Machjo

How are they counted differently? I have considered writing in the name of someone in the local riding that I would vote for, so as to make it a vote for something as opposed to an empty protest vote. Maybe I'll do that next time I don't have anyone worth voting for. I'll just keep an eye out in the papers for locals who've proven themselves worthy members of the community and write one of their names in instead I suppose.

Isn't the Green Party essentially a moderately greener version of the old Progressive conservative Party anyway, a sort of "blue gren" party? If you look at its platform, it's essentially economically liberal and socially liberal. Or maybe we could compare it to a kind of blue liberal party of sorts.

I vote candidate, not party, and I have never voted strategically though have at times handed in blank ballots. So far not one that I've ever voted for has ever won, though in most cases I also knew the person did not stand a chance but voted for them anyway on principle. So if I ever say I'll vote for you, and you consider my batting average, beware.

There is a difference between the Swedish and Canadian Anthem debates. In this Swedish debate, it's strictly a question of whether to raise boys and girld differently or identically; in the Canadian Anthem debate, while one group was debating eliminating gender references in the Anthem, another was arguing from a Conservative standpoint of returning to our roots (since the proposal was to return to the original anthem as worded by Weir, which happened to be more gender-neutral than the new modified version).

I should add too that even if some "Jews" may have been involved in the Opium Trade, that would be like a Christian or a Muslim or a Baha'i, etc. in a brothel: not at all living up to the standards of his professed religion.

After Nafta, many companies moved to Mexico. The ones requiring more skilled-labour however moved back. So no, not all jobs went to Mexico and some even came back. Now it's just a matter of getting the necessary qualifications. Let the Mexicans compete price-wise and let us compete education-wise. The jobs are there. Just get off your butt, get the education you need and start working. Again, if the issue is lack of money for your education, I'm all for paying taxes to help provide you with the training you need, since I'd rather pay a little more for you now and get you back into the workforce filing in those positions in industries currently experiencing labour shortages! to start paying your taxes rather than pay less but for many years supporting you on social assistance. The jobs are there and in fact some industries are experiencing shortages! What do you mean the jobs aren't there. We may have lost many of the unskilled jobs, but the skilled jobs are there aplenty. It's just a matter of the government giving them the training they need.

Sorry to hear your job went to Mexico. Mine is still here. But of course I'd be willing to pay taxes to provide some job training for you so as to help get back to work and pay your taxes. The jobs are there; you just need the right qualifications... and, oh yes, be more reasonable in your salary demands. Entitlements, entitlements, eh? Why should your job stay in Canada if Mexicans ca do the job more efficiently?

As for point 2 above, even in the most authoritarian dictatorships, such fundamental changes to the language and culture will inevitably require popular support.

I agree with you overall. I just have a hard time believing they mean this legislation to be implemented to the same extreme you're proposing. If so, I can guarantee it won't last long.

1. Jews are adherents of a particular religion and not a race. The Falasha are Jewish and yet black. There are also chinese Jews. So-called "Atheist Jews" could more accurately be described as "atheist Hebrews", or "Atheist Isralies" since "atheist Jew" is an oxymoron. 2. Jews may have been involved in the Opium trade, along with the British, the Americans, and plenty of others. Canada probably benefitted from it too.

Not always. Turkish language reform was a catastrophic success! They replaced the script, standardized the grammar, etc. to the point where most Turks today would be hard-pressed to read Ottoman literature without specialized education at university. On the flip side, the ministry of education is probably saving a bundle on literacy education owing to phonemic spelling and rationalized grammar along with no exceptions to the rules. The justice system is likely saving owing to a more literate population and thus fewer chronic unemployede. Korean script reform proved a success too. In the 1300s, King Sae Jeong the Great convened a committee of scholars to create Hangol to replace the difficult Chinese script. There was much opposition among the elites, but the new script slowly spread among the less educated anyway until by the time of Japanese occupation in the last century, Hangol became a symbol of Korean identity and became official after independence. We can recount similar stories from Indonesia, Israel with the introduction of Hebrew, etc. While such reforms don't always succeed, they can sometimes be astounding successes.

As an interesting point of note, Persian has two second-person singular pronouns: "hu" (the animate pronoun used to refer to humans and higher animals), and "aan" (the inanimate pronoun used to refer to lower animals and objects). There is no separate masculine or feminine pronoun. So the issue of the pronoun is a non-issue and is quite normal in some languages. In Esperanto likewise, there is one movement promoting the neutral animate pronoun "ri". As for the rest of the article, I do agree it seems to be going too far unless there is some research with legitimate arguments to support this.

I doubt it was a coincidence, but since it could possibly be pure coincidence, we must accept the presumption of inocence in this case until some proof comes out. And even if it was planned action among many of these pilots, how do you know one or two of them was not genuinely sick and it just happened to be on the same day as the rest of them? To fire them would send a dangerous message that whenever labour tensions run high, you'd be best not to call in sick no matter how sick you are. Then it becomes a public safety matter.

At least it's positive and not slanderous, which is already a step up for the attack ads we'd been getting. But I'd like to see ads rise one step higher to actually include substance. Honestly, he said nothing in that ad of any real substance. Heck, harper could have said more or less teh same and made it a Conservative ad.

Thosde of her constituents who'd voted for her won't mind. For those who were merely blindly voting for her party, it's a lesson learnt.

By the way, if this office is established, I'm definitely going to send it an email and also write a letter by hand asking that it recommend the Government open the constitution with regards to requiring the monarch to be Anglican and prohibiting the monarch from marrying a Catholic and the separate school system. Then i'd send it a hand-written letter each year from then on in.

If you can't beat it, join it. So if you can't stop this colossal waste of money from being established, then at least put it to productive use. After all, if it doesn't know how to remove religious discrimination from our own constitution, it clearly won't be any more successful elsewhere either. Think of this as training. Once it figures out how to remove such discrimination from our own constitution, then it wil have more expertise to be able to replicate this success abroad too.

If you really don't like the Office of Religious Freedoms, just make it work to your advantage. Once it's set up, start a letter-writing campaing and petition to have it investigate our constitution with regards to the monarch having to be a member of the Church of England and being prohibited from marrying a Catholic, and the special privileges granted certain religious communities with regards the Separate school system not granted to other religious communities. I can guarantee that an unrelenting letter-writing campaign and petition to open the Constitution would make this office a pain in the Conservatives' backside and before you know it the Conservatives would want to scrap the office while the NDP would be supporting it. It's all what you make of it.

Where have you been? Even prior to the foundation of israel, Zionists were killing British soldiers for the establishment of a Zionist state. Now as for a "Jewish" state, that's more controversial since those who equate Zionism with Judaism would insist that a Zionist state is Jewish by definition, whereas others, especially ultra-Orthodox Jews, would argue that the Jewish state is to be re-established only after the return of the Messiah. The latter group agree it's a Zionist state, but reject the notion it's also a Jewish state. Those in power are mostly Zionist though.

You bet it's hard to do. Just try to give schools more leeway to decide their own schooldays, or to openm on Sundays or statutory holidays, etc.

fully agreed. Haver you noticed too how we bend over backwards to close schools and government offices on Sundays, legislate Christian Holy Days as statutory holidays, etc. Just pathetic.

One thing I do find quite ironic is how Ron Paul, the one who's most likely to cut the CIA's budget, is also the one heeding its recommendations and warnings the most, whereas those who booed him, who are most likely to ignore the CIA's warnings, are also the ones most likely to increases or at least maintain its funding. What's the point of funding an organization the opinions of which you'll ignore anyway? Looking at it taht way, Ron Paul makes the most sense. Worse yet, waht's the point of funding an organization that makes recommendations that offend you?

Or maybe demographics can explain that discrepancy. We do have about 10% of the US' population. We have fewer smart people too. Peercentage-wise, our countries are probably not much different.

That would make sense; check out our demographics compared to the US'.

Some Canadians are. Ron Paul isn't.