charter.rights

Sadly, in the last election Harper was not given a mandate to govern. He was only given a mandate to lead parliament IF he was co-operative.

If Harper prorogues parliament then it will be the end of his career as Prime Minister. He will have led directly into the Coalition's argument that he does not have the confidence to move forward - especially since we are facing an economic crisis and immediate action must be taken. By not facing the issue of a Coalition, he will have admitted defeat. He would have one saving move, in my opinion. He would have to approach the Liberals and ask them to agree (at whatever cost) to work on the economy. He can no longer rule like a tyrant and he must be willing to government in a full consensus democracy with the opposition. After all that is what a minority government represents. He really is in a no win situation. Either he compromises and joins forces in getting out of this economic crisis together, or he loses complete control of the ship and let's the left lead the way on their own.

I think you are under estimating Justin Trudeau. I have heard him speak and he is as eloquent and as charismatic as his father was. I have no doubt that he could fill his father's shoes.

You must be in the camp that supports Harper when he said: "We are not in a financial crisis in Canada." "We will not go into deficit." Funny how a week changes everything. If Harper tries to form a coalition with the Bloc then the Liberals and the NDP have their wish. The point to be made is that Harper can no longer be trusted to operate as a bully and in a vaccum. Even if the Bloc joins himj, he still has to pay homage to their wishes.

A coalition would allow the public to see Layton and the NDPs in action. If they can demonstrate they are as astute politicians as the Conservatives or the Liberals while in power, then the public might be willing to go the extra distance with him. It really is a safe place for Layton to be.

The Bloc might have been a threat, except Duceppe has already stated that he would be willing to support a coalition so long as no one in the Bloc gets a ministerial position AND the coalition government was good for Quebec. To participate in governing the country would be a contradiction to their purpose. However, I could see that the Bloc might become the Quebec Wing of the coalition...which wouldn't be such a bad thing IMO. If there was a failure and Quebecers got pissed off at their own party for screwing up it would send votes from Quebec to the other mainstream parties....

As I think about Chretien and Broadbent see a way to get Harper to tow the line of a minority government set-up. Last term Harper ruled like he had a majority and bullied his way through parliament because the Lilberals were too fragile to pull the plug on him. Harper started off this session with the same big mouth and brutish statements as he did last term. This strategy guarantees that Harper will not try to force through his agenda and then threaten to make every vote a confidence vote. If he does and the vote is becomes non-confidence the coalition have warned him they will just step in and take over - no new election where Harper can go crying to the public. And you can bet that if a coalition does come to power, it will be run like no other government, as a model of efficiency and democracy. The only way they could avoid public outrage at the maneuver is if people like what they see at the end of the next 5 year term. As we all know voters have short memories.

Death does provide both and I would prefer death over tyranny or oppression.

Liberty without peace is the tyranny of the majority. Peace without liberty is oppression.

It is an unreasonable choice and not worth debating. As I said one cannot exist without the other.

There cannot be peace without freedom, nor freedom with out peace. They must co-exist to be true.

Canada and the US welcome all Christians regardless of colour. What we don't do is exclude other beliefs and ideologies. Christ taught that love and acceptance spans all boundaries and that refusing to see others as our equals leads us to personal destruction. And of course we can't let the fact slip that if Christianity is such a tried and true ideology and belief system, how is that it can;t stand up to questioning and challenges?

The Catechism isn't God's Law. It isn't the doctrine handed down by Christ. It is the Catholic Church's law and I would suggest it was laid out to control the urges of the Priests and not the followers. That said, the New Testament of the Bible - Christ's direction for Christians, does not mention homosexuality, nor does it condemn it. Oh and by the way.....There is no sin. Matthew 7:1-5 (KJV) Judge not lest ye be judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. One's belief in sin binds them to be sinners. That is not of God's making but of their own error in thinking.

Well....I think that would be okay as long as he gets to watch....

Homophobics, as well as other religious nutbars are hardly ever concerned about the rights of others. Their whole purpose is to tread on your rights and make you inferior to them. If Jesus were alive today he would commit suicide for all the Satanistic ways that nutbars have made Christianity a disease.

Homosexuality IS normal whether you agree or not.

Of course the mouth was meant for putting food in yet it produces great pleasure in both males and females.....even if it is as simple as a kiss......

You are free to believe what you want. You just can.t promote your xeno/homophobia as some sort of truth with the intent of getting others to hate people for their sexual preferences. But neither having a right to believe what you want makes you right to think that way.

To my knowledge this "idea" was Old Testament doctrine. It does not affect or obligate Christians whose doctrine comes out of the New Testament.

Umm....I guess no one cares about Ahenakew. Just as well. His comments were not criminal. A little brash and uncouth perhaps but not a hate crime.

Of course with the looming Conservative "depression" it would be ineffective and unwise to lower taxes and cut back services. As the need for services increases the burden may have to be shifted to taking more from the rich people in society.

Read it again - in whole this time.

Of course you are a master of taking things out of context and then trying to make an argument over it. Read it again. Two different points were being made.

More ignorant ostrich posturing by dogonporch without any refutations. Next up sing along with the dog..la la la la la la...I can't hear you....la la la la... The Romans wiped themselves out through the same kinds of greed and power structures that are now decimating our civilization. And of course they couldn't tame the Celts whom the NA Indians have more in common with than the British ever did.

By no means. Native people expanded their territories out of necessity - especially after contact since settlers were prone to disrespecting the land and resources for their own profit. But when there was conflict it was not the kinds of continental wars that Europeans engaged in. They were disagreements and skirmishes over who was going to eat that winter. But still the emphasis was always about the community and not about individual profits. Aboriginal cultural superiority stemmed from the fact that they had no reason to invade Spain or Italy for profit since the risk of entering into territories where people were killing themselves off at plague rates because of poor hygiene would have outweighed any community benefit they would have gained. BUT when the colonials did show up here the Haudenosaunee were some of their first trading partners - not because of similar idealogies but because the Haudenosaunee had been trading in the north, south, east and west for hundreds of years and had well establish and protected trade routes.