SSD

I am talking about taking adult cells and turning them to another type of adult cell (like brain cells). This type of research has nothing to do with embryonic stem cells and don't make it look that way--please. You take a debate about one type of research and talk about another. Answer the questions at hand. However, I'll take one your argument anyways. Firstly, embryo harvested stem cells do not always cause tumors. Get your facts straight...please. This is a basic scientific fact so if you don't understand health and science, don't use it to argue against another. A significant amount of research is being put into killing (0%) the risk of tumor development whether or not it is an embryonic stem cell. See-epigenetic research. Also, are you telling me that nature is telling us something? Are you telling me that what is natural is right? Just look at it, if we did what is "Natural" we'd be raping each other in order to reproduce, killing each other for food and our mates, etc. Lastly, the pro-choice crowd is not pushing for only embryonic stem cells. Get you head out of where it doesn't belong. They are pushing for research and that is what we have so far. Now that adult cells can be turned into iPS cells, there is not much more need for embryonic research. Don't make it out to look like these people are carrying around knives and spoons wanting to take everyone's embryos while they sleep.

Today, the globe reported that Canadian researchers were easily able to turn skin cells into iPS cell lines, which could then give rise to cell types that could be used in treating many diseases, including cancer. This research has made it much safer to create pluripotent stem cells without having to go the embryonic route (which is controversial in some areas) and it also prevents the risk of cancer from using these techniques. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ry/Science/home So, what do you think about the current governments inability to recognize this chance for Canada to stand along with the U.S., Japan, and Europe? What do you think about the ideological challenges that prevents our P.M. in taking this chance to finally defeat diseases, like Alzheimer's, Parkinsons, and Lou Gherig's Disease?

Why do you want to crack down on dope? Aren't you conservative? A real conservative, Ron Paul, down in the States, thinks that the money spent on the war on drugs could be better spent elsewhere or in the pocket of people. If someone wants to use drugs and is over the age of 18 (or19), then so be it. The government should protect us from ourselves unless we have some inherent mental illness.

I think the question referred to is the war on drugs. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

True that. Areas where ganja is allowed in even small amounts have less crime. If we are going ban this leaf, then we should ban all substances. Otherwise, legalize it Even the right wingers can agree that a little puff makes that world a better place. Either that or they are lying to themselves. I have been to school in the U.S. and Europe. All the scholars I have talked to think that people who want to stop others from smoking what don't belong in power since they have a hidden agenda. All I know is that had Martin been in power for longer, he would have decriminalized larger amounts (he was getting more and more progressive with the NDP's help, so it was only time).

I don't understand whats wrong with ganja. What is it with this government wanting to control our lives? They think they know whats best for us. Maybe they focus on the economy rather than what we do in our spare time that does no harm to anyone. Whats the difference betweenganja and alcohol? If they are going to ban this leaf, then they should tell us what to wear, how to speak, who to vote for. Smaller government my ass. These bible-thumpers want everyone to read the bible and wage war on the hippes and non-believers. Firstly, ganja helps in reducing stress. Second, there are vapourizers used by some (and if legalized could be sold by pharmacies) that significantly reduced any harm in the smoking of it. Third, no consensus (in research) says that lung cancer is a direct cause of smoking marijuana, unlikng smoking that disgusting tobacco. Fourth, by taxing it and thus regulating it use, we could make some good money off of consenting adults wanting to enjoy life. Fifth, it has been successful in reducing breast cancer. Sixth, no widely accepted study has proven the gateway drug theory stated by these religious know-it-alls, who make up the overwhelmingly large majority of the right. Last, we won't have to worry about using our tax money and burden on our policing system to arrest people for these neutral issues (as long as they don't cause harm to anyone, who cares). This quote was used by a good man, John McCallum, during the same sex debate in parliament. It is widely considered the quote the pushed the bill over-the-top: "I believe we should always seek to expand the rights of our fellow citizens as long as we do not thereby reduce the rights of others. We should seek to ensure that no group is denied full participation in society. As members of Parliament, we should not ask the question, why should we extend this right? Rather our question should be, why should we not extend the right? Let the burden of proof be on those who wish to limit fundamental rights." I think this is the defining quote of that movement here in Canada and really cemented McCallum as one of the most respected men in today's political system (even though he's embarrassed himself at times).

First of all, the car industry is the heart of Ontario, which is the heart of Canada. If Ontario collapses (500000 unemployed from car collapse) so does Canada since Ontario makes up at least 38.5% of Canada's population. We need to kickstart the car industry since it will eventually revive the heart of Canada. CBC is not doing so well financially because the current government isn't giving it flexibility in programming and not allowing it to give its producers creative control (article in the Star months back). CBC is probably the only thing Canadian on today's TV. Oh yeah, CTV gets taxpayer money too but I don't hear Harper complaining about that.

I actually think the CBC is necessary for Canadian culture. Especially in today's world. CTV isn't Canadian (with 99.9% of their programming American). I don't like their drama programming but I do like Rick Mercer and This Hour Has 22 Minutes. It may not be like the glory days of the nineties (with Air Farce) but those two programs give me the political fix that no other program on any other network can. The Hour hosted by George S. is also an interesting talk show that has a truly Canadian identity and shows off Canadian cultural icons and others from around the world. I think their new coverage isn't as organized as CTV Newsnet but whenever they want to, they blow away other Canadian news stations (like during the election, etc.). I also have to say that CBC the National is hands-down the better option than the CTV alternative as Mansbridge>>>Robertson. Lastly, CBC has At Issue which blows the competition out of the water. However, they need to develop better ideas like expanding At Issue into a program the way CTV Question Period and have it be at least 30 minutes (it would be different than anything else).

Its their double standard. Apparently, rules only apply with ones they don't agree with.

He was supposed to "spill the beans" on that meeting because it was not a private discussion. Its was a meeting. You didn't justhave Obama and Ignatieff. You had Bob Rae, and some people that came along with Obama. It was a meeting and Ignatieff decided to let people know what they talked about. Much has been said about Ignatieff's "tired" remark. I think its a comment to show how hard Obama is working on this and is a compliment to his work ethic and his responsibility. His political skills are well honed. Just think about it, in the budget, he put the government on probation. He can't lose. If the economy worsens, he can say its not his budget. If the economy improves, he can claim that the meetings that Brison and McCallum had with Flaherty forced the Conservatives to include measures that would work. Also, he is very successful in appearing to be everybody's best friend. From Quebec to Alberta, he is making sure that while Harper continues with his divisive politics, people will turn to the friendly Liberals. Remember, it was Harper, not Ignatieff, who tried to directly bankrupt his opponents and called the Bloc separatists in one language and sovereignists in the other. What did Harper think? That Quebecers can't understand both?

He actually IS very good as a leader. Do you think that the media would have cared if Dion had met with Obama. They would brush it off. Because Iggy has a really, really good chance at becoming PM, the media cares. He speaks a Churchillian style, looks dignified, pragmatic, and has had a successfu life outside of politics. I know you'll say he was just a teacher. You're wrong there, he was also a broadcaster, journalist, human rights activist, and author. He's been in places where Harper has only heard about on television. You'll also say that he made his success outside of Canada. You're right there but when you are an intellectual, you need to travel the world and take advantage of opportunities. Ex. there is nothing like the School of Government at Harvard in the world. He needed to talk about Omar Khadr. Khadr is a Canadian citizen and therefore needs to be protected by our government from inhumane treatment. He also is a child soldier. He may or may not have thrown that supposed grenade but he deserves the rights every Canadian person not yet found guilty deserves. Oh yeah, Canadians ARE concerned for him; just look at the poll numbers. And he has every right complaining about troubles with his own government. It would be irresponsible for him to lie. He obviously isn't complaining but stating something that may have an effect on the U.S./Canada relationship. It is a minority governmetn afterall and he may hint of an election. His picture in Times Square was done because no news media picked up the story of the Opposition Leader and Obama meeting. This is a statement to the Americans that Ignatieff, the de facto future P.M. of this nation, will be responsible for the Canadian side of this relationship soon enough. We all know that Harper isn't going to be in office for long--at least we can agree on that.

Can I ask you a question? Are you a guy or a girl? A lot of guys are not able to fold their legs the way Obama can. I can't. Its the way the body has been built. Oh yeah, what difference does it make how one folds their legs? Wow...you right wingers and you're fear of Liberals.

The funding comes from all Arab countries, not just Saudi Arabia. Didn't you forget that Bin Laden is rich, himself? Do you really think that some oil family is funding this? Good God, this is 2009, the CIA knows all.

Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US. Afghanistan is where the organization, training, etc., is held. They paid to have the towers torn down? What are you smoking?

You're very ignorant. You're solution to everything is bombing the enemy. Jimmy Carter was in a different place and time. I didn't defend Barack as president, I defended him as a candidate. Read before you respond, please. Barack is not advocating getting too far involved in other people's business, he is just advocating having good relations with them and thats it. Have you ever thought about why 9/11 happened? It didn't happen because people just hate America for being America. They attacked because the U.S. was getting too involved in other countries' businesses. Its good to have diplomacy, trade, etc. but it ain't right to send our military over to a country that hasn't even provoked us. Obviously, you are going to give the Afghanistan example but thats a centre of the terrorism network that attacked on 9/11.

Firstly, he won because people are tired of the old politicians lying to them day-in day-out. He won because he is fresh to Washington and would provide a different view of things. He won because he promised a different approach to foreign affairs. Just look at Hillary right now. She will be sending envoys to Latin America and North Korea. He is more about making dialogue and trading with our enemies rather than bombing them out and driving America further into debt. Ignatieff carries this type of mentality: a more civilized parliament, pragmatism, etc. Harper, on the other hand, won because Dion's message didn't resonate with Canadians and because Harper scared Canadians before Dion had a chance to explain his story. His first time around was because Martin was too closely tied to the Sponsorship Scandal by the media even though he was cleared of any wrong doing. Harper has yet to win on his message and the fact that his message isn't actually the winning ticket, Ignatieff will wipe the floor clean by the next election.

Very true. People from the right thinks that all things bad comes from the left. Hussein and Hitler were both fascists (right wing) and were very nationalistic. Right wing does not equal small government as you can see down south. The thing the social conservative forget is that interfering in a woman's health issues (abortion illegality), gay rights, criminalizing marijuana are all signs of big government but that we only equate when it comes to fiscal issues.

Its not that tough actually. To tell you the truth, I am glad Obama is working with the government since without him, they'd probably be talking about bailing out the oil companies and introducing a tax on green technologies. Without Obama, Harper would be lost and this is our government and Harper is our P.M., so its better to know that they are going to try to at least appear to agree with the Obama administration so that we don't have to fear a hard right wing/Hitler-esque agenda.

I heard the Harper on the phone months ago called him and tried to talk like a black guy but Barack told him to act professionally and treat him the way he would to a white guy. I also heard that Harper wanted to wear baggy jeans and a doo-rag and to walk like a gangsta but his chief-of-staff told him not to. The reason why this trip was only 6-7 hours was because the PMO staff told the White House staff that they didn't want to give Harper a big enough opportunity to unknowingly offend Barack Obama since Harper has never seen a black man before.

I'd be happy to vote for him if he hadn't made scary remarks. People can make fun of me as they want but it doesn't change what he has said: Reformers (like himself) are like conservative Republicans? Build a firewall around Alberta? Paul Martin is in favour of child pornography? Scolding the PCs for supporting gay rights and universal health care? Montreal is not as "Canadian" as other city which are English speaking?

Hillary Clinton is a great politician and her husband was great too. What is it that you neocons hate about the Clinton years? The peace or the prosperity. You guys had better be careful what you wish for (conservative majority) since they will bring along banning abortion, cutting healthcare funding, economic mismanagement like in the Mulroney years, destroying women's rights, abandoning aboriginal programs, discrimination in immigration, U.S. style governance, etc.

I was surprised to hear that Obama has read some of Ignatieff's books. I have also heard that the Iggy/Obama meeting was more cordial and warm than either with Harper or the GG. I am looking forward to this relationship as the next time Obama comes to Canada, Iggy will be P.M. and Harper will have his meeting with Obama in a washroom when Obama is taking a crap. A lot of people complain the Iggy was planted into his riding. Why do people have a problem with this. If your not a member of the party living in that riding (which is probably only a few hundred), then what makes your stomach ache about this. Same thing goes with the party leadership. The other candidates dropped out. Rae never spoke to Iggy about his decision beforehand. There was supposed to be a quick early vote instead of a convention and completely within the party constitution. I don't see you guys complaining about Harper's backroom deal to overthrow prime minister Martin or Stockwell's failed coup d'etat in 2000.

I'm tired of people claiming that Iggy was appointed to Leader of Opposition and not elected. Are you guys drunk? Anyone in opposition can become Opposition Leader. It doesn't necessarily have to be a party leader. If the Liberal caucus, in unison, wanted, they could make Ralph Goodle the Opposition Leader. Hell, if the NDP and Bloc came to some sort of agreement, they could make Gilles or Jack the opposition leader without any change to party structure. So stop your crying. Its a ceremonial title with some actual perks. Parties actually have no official role in parliament. The Governor General selects the P.M. to form a government (with anyone from any party) and she also chooses the Leader of the Opposition to form his official opposition.

Goodale is not in the opposition shadow cabinet because he is the Opposition House Leader, which isn't officially a critic. I'm glad John McCallum is Finance Minister-in-waiting, he sure is a breath of fresh air as opposed to Flaherty. However, I am surprised that some rising stars in the Liberals weren't given bigger roles. Navdeep Bains has been left out and even though he's like 31, he has more than four years of Parliamentarian experience. He could help the party since he's a minority and is popular in Peel Region. I guess they are already too many Toronto-area members in key roles.

Gordon Brown is God right now in Britain. Also, I think Nico Sarkozy is popular not only in France but allover in western Europe. Well, I think its around 48-9% but it ain't bad.