Machjo

Precisely. And let's consider too that technology isn't everything. The US got their butts kicked out of Vietnam, the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and heck, we're struggling in Afghanistan against Ak47s. Let's not underestimate the will of the people. No technological advancement will ever overcome that. Again, at the end of the day, balancing the budget ought to take priority. By the way, I'm sure a WWII rifle can still pose a threat to a US soldier carrying a modern rifle. The same would apply with aircraft.

Yup. The Bank of Canada had better start revving up the printing presses. A few billion here, a few bilion there, you know, it quickly adds up.

We talk tax cuts yet defend big spending. The way I see it, tax cuts must dovetail with spending cuts and debt reduction, and not be seen as somehow unrelated.

Why the relativity? A big spender might be frugal compared to a bigger spender, but he's still a big spender.

Bad examples. The F18 is quite capable even against modern fighters today. Also, had no one thought 40 years ago to raise taxes and reduce spending so as to pay off the debt so that we'd be debt free today? We failed to do that so now let's bite the bullet. Where's a fiscal conservative party when we need it most?

I agree it's not responsible to cut taxes when we're in debt. That said, it's equally foolhardy to increase spending while in debt.

I agree. But focusing on priorities would be nice. As long as we have a federal debt, we ought to have a minimalist approach to spending. Keep the planes we have now till the debt's paid off, and then buy new jets. Besides, the price might go down or some better newer plane might come out by then. All we do is spend spend spend to try to keep up with the Joneses. And then we wonder why we always have a debt.

So the federal debt's paid off and we have a healthy surplus for a rainy day already? I'm impressed.

Way to keep a balanced budget. How about we try to balance the budget again before spending money we don't have. This government just keeps spending like a drunken sailor in a brothel.

Yup.. while we're at it, we could force MPs to undergo a purity test, whereby they'd have to answer a few questions about their beliefs, and if they don't meet certain criteria, the riding that voted for him get no MP.

I have a problem with saying that a coalition cannot be formed with a party that adheres to ideology X. First it will be separatists, then socialists, then liberals, and finally ze drem vil kum tru.

We have to distinguish between kinds of life too. I'm sure theres is life everywhere, but in many cases it's likely to be a very simple form of life far inferior to ours. I'm sure intelligent life that has built advanced civilizations is far and few planets between, though I would not be surprised if it existed too, just not as common as the simple life forms.

Now that I could agree with. I could support transferring much Federal and Provincial responsibility to cities, perhaps even via changes o the constitution to entrench a new extremely decentralized federalism with more power transfered to local governments.

So do you walk around town telling any Muslim you see that you want to bomb the Muslim world? Remind me of those guys who'd 'bombed' the World Trade Center. Birds of a same feather.

I don't know the details about the embassy issue, but one difference is that to treat one religious community differently from another infringes on freedom of religion. I don't see how the building or not of a US embassy in Baghdad will infringe on anyone's freedoms. Could you explain how that would be the case? I don't know the full details of it, but from the little I got from what you're saying, one has to do with personal freedom of religion, the other with intergovernmental relations. So they don't relate much now do they. There is a fundamental difference here. Regardless of whether Americans supported the war or not, the US government did as a matter of official policy, and the embassy is a US governmental institution. Thus their opposition to the embassy in no way affects those Americans who did not support the war; it only affects the government which did officially support the war. Now let's suppose that some Christians decided to open up a church in Baghdad, since that church has nothing to do with the US government, it would be totally inappropriate for them to oppose the building of a Church, within local bilaws of course, and with the expectation that they do not discriminate on the basis of religion. If they decided to establish a local English-Speaking community centre, again, the local English-speaking community did not necessarily support the war in Iraq, and so again I'd see no reason to oppose that. But an embassy is an official governmental institution. A more apt comparison would be if Al-Qaeda wanted to build an office anywhere on US soil. Al-Qaeda is officially at war with the US, and so opposing the building of such an office would be quite appropriate. Just as it's not appropriate to blame the Christian Faith for the Iraq War (even if many supported it in the name of Christ), so the same applies to the Muslim Faith. If we support discrimination against Muslims because of 9/11, then we must also support the same treatment for Christians in Iraq because of the Iraq War. I support neither. Notice the highlighted parts. So, you blame Islam for 9/11? Haven't Muslims suffered enough abuse since 9/11? If you don't blame Is;am for 9/11, then why be offended by the building of a Mosque there? How do you think the Muslim victims of 9/11 feel about this, that not only did they lose loved ones, but then in the weeks following 9/11 Muslims across the US got their mosques firebombed, some Muslims and even some who just looked Muslim were murdered. Then we had racial profiling at airports, and one instance of a Muslim booted off a plane because some passengers refused to travel with him, etc. etc. etc. After all of that, we still insult Muslims by implying that they are responsible for 9/11. And as for tolerance, that's not good enough. If have to welcome, love, embrace, not just tolerate. Again, why are they wrong? you say because it may hurt some people's feelings? Whose feelings?Those of the people who blame Is;am for 9/11 of course, because if they didn't their feelings would not be hurt. So why succumb to the feelings of those who blame Muslims for 9/11? They're the very same people who'd firebombed mosques, beat Muslims and anyone looking Middle Eastern, and kicked them off airplanes. You sympathize with them? As for me, i just pity their ignorance.

I believe in freedom of religion, and so I support their freedom to build that mosque. That said, I also believe that Muslims like anyone else ought to respect the law, and that includes zoning regulations. So yes, had the City Council removed their right to build that mosque, as long as it applied equally to all religions, then yes, the local government would have every right to do that. As for the US embassy in Iraq, well again it is being built on foreign soil after all.

Here's what some Muslims go through in the US around ground Zero: Why should the last woman in that video have received the treatment she'd got when she was near Ground Zero, with peopel saying they wanted to bomb the Muslim world?

And clearly the families of the victims of 9/11 don't associate Is;am with terrorism either:

http://www.esnips.com/doc/a0036397-f499-4652-a993-dd6f21f23cba Why would a person convert to Islam right after 9/11 if Islam were a fanatical religion? Clearly Islam has nothing to do with 9/11 except as an excuse for the attacks. You're just reinforcing the beliefs of these fanatics.

And I'm well aware Muslims are Americans. In fact, I'd once met an Odawa Muslim in Ottawa. Seeing that the Odawa were on this land before the Europeans even discovered it, we certainly can't say Muslims are foreigners. And I wouldn't be surprised to find some American Indian Muslims too. Certainly you do not blame them or their Muslim Faith for the atrocities of 9/11 do you?

If that embassy is being built with the blessing of the Iraqi government, just as is the case with the mosque, then what's the issue?

Why anywhere ELSE? They'd lost members too. I don't understand why this would be so offensive? And what about those who lost loved ones who are members of that congregation and who have to face opposition to build what they may believe to be a fitting memorial to their loved ones. Like I said, they're two blocks away from Ground Zero. Someone could build another memorial of their choosing even closer to Ground Zero. Or for all we know it will be a McDonald's? Will they be offended if a McDonald's is built there one day? At least that congregation has a claim to having lost personally on 9/11 to build there, yet I'm sure you'd say nothing of a Mcdonald's being built there purely for profit. Actually, with all the tourists in the future, it would be a money-maker. The people who crashed those planes were no more Muslim than those who bomb abortion clinics and assassinate abortionists are Christian. As I thought, you equate them and so guilt them all by association. You do realize don't you that many mosques were firebombed and vandalized and a few Muslims and even just Middle-Eastern-looking people, including even Hispanics, were beaten and sometimes even murdered in the weeks after 9/11? So, do we prohibit the building of Churches near all of the sites of these attrocities? I'm sure you wont' apply the same standard. You really don't get it, do you. First off, that terrorism was not 'Islamic', but rather in the name of Islam, just as the Crusades were in the name of Christ. By building a Mosque there, they are sending the message that they are law-abiding Americans who intend to stay in the country of their birth and defend it against such terrorism, and will not just run away to the Middle East to fight a war against America. Again, you're blaming all Muslims for the attrocities of a few. Again the either/or. Is it not possible to be happy for those Muslims who want to build their mosque and at the same time be happy for the others who may wish to build their own memorials to their families? Why does one have to come at the expense of another. There is plenty of land in that area for all of them to share, no?

Yes, people will have different feelings about it, but what other reason would there be to oppose that mosque other than that you blame all Muslims for 9/11? If you are offended, then clearly you blame them all. And if you don't blame them all, and see them as victims like the rest, then why would you be offended. It's pretty obvious.

No, I'm saying Muslims in New York were just as affected by this as Christians and Jews, and that they were more affected on the whole that those living in other cities. So they should have the same right to mourn, no? As for that ground being made available, it was not made available just to that Muslim community but to anyone who wants to buy there. You make it sound like a conspiracy. You could build a restaurant there if you wanted to. If I built a restaurant there, would you then complain that it was made possible only because of 9/11? Are you saying that the best way to honour the victims of 9/11 is not to rebuild but to just leave a hole in the ground? Would you be saying the same if a church and YMCA were being built there instead? I doubt it.

Heck, let's let the victims' families speak for themselves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpJVD-A2wOM And how New York Muslims are berated for trying to help: Yet clearly some victims' relatives have been able to look so far past the prejudice that they themselves have adopted Islam: