ReeferMadness

... which is probably nothing, unless they want to pay millions in severance.

Look at the full list. This is indefensible. In some cases, the appointments are due to last longer than the next government's mandate. This is beyond sleazy.

You guys really don't have very much interest in facts, do you? They get in the way of your opinions.

The thing that gets me about the JFK case (and 911) is that so many people doubt the official story. That speaks to the lack of trust that people have in government, particularly when it comes to matters of "national security". It's quite possible that Oswald killed JFK and it's quite possible 9/11 went down exactly as the official story goes. However, who can doubt that 1) There were others who had motivation to pull off both events and 2) There was enormous political pressure in both cases to come up with an answer that would leave no loose ends ETA: and both, IMO, had circumstances that were never satisfactorily explained. I'll admit, though - I do like a good conspiracy story.

I think you have to be a paying member to hear it.

And your contention is that Harper was only helping because he had such excellent people in the job?

You're wrong. The BC carbon tax was designed to be revenue neutral so there were never to be any funds going towards alternative energy options. Since your opening statement betrays your lack of knowledge (or even curiosity in discovery of this basic piece of information), nobody should pay any attention to the rest of your claptrap.

It's always amusing how the same people who would have been outraged if Chretien had done such a thing are so blase about Harper doing it. Harper, the guy who rode into town, promising to change the way things were done in Ottawa. I don't understand why we are only learning about this now when most of these appointments were made in June. And I don't agree with political appointments made that bind future PM's. If there isn't a rule that governs when and for how long appointments can be made, there should be. There should also be rules about for how long leases can be signed (in BC, Gordon Campbell promised not to sell BC Rail, then leased the tracks for 999 years) and for how long a government can commit to trade agreements. The principle should be that a PM cannot bind a future PMs hands.

I love Coast to Coast. It's great entertainment but you can't take it seriously.

So, the only thing I'm cheerleading for is intelligence and reason to win out over bigotry and bias. So far, the race seems pretty tight. I'd just like to remind everyone of a few facts: The majority of the Paris attackers (including the ringleader) were French and Belgian nationals, not Syrians. They don't even need a visa to come to Canada today. Is someone going to suggest that Europeans are barred from entry to Canada? Or Muslim Europeans? There are already over 1 million Muslims in Canada. If Muslims are inherently dangerous, then it's a bit late. Mass shootings are a common occurrence in a large, heavily armed country that actually borders us. I haven't heard anyone suggest that we prevent "those people" from coming into Canada. So, maybe it's time to climb out from under the bed, let the people who are in charge of screening refugees do their job and stop living in fear. You should be much more afraid of sugar in your diet than Muslims because it's far, far more likely to kill you.

Comparing Islam to Christianity is useful in determining the reasonableness of some of the generalizations that have been made about Islam. Such as: 1. Islam is evil because of some of the statements that are found in the Quran. I posted a link earlier that said that a religious scholar analyzed the bible and found that overall it was more violent than the Quran. So, the reasonable conclusion would be that that living your life according to a literal interpretation of an ancient text transcribed from memory might not be the bet idea. 2. Islam is inherently evil because its followers are doing so many bad things and using Islam to justify it. Historically, an astounding number of horrific things have been done in the name of the Christian deity. The reasonable conclusion is that reasonable people will do reasonable things and interpret their core beliefs in a reasonable way.

Oh, you want in on this now? Maybe you can answer some of the questions that Bryan has danced around. Do you acknowledge that for centuries (prior to the enlightenment), there have been atrocities committed by European Christians that have been just as brutal as what ISIS is doing right now? Can you find the spot in the bible where Jesus says homosexuality is wrong? Do you agree with Bryan that the old testament is now just a historical reference since Jesus replaced it with a kinder, gentler version of Christianity? If so, how do you explain the support of many Christians for the death penalty? It was the old testament that said "an eye for an eye". Jesus said "Turn the other cheek".

Bryan apparently has his own Christian Church - a special one that only speaks of peace and love - and where Jesus talks to him directly. And in Bryan's bible, Jesus said homosexuality is wrong.

Thank you for your caricature view of the world.

Did it help?

Wow. The pope is not an authority on anything. The Catholics are only the largest denomination and the founding denomination of all Christianity - but they have no authority. OK, then. So, who is the authority that says the OT doesn't count anymore - you? Do you have your own church now? The Church of Bryan? Maybe they could make a movie after you and call it The Life of Bryan. Oh, wait, someone did. So, I'm still waiting for the biblical passage where Jesus condemns homosexuality. Take your time. A Christian principle? Astounding claim. I don't suppose you have an authoritative reference for that? And all those middle age European governments where the church held an enormous amount of power? You're not familiar with the crusades or the Inquisitions? You keep avoiding the question.

No to the first question. The second question makes little sense as "terrorism" is more of a political term than a legal one.

I don't have much patience for people who feel the need to run off an kill people in other countries. At least when Canada sends soldiers, there is some opportunity for political debate (however poorly that works in practice). In my view, having Canadians running around participating in foreign wars is a poor reflection on this country. I'm not usually a proponent for new laws but I'd be in favor of a law prohibiting Canadian citizens from taking up arms for a foreign army or cause. To me, the difference between a mercenary and a gangland hitman is just a matter of degree.

I asked for an authoritative Christian source that says the OT no longer applies. Unless you're really the pope, you are not an authoritative source. OK, I'm not a biblical expert - but you don't appear to be either. I'd just like to see the quote so we can judge for ourselves. Soooo, we can make a law which happens to be the same as God's law and enforce it but we can't enforce God's laws. Funny, that almost sounds like separation of church and state. Which is funny because I've been saying all along that the main difference between Christianity and Islam is that there are no Christian theocracies anymore. And when there were Christian theocracies, some of them were every bit as nasty as ISIS.

And do you have a an authoritative Christian source that says that the ten commandments are only a "good guideline" rather than God's commandments? Or did you just invent your own branch of Christianity? So, please quote me the gospel where Jesus said that homosexuality is a sin. But you said yourself that "humans are not to carry out ANY form of enforcement." Or do you think that the courts are not human?

Oh. So the ten commandments don't apply anymore? And all those "pretend Christians" who oppose homosexuality and believe in the death penalty aren't really Christians at all? And if humans are not to carry out any form of enforcement, "real" Christians don't believe in the rule of law? Are there any actual Christians (by your definition) out there?

And when Christians want to prove how loving and tolerant their religion is, they try to disown the entire old testament!

Symbols matter. JT recognized the symbolic importance of taking a stand on this issue. Meanwhile, one of your leading presidential candidates is getting all kinds of accolades for the symbol of proposing a wall to keep out the wrong kind of people. I'm comfortable with that comparison.

In fairness, the refugee debate in Canada (whether we can vet 25,000 people in 6 weeks) has nothing on you guys (can you manage to accept 10,000 people in the course of a year). And people on MLW are hardly the most progressive people in Canada. Just saying.

Seems a little odd but who am I to question the quaint customs of foreign countries? Between drivers licenses, social security numbers, taxes and all kinds of other government data collection, I would assume they know who almost everyone is anyway.