Molly

I was directly responding, Sharkman, to the post immediately preceeding my own, in which that assertion is made. It was not my characterization. Still isn't, even though the posts in this thread would suggest that the shoe fits- that Christians DO feel particularly threatened by others' disbelief. 'Deity' and 'divinity' strike me as delusional, plain and simple. I do believe my posts have been fairly consistent in pointing out that pot=kettle, one deity as rediculous as the next. As to why I haven't replied to Muslim proposals that I am infidel.... no Muslim has entered this thread to say it. As to why one might reject deity- a decent enough explanation is that the myths defy belief. I struggle to grasp why anyone would embrace any of them, when they are so demonstrably absurd. Where does that strange need for Big Brother in the Sky come from? I don't get it.

It's a shame there's no more detailed breakdown on that. I'm wondering, for instance... if the Conservatives took in their $1.95/vote, that's about 10 million, and they were talking about $10 million refund of election expenses.... that means they had about a million and a half, give or take of actual donations?

PT... I know. Sask grumbled, the provincial government rattled sabres.... it was promptly forgotten and the citizens voted Conservative. Newfoundland reacted like a scalded cat, the provincial government became sworn enemies of Harper and minions; the kitchen table talk threatened to come to blows if the feds were defended, ABC was embraced and 6 Liberals were elected. (And they'll bring it up like NEP twenty years from now.)

To Wilbur, in the way-back machine.... you are proposing less representation for BC than I am... (1/13 vs 1/6). ????????????

If the people of Saskatchewan were as upset, they sure didn't show it in October. (I've spent time in both provinces lately. In NL, it's a blood issue. In Sask., it's-- meh-- politicking- not kitchen table important.)

Yes- excellent. I particularly like "Faith: not wanting to know what is true."

Well, the anthem is back, and we still don't know who (if anyone) objected to it, or why. In absence of that information, the usual suspects have whipped their usual hobby-horses.

Allowing the NL block nay vote was obvious.... and Bill Casey should have been given the same courtesy. MPs should never be forced into such a black and white choice-that-is-no-choice between party loyalty and loyalty to the people who sent them there. A party hack is a waste of skin; a decent representative is much more. As to this exercize in flinging mud at Ignatieff to see if anything sticks? There's no clay in the mix yet. So far he's doing just fine. Unless the budget was a execrable as the fiscal update, an election or government change at this time would be completely irresponsible.

Words fail.

"Your faith is rediculous" and "You are going to Hell" is the obvious discourse between the two-- they are that fundamentally different in world view. I simply do not understand why or how anyone would/could expect those two worldviews to launch a nuanced discussion .... Would you engage in much detailed civil discourse over the nature of the cheeze from which the moon is made, the geography of a flat earth, or which bits of mischief may or may not be blamed on the fairies? Of course not!!! Because the fundamental assumptions are preposterous- a complete step through the looking glass!

Here's short and sweet for you, Mr. C.: Why on earth would those of us who are neither Muslim nor Catholic accept Catholic sexist rules as 'divinely inspired', yet reject that 'justification' for Muslim sexist rules?

If there was no fear of terrorism during WWII, then why did we have internment camps, to pre-emptively jail so many of our fellow citizens? Xenophobia then; same thing now.

Chris.... who says it's a husband's decision? It's interesting that you would assume that a woman would not make such a choice all on her little lonesome. Many do.

"If BC becomes a region on it's own it should have the same number of seats as the other regions including Ontario." That's what 'regional balance' means... 4, 5 or 6 equally represented regions. It makes more sense to me than 48 for the west, 48 for the Maritimes, 36 for the North and 12 for Ontario.... which is what you'd be proposing with all provinces recieveing equal senate representation. Somehow I think the only takers on your proposal would be Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and the territories. Alberta and BC would have more ambition than that, and everyone else would consider it a joke.

The vast majority of US voters might not believe that free trade with Canada is important, but the vast majority of US voters are blissfully unaware that we are their largest trade partner. It might behoove us well to draw it to their, or at least their legislators attention. A trade war doesn't do anyone a lot of good, but immediate and direct retaliation for bad faith is fair game. How about an origin-specific whomper of an import tax on anything for which a Canadian supplier exists, lasting day-for-day as long as any such bad faith policy on their part?

I don't have a problem with the idea of regional representation, or the belief that the senate should balance those interests... but all provinces and territories having an equal number of seats doesn't result in a balance of regional interests. Not even close. It IS fair to consider the maritimes, PQ, Ontario, the west, and the north as regions unto themselves, and quite likely BC should be added to the list to make it 6... but it's even more asinine to propose that (Sask/Manitoba) should have twice the representation of the province of Quebec than it is to leave BC with barely more representation than PEI, and lessw than Nova Scotia.. If you are going to propose balance, then propose BALANCE.

Eggs-ACTLY! Butts are being covered, t's crossed and i's dotted in preparation to dump an obnoxious jerk-- great care being taken to give him/her nothing- absolutely nothing- that could extend his/her stay.

"Were any of those groups taking part in world wide terrorism trying to bring down society?" Um... one set of my grandparents were GERMAN. Remember World Wars I and II?

So.... why is it unfair to describe 'Christians' as some ONE THING that consists of all the worst of Christianity, yet fair to describe atheists as homogenous, uniform (hostile and reactionary, specifically to Christianity)? I'm clearly not an atheist of your stereotype. I assure you that I am an equal opportunity disbeliever. Christianity gets no special inattention from me. It is no more nor less rediculous bunkum than any of a thousand other fairy tales.

Basically you guys are saying strip Ontario and PQ of half their their senate positions, and give them to the west and the territories. Figures.

Oh, for pity sake! This is an immigrant nation! My own European grandparents were vilified as undesireables-- those lazy, drunk and uncivilized Irish; those evil, bloodthirsty (blockheaded) Germans... Our neighbours were those stupid Norwegians, those backward Ukrainians, the thieving Romanians... Every last stinking one of them undesireable and a threat to 'civilized' Canadians, and their progressive way of life. I guess being around for something under a hundred years makes their progeny 'us', while the next wave must be the same sort of 'them' as all of our forebears used to be. What is this? Some sort of ritual hazing for everyone who wants to join the club?

You asked me to cite something recent, Small C... but I don't live there any more, and can't speak to that question with 'last 6 months' kind of intimacy. I can tell you, though, that I was almighty disappointed in the feeble defenses our federal governments, both LIberal and Progressive Conservative provided, with regard to grains for export. They didn't respond to our good neighbour to the south running amok with export subsidies, accepted caps to our exports into that market, (the only one the US hadn't destroyed)-- and they were that feeble, and that willing to throw us to the wolves specifically because they used up all the ammo, and undermined their own arguments, protecting market-controlled producers over here in 'Central' Canada. I hate it that the discussion devolves into 'They're picking on us!' (usually partisan) sort of whine-fests, because that really isn't the basis. "They are neglecting us." is disgracefully true, but the fact of life part is "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few." , along with a healthy dose of "The squeaky wheel that you can hear from the cab is more likely to be attended than the one on the off back corner of the trailer." Folks who live in the shadow of the Parliament buildings can readily make their voices heard in the house, while folks living 2000 miles away are at a bit of a disadvantage.

You would prefer another election before we do anything at all? ('Cause face it, that's what would actually happen.) That would be as irresponsible as that 'fiscal update'.

Waldo... 'percieved'... makes nice rhetoric, but the transgressions are very real, and so is the alienation. I see Albertas particular brand of political narrowness and swagger as being far more hat than cattle, but there is no good reason for anyone west of the lakes to feel well loved, well treated or well defended by Canada. There's uncomfortable truth in the old cartoon of Canada as a cow, that eats in the west, gives milk in central Canada, and... you know the rest. Western interests are routinely traded off for the benefit of those on the other side of the shield. That's just a basic fact of life. Manning is right in pointing out that the true source of the alienation, though, is 'frustrated aspirations', rather than unaddressed grievances. There is no expectation of restitution, or apology, or fair acknowledgement that the West has been (ill) used, nor even, really, that western interests will be better protected in the future. The aspiration that is truly frustrated is full participation-- acceptance and acknowledgement as a part of the whole, and not just a resource to be used (up). In the long standing game of 'us and them' the West is invariably 'them'--- invariably dismissed as irrelevant, even in the dealing with issues that are 'of' the west. Manning further expressed 'frustrated aspirations' with the slogan, 'The West wants in!'. It's still true.

Darkness is, by definition, the absence of light... Calling it 'just another kind of light' doesn't wash.