waldo
-
Posts
17,650 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by waldo
-
-
Only a Liberal would support drug abuse.......lol! Good God no wondering the Americans laugh at us.
far be it from you to actually read the article/quotes...
whether one considers <30 grams 'abuse' or not, Dr. Martin's bill does not affect the illegality of drugs and drug trafficking. The bill's significant change/impact would see drug users brought into the public health system, rather than the court system... additionally, as stated in the article, "the monies now allocated to law enforcement for possession of small amounts could be redirected to youth awareness programs and public policies that discourage drug use".
perhaps you could elaborate on how/where you interpret the bill is, as you say, "a support for drug abuse". Apparently, to you, fines versus criminal charges equates to, as you say, "a support for drug abuse".
-
there is no free speech in canada, canada even has a "banned book list" for instance, if they get a hold of david icke, or William Pierce books, they have a special border unit that summons them and BURNS them... that's right Canada is a book burning country...
how's that for a rational free civilized society?
well... yes, apparently, for example, Pierce's Turner Diaries can't make it's way through Canada Customs (deemed "hate literature") - however, you can easily download it off the interweeb mate! So... in that single example, has technology trumped censorship? Regulate the internet??? - oh my!
-
Not sure, heard Cannon saying something about judicial process and another Con mumbling something similar.
I like Dewar. the NDP saying let's bring him home.
OK sir, he holds a Sudanese citizenship, he's home already.
Abousfian Abdelrazik is a Canadian citizen... perhaps he is not "as Canadian" as is, apparently, preferred by the Harper Conservative party... or perhaps yourself. Some are lamenting the fact his skin colour doesn't match that of Brenda Martin - oh my!
a shameful display of Conservative party incompetence, indifference... and worse!
-
I wouldn't care myself, if all on the political left had one too, if they did this wouldn't be an issue would it?
waaahhhhhhh! Of course not an issue - cause we know anyone/everyone on the "political left"... would never - ever - accept registering guns!
-
Ignatieff to defy PM on gun registry
lol................who cares what a sissy Liberal has to say?
well... you should care what the leader of the Liberal party has to say about his (party's) intentions toward Harper's gun registry folly. Exactly how do you envision having Harper's gun registry dismantling bill passed without Opposition support?
much ado about nothing - it won't make it out of the Senate (anyway).
-
well done Alta4ever... your new thread title is a major improvement over the original title that questioned Ignatieff's free speech belief.
-
The way the exerpt reads is like (although not directly) an endorsement of the section 13 of the Human Rights commision.
oh please! exactly which exerpt (sic), even indirectly, has anything at all to do with... let alone endorse... Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act that empowers the HR Commission to deal with complaints regarding the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet!
-
Conservative Chiropractors... the gift that keeps giving!
oh my! From today's HofC proceedings - James Lunney, Conservative member from Nanaimo—Alberni... who also happens to be a Chiropractor:
Mr. Speaker, recently we saw an attempt to ridicule the presumed beliefs of a member of this House and the belief of millions of Canadians in a creator. Certain individuals in the media and the scientific community have exposed their own arrogance and intolerance of beliefs contrary to their own. Any scientist who declares that the theory of evolution is a fact has already abandoned the foundations of science. For science establishes fact through the study of things observable and reproducible. Since origins can neither be reproduced nor observed, they remain the realm of hypothesis.In science, it is perfectly acceptable to make assumptions when we do not have all the facts, but it is never acceptable to forget our assumptions. Given the modern evidence unavailable to Darwin, advanced models of plate techtonics, polonium radiohalos, polystratic fossils, I am prepared to believe that Darwin would be willing to re-examine his assumptions.The evolutionists may disagree, but neither can produce Darwin as a witness to prove his point. The evolutionists may genuinely see his ancestor in a monkey, but many modern scientists interpret the same evidence in favour of creation and a creator.why, I do believe I like TJ Cooks' response to Lunney the best:
Oh for the love of god…“Mr. Speaker, recently we saw an attempt to ridicule the presumed beliefs of a member of this House”Nobody ridiculed Goodyear’s religion, we ridiculed the *Science Minister* for rejecting the foundation of modern biology. Nobody plays the victim like the religious right.“Any scientist who declares that the theory of evolution is a fact has already abandoned the foundations of science. ”Ok, not true. On the other hand, we have Goodyear playing up his credentials as a Scientician and Chiropractor declaring his belief in so-called “microevolution” while dodging the question of actual evolution… well, he hasn’t abandoned modern science, he’s simply never accepted it.“For science establishes fact through the study of things observable and reproducible. Since origins can neither be reproduced nor observed, they remain the realm of hypothesis.”Evolution is about the *process*. It doesn’t claim to explain origins. This is Grade 10 science here, Mr. Lunney.“Given the modern evidence unavailable to Darwin, advanced models of plate techtonics, polonium radiohalos, polystratic fossils…”Given the modern evidence unavailable to Darwin, he would be awestruck at the prescience of his theory. He nailed it, and modern biotechnology has backed him up all the way. As for plate tectonics, polonium radiohalos and polystratic fossils, it’s safe to assume that Mr Lunney, another frickin’ chiropractor, has no idea what these things are. He sounds like every other religious nut reading texts prepared for gullible creationists by their religious leaders.“The evolutionists may disagree…”The word he’s looking for is “scientists” or possibly “biologists”. Until creationism is supported by repeatable evidence, it’s religion and not to be confused with science. Calling biologists “evolutionists” is an attempt to drag science into religion’s realm of faith and holy declaration. Kinda like asking if our Minister of Science and Technology “believes” in evolution - absolutely the wrong question.“The evolutionists may genuinely see his ancestor in a monkey, but many modern scientists interpret the same evidence in favour of creation and a creator.”Yup - the same “scientists” or, more likely, scientitians who wrote the tract about “polonium radiohalos and polystratic fossils.”Honestly, first our Prime Minister misses the G20 photo event to take a dump, now we have a chorus line of chiropractors declaring their lack of belief in science IN the House of Parliament. We look like backwater hicks, but that’s what happens when the right wing takes power. -
Excellent. WestJet can easily lease some planes from the carcass of Air Canada to meet the demand.
If they can do that, fine....but what will our market be like without competition?
competition? no worries... as a good corporate citizen, WestJet will keep fares artificially low - you betcha!
-
How are we suppose to take what was written? What did Ignatief mean what greater context is there?
you couldn't even decipher the American bloggers presumptive ramblings... let alone Ignatieff's introduction. Yet that didn't stop you from denigrating Ignatieff's free speech beliefs.
and now you want someone to explain it all to you - ya, right
-
Well scrapping the gun registry is one step closer to a reality...............!! Right on man Harper!
try to keep up!
nope... those wingnuts have a new strategy via the Senate!New federal bill would end long-gun registry
Some observers said the move is likely more strategic — the Conservatives can blame the Liberal-dominated Senate if the bill is voted down.Ignatieff to defy PM on gun registry...............!! Right on man Ignatieff!
-
why... he's in the crapper... much like his Conservative party!
-
The common thread you are ignoring is Ignatieff's permanent "American" state of mind. Can't really blame an editor for a commencment speech at Whitman College. This guy thinks he is Yankee Doodle.
careful... you can't very well play your favorite poodle/lapdog/toady card against Ignatieff if you make him out to be "American".
-
Your on ignore
free at last, free at last - thank gawd almighty, I'm free at last!
-
guys, guys... why ya changing the subject?
Same subject.....different skin for Mr. Ignatieff.
I'm sure the audience and media will embrace Mr. Bush's use of an expansive "we", "our", and "(US) Constitution" on his next speaking engagement in Canada.
same subject? From "free speech beliefs" to "pronoun usage"??? Wonder why no one wants to continue with the threads original premise...
as for the Shrubs next speaking engagement... c'mon - how many times can he play Calgary?
-
Guys,
This is not the place to discuss the issues. Only post your questions.
Ch. A.
fair enough - I trust we'll see no further outbursts of profanity from he who shall go unnamed...
in the interests of ensuring Mr. Klein doesn't interpret a lack of MLW knowledge in regards one of the earlier posed questions, and as I've highlighted 2 instances where Mr. Klein, in fact, attempted to use the Charter's Notwithstanding Clause (gay marriage & forced sterilization compensation), the earlier question asking Mr. Klein "why he never used the Notwithstanding Clause", should either include an accompanying caveat concerning the 2 aforementioned usages... or the question should be further qualified - which, I believe, is the similar point Smallc was attempting to make; i.e. as Smallc stated, to "assist Mr. Klein in answering".
-
Keep federal gun registry: T.O. police chief
It looks like the Tories should talk to the cops before they kill the registry.
nope... those wingnuts have a new strategy via the Senate!
New federal bill would end long-gun registry
Some observers said the move is likely more strategic — the Conservatives can blame the Liberal-dominated Senate if the bill is voted down. -
Don't know that....but he sure does believe in Americans:
Funny how those on the board swear up and down he is Canadian, but look at all those "we americans"
guys, guys... why ya changing the subject?
anywho - who better to counter your misdirection attempt than the darling of the right-wing Conservatory, one Mark Steyn... cause, you know... he da revered man - the go-to quotester for so many of the blogging Tories!
My colleague Paul Wells, meanwhile, is much exercised by what Daffy Duck, in a livelier context, called "pronoun trouble" -- Ignatieff's habit of writing "we" and "our" when writing about American policy in American newspapers. I'm more sympathetic on this point. In a long and undistinguished career, I've written for publications in many lands and from early days I've always been very careful about pronouns. Then I discovered that for the previous six months some malicious Fleet Street sub-editor at the Daily Telegraph, in my more contemptuously hectoring surveys of the London scene, had been taking out every dismissive "you British" and replacing it with "we." More recently, I began to get a flurry of emails from Canadians sneering at me as a wannabe Yank along with even more emails from aggrieved Americans huffing at my impertinence at claiming to speak on behalf of their country. It turned out some jackanapes of a whippersnapper at my publisher's had appended his own subtitle to a forthcoming book of mine and announced it on Amazon, thereby saddling me with Ignatieff Pronoun Syndrome and doubtless irreparably damaging my prospects of a pre-retirement sinecure as lieutenant-governor of Nunavut.Having suffered the editing processes of the New York Times, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the Ignatieff pronouns that so affronted Paul Wells hadn't been inserted by one of their many deputy associate assistant executive copy editors. But, even if they weren't, so what? If, like Ignatieff, you're living and working in America, writing about America for Americans, what's the big deal about the occasional expansive inclusive "we"?now come on back Alta4ever... it's your thread topic - and my last post - you're avoiding.
-
On the contrary.
Who cares whether Afghanistan becomes a "civilized" country? I don't... because I think that Afghanistan's civil society is a question for Afghans to resolve. Canada should not be involved in this directly. (Indeed, I suspect that Leftist, do-gooder Canadians would only make the rights of Afghan women worse. See Haiti.)
As a NATO member, Canada's interest in Afghanistan is simply to prevent Afghanistan becoming a place to breed flight-bound terrorists who will hurt Westerners. This is our first priority and in this, our troops are fighting a fundamental battle.
Second, we must make it possible for the Afghans to organize this themselves so our troops can come home.
who cares? Why... Harper cares?
Harper 'deeply troubled' by Afghan move to limit women's rights
"This is antithetical to our mission in Afghanistan," Harper said in an interview with CBC News."Making progress on human rights for women is a significant component of the international engagement in Afghanistan.""The concept that women are full human beings with human rights is very, very central to the reason the international community is engaged in this country." -
What Ignatieff of today isn't the Ignatieff of yesterday, he changed as soon as he entered the liberal party, did he change who he is when he became leader. Or is it maybe you just didn't know how to deal with this tidbit so your tring to spin it away?
what tidbit? what spin?
it's the American bloggers assertion that Freedom of Speech is an American concept... so, of course, you title this/your thread around Ignatieff's belief - huh!
the book is a collection of 11 essays from leading scholars... with an introduction written by Ignatieff. The premise of the book is that the U.S. has been a driving force in promoting global human rights but is also reluctant to commit to the international laws and conventions that protect them..... i.e. the "American Exceptionalism" which Ignatieff categorizes into 3 types: (1) exemptionalism (supporting treaties as long as Americans are exempt from them); (2) double standards (criticizing "others for not heeding the findings of international human rights bodies, but ignoring what these bodies say of the United States); and (3) legal isolationism (the tendency of American judges to ignore other jurisdictions).
the American blogger appears to assert that Ignatieff is "being critical" of U.S. domestic policy and it's "failure" to adhere to the same global human rights standards that the U.S. has been a driving force in promoting. The first essay - from the first scholar revolves around the U.S. First Amendment..... so, of course, because Ignatieff chose to put that essay, from that scholar, as the first entry (of 11), the American blogger leaps to the conclusion that Ignatieff's first piece of "damning evidence" in his attempt to indict the American domestic record on human rights ... is using the U.S. First Amendment. The American blogger continues on in an attempt to label Canadians (fundamentally)... and Ignatieff in particular... as willing to sacrifice fundamental natural freedoms of self-expression in the name of jurisprudence aimed to subjugate racial animosity.
so... of course, without a single direct quote attributed to Ignatieff we now have tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum yucking it up about Ignatieff's and Liberals free speech beliefs...
jdobbin said it best!
Actually, I am pointing out that you and this blogger have not read the book. Spin that. -
The conservatives must have done something right over the last 3 years.
is that a question?
-
Hey, Canada is looking good... !! I know I know, Harper had nothing to do with it
That's correct... it's past Liberal governments that laid the foundation of strict banking regulations and prevented the proposed banking mega-mergers involving the Royal Bank with BMO and TD with CIBC... Yes, thank you Jean Chretien... thank you Paul Martin.
-
What I'm saying is that you CANNOT intelligently and reasonably make the argument that the Liberals would have spent less.I concur
-
This happens a lot on many discussion boards. It's just a part of human nature.
if by "this", you mean attempts to marginalize some posters - yes, "that" happens a lot on many discussion boards. I do believe the effectiveness of the poster in question is directly proportional to the degree of raised concern emanating from the "other camp"... accordingly, we can say the effective quotient is very high!
Harper Working on Scrapping the Gun Registry!
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
ha! I won't bother quoting any of the follow-up - too funny!
almost as funny as how people selectively read/interpret... ya see, my selective read/interpret looks at that original comment and I see 2... 2 references - to both Canada and the US. Now, was the subsequent reference to the "stubborn resistance of the few" with respect to the U.S. or to Canada?
whatever... it gave you the needed reach around to embrace the NRA and the U.S. "culture of guns"... where interestingly, a relatively recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. - June 4-5, 2008, had this little nugget:
wait a minute... wait a minute... maybe you guys had the right reference all along. We could be talking about that "stubborn resistance of the (20%) few" in the U.S., after all!