, "I don't let my children play with strangers!" Would YOU? That's only common sense! "How long have you stopped beating your wife?", to use another silly, emotion-based phrase instead of a proper rebuttal. I will state that if I already knew and trusted a particular person to play with my kids I wouldn't immediately accept some charge that he or she was dangerous as true! I would look very carefully at both the evidence and the source of the accusation before I would cast away a friend to the wolves. You know, you'd keep more credibility if you just admitted you were a bit too quick on this one, instead of coming up with more and more stretched and convoluted arguments to either obfuscate your original argument or divert us into a sidebar issue instead.

No one is giving the teacher a free pass. No one has mentioned any priests in this thread, except for you! My issue was solely and only about convicting and crucifying someone just on a charge having been made. As for "Trust me this is something I have experience in, ok", sorry! Before I trust someone I need a good reason. So far you haven't given me one! As for the police not applying charges without evidence, tell it to Stephen Truscott and Donald Marshall. On a much more minor matter, I have experience myself that taught me different. Trust me, ok!

Hey, you're talking logic! Faith and logic are two totally different principles. I'm trying not to be biased but all we know is that he worked at a Christian facility. We don't know how smart he was or how logical. Nonetheless, it would be safe to assume that he was a human being, with human feelings. At least, until and if a trial had proven differently. As I had said, I would be the first to call for capital punishment of a convicted pedophile, but I would be the LAST to want to convict him without a trial! I certainly would not advocate taking justice into my own hands just to put myself on a pedestal. That's not about justice, or religion either. It's just about ego.

Again, if he was guilty I would be the first to say "Hang him!" If it was the 'chair' I would be perfectly willing to pull the switch. I'm just pointing out that you apparently don't see the need for a trial or to see any more evidence than what has so far been reported in the papers. You seem to simply be seizing the chance to rail from a pulpit! So what if you don't like pedophiles. Few people do! No wonder we keep getting into Steven Truscott and Donald Marshall situations.

I'm not clear on your meaning, jdobbin. Are you saying that you would drop out if there were only two parties, or only if the Liberals were NOT one of those parties?

"I'm flying in Winchester cathedral. All religion has to have its day Expressions on the face of the Saviour Made me say I can't stay. Open up the gates of the church and let me out of here! Too many people have lied in the name of Christ For anyone to heed the call. So many people have died in the name of Christ That I can't believe it all." ---'Cathedral' by Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young "God's Laws? Why?" "Because they're written in the Bible!" "Who wrote the Bible?" "God" "How do we know?" "Because it's written in the Bible!" This is a grade school tautology. Your premise is an opinion, not a fact.

Perhaps, but that doesn't change my point that Mr. Canada was incredibly quick to cast a stone. If this man was a member of a Christian church organization a false accusation could have made him as distressed as a true one! A trial would have brought out more evidence. I wonder now if we'll ever know?

Man, couldn't wait to be the first to cast that stone, could you? Given what little we know so far, the man could have been innocent! He may well have been falsely accused. People are so quick to assume the worst in these cases. Here in my town we had a case of an elderly school bus driver who was accused of child molestation. Turned out that he had just lost his little granddaughter to cancer and had a little girl on his bus that was crying her eyes out over some matter. He hugged her to comfort her and when her mother found out she called the authorities, assuming he was trying to molest her! Nowadays sexual crimes are perhaps the easiest charge to make and it really doesn't matter if they are true. The bus driver here lost his job immediately and although charges were later completely drppped that fact never received the same billing in the local paper as when they were first made! His reputation is tarnished to this day in much of the community. This man who committed suicide may well have done it simply because he knew that he would forever wear the label! And before you try to label ME as someone soft on pedophiles you should know that I am one of those who believes that if charges are PROVEN they should be hung!

Well, it may seem that way to you but from direct experience I vividly recall that except for that brief lunacy of Stockwell Day's leadership Reform was constantly growing, just not fast enough for some, it appeared. To pull as many votes as they did in basically a decade in the game was amazing. If they had have had more patience history may have been quite different. The merger with the Tories was based on the assumption that most if not all of each party's core support could simply be added together. Obviously, they were wrong about that! I could echo Hydraboss and turn your own argument against you. It would appear that the urban views of Eastern Canada will NEVER be accepted by the West! Your argument is a recipe for a perpetually split country, which inevitably leads to separation. I myself live in Ontario but I have always been amazed that the West didn't split long ago. They have more than enough reason to separate. Those who trumpet about how Western values just don't fit in the East seem also to assume that the West should just shut up and lump it! I find that a very dangerous assumption if one truly wants to keep this country together. You don't breed unity by looking down your nose or scolding. Meanwhile, it would be short-sighted to assume that the new CPC has not paid a price. I'm sure I'm not the only former supporter who no longer donates time and enthusiasm to the local riding machinery. Meanwhile, if Alberta ever does separate I hope your words are remembered. I do agree with your last point, that "the success of any Tory leader has been the managing of expectations of both wings of the party". It's just that it appears to me that Harper has totally IGNORED the old Reform wing of his party! Surely he could have at least tossed us a bone or two...

Yes, it is a missed opportunity and I'm not sure why he's taken this approach. Right now Ignatieff's Liberals are sinking. I suspect that much of that lost support would find a better fit voting NDP than Tory. So why not let the writ be dropped? It's the Liberals who seem most likely to lose! At first there may be some benefit in looking like the hero who saved Canada from an unwanted election but that point will tire fast. It will buy Jack some time to raise money and have candidate nominations (do we bother with nominations anymore or are all candidates just appointed by their party HQ?) but also it gives Ignatieff more time to try to get his Quebec machinery repaired. It's Quebec where Jack is always hoping to make gains, after all! Why give the Liberals the chance to repair their fortunes? It always seems they pull votes away from the NDP. Isn't NOW the time for Jack to go for it?

Again, it looks like the 'Wild Rose' is proving my point, that Canadians often have been denied what they REALLY want! Isn't this how Reform got started? What might happen if Wild Rose went national? Would we see Harper's party brought down to 2 seats, just like before? I've said it many times that I don't believe that Reform style supporters have all miraculously changed and now love the very type of party they had rejected when Manning burst on the scene. It's simply that they now have no viable alternative. This represents a very large segment of the electorate that could be easy pickings for a new party.

Gwen Dyer? A bit too knee-jerk anti-American for my tastes. Sometimes after reading one of his columns I get the sense that he would support a Charles Manson if the issue could somehow be turned against some aspect of American foreign policy. Still, in principle you have a good idea. How about Peter Worthingon? He has a much more distinguished military record than Dyer!

Molly, it's right here in the link from the OP! "Andrew McWhinnie, head of Circles of Support and Accountability, said he was personally informed of the rejection last Friday by Robert Cormier of the National Crime Prevention Centre, which falls under Van Loan's ministry. <snip> It's got a pretty firm track record of substantially reducing recidivism among sex offenders, by 83 per cent compared to those who don't have (access to the program)." So the claim of 83 % comes from McWhinnie, the head of the very organization in question! In fact, if you read the link, McWhinnie is quoted as the ONLY source about the organization's effectiveness! That's like Imperial Tobacco telling us that cigarettes are good for you! Like I said, some folks will swallow anything for a chance to knock the Tories.

Yet it's the accent and colloquialisms that make it Canadian! I feel no connection at all to France. Les Quebecois are my fellow citizens. If I'm going to speak French, why shouldn't I sound like a fellow Canadien instead of a foreigner?

That's not what's happening in this example. If you want to throw the book at someone it should be a LEGAL book and a LEGAL throw! What you describe is still twisting the law to suit your own preferences. If someone or some company is to be charged and possibly convicted, should it not be in a legal fashion? Our law is based on precedent. If this lawsuit prevails, have you any idea what the ramifications will be? It will NOT stop with the tobacco companies!

Same old, same old. I'm not that upset on the idea of using a local firm to teach our soldiers in Colorado. Why pay to fly in Canadian teachers? However, I AM upset that a US firm is likely to be teaching them European French! I have eternally regretted that this Anglo was taught in school to sound like a European rather than given Canadian French. Later in life I worked remotely for a sales office in Pointe Claire. When I spoke to them in my schoolboy French I sounded to them as if they spoke English to me by imitating Winston Churchill! I've never been given a good explanation as to why this is so, or how such a thing was good for Canadian unity! It's as if at the official levels everyone is ashamed of a French-Canadian accent. I've always found that French Canadians tend to be friendly folks who know how to party! On the other hand, I've found many European French to be rather snobby. I don't get enough opportunity anymore to speak with Canadian francophones and improve my Canadian French. I guess I'll be cursed to sound like a foreigner forever when I speak la belle langue.

This attitude is exactly why I think the government might win their lawsuit! It is entirely emotional. Essentially, you have demonized the tobacco industry and therefore found them deserving of revenge. I don't happen to approve of many things they did over the years either but that doesn't mean the law should be twisted to serve a politically correct agenda. Revenge supposedly has nothing to do with justice. At least, that's what we constantly are told whenever the issue of capital punishment comes up. Many times we have heard that victims are too close emotionally to the crime; that they are just thinking in terms of revenge. It reduces justice to a simplistic idea of who you like and who you don't! As I had said, the ends justify the means. If justice is simply a popularity contest then we are ALL in BIG trouble!

"...the last 15-20 years"? Topaz, people have ALWAYS known smoking was an unhealthy habit! I'm 57 and can vividly remember how when I became a teenager everyone knew it was a bad habit. No one thought it was as dangerous as we are being told today but to be fair, today's anti-tobacco zealots tend to inflate the figures themselves. Whatever, it was common knowledge that the habit wasn't good for you. Any athletic coach would lecture his students against smoking. What's more, I've talked to my parents and grandparents and they also recall how tobacco was always considered an unhealthy vice. Then again, so was alcohol and many other things. That would take us back nearly 100 years to show people generally knew tobacco wasn't good for you. The difference was that back then people believed in individual responsibility. You had the right to "go to hell your own way". If you hurt yourself, it was no one's fault but your own. You were responsible for your own health and if you chose to partake of some vices it was you who took the responsibility. Somehow the anti-smoking people have twisted history for their own ends. They would have us believe that everyone always thought that tobacco was harmless and succumbed blindly to the advertisements of smoking being 'cool' and 'fun'! We were not irresponsible but rather we were victims, exploited by evil tobacco companies! Socialized medicine, which has been rocketing into runaway bankruptcy for the past decade or two, seizes on this idea of martyrdom as a tool to harass and hopefully bankrupt tobacco companies. From a strictly logical standpoint, the very idea of suing tobacco companies on this point is absurd. First off, to take as gospel that no one back then knew it was unhealthy is false. Moreover, governments have let the product be legal and have taken far more TRILLIONS of dollars in taxes than the tobacco companies ever made as profit! Still, I would not be at all surprised if the government WON their suit! Why? We are dealing in politics here, not ethics. The two are not the same at all. To the anti-smoking movement, any tactic is justified to achieve their ends. It doesn't matter what is true. To them, they are saving people from themselves and if they have to bend the law to win so what? They're on the side of the angels! None of them are thinking of the precedent being set. You can use the idea of people being "tricked" into unhealthy lifestyles to justify more than just smoking. Too much food, the wrong kinds of food, alcohol, dangerous sports...the list is endless. Once you've set the legal precedent that we are NOT responsible for what we do to ourselves you can sue for anything! The government has dollars in their eyes. 50 Billion is a lot of money! Of course, I'm not sure where they would replace the lost tax revenue from if they succeeded in putting legal tobacco companies out of business. Or how they think this would even help discourage smoking! After all, figures quoted in the media have stated that up to at least 50% of the cigarettes smoked here in Ontario are illegal product from First Nations factories. It would not be hard to envision ALL cigarettes coming from this source if the legal factories went under from lawsuits! We would still have just as many cigarettes smoked. The only difference would be that there would be ZERO tax money for the province and the feds! We have already been shown that governments have decided to do NOTHING against this native tobacco industry! They are afraid of the repercussions. Perhaps as with so many other things the government has not thought all the way through the ramifications of their law suit.