Chris in KW

Great original post, Melanie. If anyone's still reading this thread, I think it's pretty simple. Atheists tend to be very reactionary (eg, reacting negatively to many real and perceived problems with religion in general and Christians specifically). For many atheists, the reasons they put forward to support their beliefs are all the worst abuses of Christianity (and there are a lot). I'm a Christian, but I have a somewhat... ambiguous relationship with the church (ie organized Christianity). To me, Christianity is largely a personal thing, and I feel that Christianity as organization(s) has often missed the boat. However, to paint all Christians as crusaders, corrupt popes, Jimmy Swaggart and the tyrant version of Jehova, all rolled up into one, just isn't fair. To talk about "Christianity" like it's one monlothic thing, also isn't fair. It's as bad as calling all muslims terrorists, or all government employees lazy. I think Christians basically feel slandered by atheists...

Yes, excellent point. If you read through to the bottom of the article, it does suggest that the culture of Canada Post is to blame. If you look at the most bizarre headlines on the news, there's often a difficult individual at the bottom of it, along with a failure of local authority to deal effectively with that person.

I hope we're not in complete agreement. That would be scary. To be clear, when I say this is "misguided all-inclusiveness", I'm not saying that all-inclusiveness is bad. As a guilty white liberal, I feel pretty strongly that we should be all-inclusive. I really don't mind celebrating other peoples' cultural traditions. I just feel that it's harmful to pretend that the Christian heritage which is important to many of us doesn't exist.

I don't know if it's anti-Christianity, but it's certainly a silly example of overly-politically-correctness (if that's the overly-hypenated phrase I'm looking for!) To ban some kind of speech, you should have to be able to prove harm or hatred or something like that. Not sure how this phrase could possibly qualify. This is a good example of bending over backwards to accomodate others. I can only assume the intent here is the sort of misguided all-inclusiveness that says "rather than possibly offend someone, I will pretend I have no religious heritage". I think this was what CBC radio was doing a few years ago when they wouldn't play Christmas music at Christmas. The immigrants who come here (generally speaking) don't ask us to pretend to have no religion. Most of the problem has been our own bizarre reluctance to offend.

I don't think anyone denies that there are honor killings, or that some of them happen in Canada. There are certainly some extremists out there in the Muslim community, just as there are in the Christian community. I don't like them any better than you do. And I certainly hate the idea of an honor killing as much as everyone else does. Anyone who murders someone should go to jail, for as long as the law allows. I find your thread very ironic: You're paranoid (or at least frightened) by the religious right-wing of the muslim world. That's funny to me, because I find the Christian religious right to be very similar in many respects to the Muslim religious right. Stop painting all Muslims with the same brush, lest ye also be painted.

Ok, the rest of your posts were annoying. But that just made me laugh out loud. You better climb in your bunker Mr Canada. That's the only way you'll be safe from the hoards of angry muslims (probably accompanied by socialists!!!) that are coming to "take over". For anyone who's unable to sense sarcasm, the paragraph above is sarcasm. (I know someone will read my post and say: "Yes! They ARE coming to take over! Where's my gun?")

Ok August1991, you're sounding really smug. I assume you're implying that I'm on welfare or something? Explain your obvious sarcasm! No one in my family has ever been on welfare, or even EI that I know of. Actually, my wife and I do pretty well, and pay more taxes than about 90% of Canadians. I work for a big company in a professional job. I have a good education, work hard, and get very little from the government compared to most. I suppose you don't have to believe that this is true, but it is. It would clearly be in my best interest to pay less taxes. But... (and this is where you probably won't understand what I'm talking about).... I actually think it's a good thing that MY MONEY is TAKEN by the government to support my community. And unlike conservatives, I don't think of "my community" as people who are just like me (white and well off). I think it also includes people who are having a hard time, and people who don't look like me.

I'd like to make two more points, just because this thread is annoying. 1. Murders among muslims have increased because there are more Muslims in Canada than there were 20 or 40 years ago. So statistically, that will happen. 2. This TYPE of murder (men killing women in their families due to disagreements, etc) is probably as common in the Christian part of our population. We don't call it "honor killing", but many murders that happen here (and have nothing to do with Muslims) have very similar qualities.

I think the main issue with this thread is that Mr Canada (as usual) is trying to be provocative without very good facts to back him up. Yes, there are some honor killings in North America. Yes, every honor killing is a tragedy. But it's certainly not prevalent enough here that it's going to result in big spending or a big response by police or government. The majority of muslims, like the majority of "Christians" (which is I think what you call yourself) want to treat their families well and live in peace.

Conservative versus Socialist? Keep in mind, in Canada, even "conservatives" tend to be socialist. So it's not really a dichotomy as you suggest. Also, I get the feeling that "socialist" in your head is closely allied with "commie bastard" or something similar. But I'll try to ignore that and answer your question. Anyway, conservatives tend to focus on the person as responsible for himself. Self-reliance is the great virtue for a conservative, with work, self-motivation, and personal pride. You could call this "every man for himself", but probably only if you're a left wing loon like me. Anyway, pure conservatism only works very well in an ideal world with 0% unemployment where everyone works as hard as I do. Socialists (aka commie bastards like me) tend to focus on the community as responsible for its members. The virtues then are compassion (wow, I sound like a real wimp!) and civic-mindedness. Pure socialism only works in an ideal world where everyone works as hard as I do. The fact is, in reality, a conservative and liberal might approach the same problem, and come up with a similar solution. For example, Conservatives aren't trying to cancel the welfare system, and Liberals aren't trying to shut down the free market. So.... what it comes down to is that Conservatives are too cheap to provide for the poor and would rather have a few thousand extra dollars in their pockets than pay for the kind of society we all want.

Of course Canadians didn't swallow Dion just because of his PhD. He's a lousy communicator and came across like a wimp. Liberals, like conservatives, couldn't stand Dion. Yessir, them ed-i-cated folks got no idea how to run a farm!

Right - ironically, while this is perceived as an attempt to "please liberals", at least the Liberals balanced the budget in the last few terms. This budget (big spending + tax cuts) is a huge mistake. It's neither fish nor fowl (liberal nor conservative), and it fails miserably when examined under either ideology. Either tax and spend, or lower taxes and lower spending. But don't lower taxes and raise spending!!! I really feel like Harper is not merely trying to grab popularity (as Argus said) - he's actually cutting off the country's nose to spite it's face. BTW, check out "Cut off your nose to spite your face" on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_off_t..._spite_the_face

Well Humpty Dumpty to you too! (not sure what that means). Hm... the days of debtor's courts were NOT the good old days. Life sucked for a LOT of people back then. No one is forced to invest in the stock market. People's stock market losses are not the fault of some conspiracy of government or corporations or whatever... The stock market may be immoral, and it's certainly a gamble. But it's certainly not theft either. People should blame their stock market losses on their own ignorance of what the stock market is, and what it's not. There will ALWAYS be money invested in the stock market, because (I fear) greed is an eternal part of the human condition.

Well said. Careful -- are we too smug about our superiority to our friends down south? This budget has wiped some of my smugness away.... But by all means enjoy the beer!

Hm... I don't agree that that "fair" spending is automatically more effective than "targeted" (or unfair) spending. I think we should be trying to get the most 'bang for our buck', not trying to be fair. If someone has to move from Wiarton (small town) to Mississauga to find a job that's based on government stimulus, that's life. I also know people who have moved away from larger cities to work in government-backed jobs (eg. Bruce nuclear plant, etc). I'd argue that building clean powerplants of some kind is an ideal investment for gov't stimulus money. It's not "fair" - it is targeted to one area. However, it generates income, short and long-term jobs. It also generates housebuilding and all kinds of big-ticket spending. It's also something we need to do anyway. I'd much rather spend everyone's personal tax cut on generating jobs like that. I didn't say they wouldn't, I said they shouldn't. But even though consumer spending is a powerful force (which has become almost a truism, so we should question it), I also think that there's quite a bit of consumer spending that doesn't help the economy very effectively. For example, buying a TV at BestBuy? Yes, it keeps a BestBuy store running by providing it a profit margin. But does it really stimulate the Canadian economy? Worse, if people do the right thing, and pay off their credit cards (and a lot of people say that they will do this) this has NO positive effect on the economy (though it's good for them). Putting the extra money in an GIC? I would think that this creates little effective stimulus. I'd rather see some smart folks in Ottawa (I know... that's wishful thinking) put this money to EFFECTIVE use than see it spent "fairly".

Absolutely! The catalyst of this meltdown was ridiculously stupid lending and investment practices (and Canada shouldn't be too proud, we're not much better than the US in this). What money disappeared? You mean the falling stock market? Come on now, this is a common misconception. Don't confuse the current price of a stock (or of the stock market on average) with real money. Cause it ain't. When someone says that a share (or a company) is "worth" $50, well... that's kinda true. Because that's what the last person who bought a share in that company was willing to pay. However, if Bell has a million stocks that are all "worth" $50, that doesn't mean that people spent $50 million for those shares, and they in no way reflect real value. Value fluctuates based on one thing: confidence. That has NOTHING to do with how much or little money was actually invested in the company. In fact, it may even have little to do with the financial viability of the company, as we've seen recently. What actually disappeared was not money but confidence in the stock market. Many people who THOUGHT that their stocks were money, were rudely awakened to realize that it's not true. Be careful never to confuse stocks with money! What actually disappeared was easy credit that was based on un-sustainable profits and immoral lending practices. What seemed too easy (making huge "certain" money on the stock market, the housing market, etc) turned out to be just that - too easy. The stock market is (or should be) peripheral to the economy, but somehow we've let it become a monster that seems to dominate. So who's fault is it that the economy is tanking? Well, everyone who invests in the stock market as if it's a magic escalator to wealth, then freaks out when the bubble bursts. Ok, I'll stop ranting.

Right. On that, I totally agree. I would be ok with a $10B deficit that enables focused, managed, infrastructure spending for 2009. I never attempted to deny that that spending *might* help the economy (though I'm not convinced that our government is capable of spending it in a way that actually helps). My original point, which I maintain, is that if Harper wants to spend, he should take the responsibility to pay for that spending. At the very least, Harper do not lower taxes while increasing spending. I'm especially annoyed at the tax cuts for individuals... They add up to what, a few hundred dollars a year on average? Do we really believe (or even hope) that Joe Blow earning 45K a year is going to spend his $400 on anything that stimulates the economy? What he SHOULD be spending it on is lowering his credit card debt....

Ok, I'm (usually) a liberal. But I'm willing to give Harper credit if he deals with this economic crisis effectively. However, he's not. He's doing half of what the Liberals want - the spending half. However, what he's doing wrong is ignoring the fact that spending HAS TO BE FUNDED. If you spend more, tax more. This is simple math. You can't pretend to be a good Conservative just because you keep taxes low. Overspending and lowering taxes, at the same time, just means you're bad at math.

I'd love to see some actual debate on this topic, not just sarcastic comments. This is a HUGE deficit being proposed. It undoes a large portion of the financial progress our country has made in the last 11 years. Yes, we're in a recession. However, I think we're slightly better off than the US for two reasons: 1. Our banks have not allowed us (as consumers) to get into stupid mortgages as much as US banks did. 2. Our government has not gone into insane debt over the last 10 years. Canada should be proud of our fiscal policy over the last 10 years and more. Though our debt is way too large, we have at least been going in the right direction. I don't think we understand the HUGE economic advantage of paying down our debt. It's not glamorous, it's not instant gratification. But it's real money! What does 64 Billion dollars of debt cost us at 3% annual interest? ALMOST 2 BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR! (I picked 3% as an arbitrary number - I have no idea what we're paying on our national debt on average). So - go ahead and spend, if it's really necessary. But STOP PLAYING THE DEFICIT GAME!

Please back up your statement: In what way is the national debt NOT like a bank account? Because these loans don't really have to be paid back? Because we don't have to pay interest on them? Both false. In many important ways, the national budget is exactly like your household budget. When you borrow money now, you have to pay it back later. That means next year you have less money for all the stuff you normally need to pay for. Why? Because you're still paying off your overspending from last year. Massive deficit like this cripples our ability to do future fiscally responsible budgeting. I know, it seems easy to let future governments deal with it. But that's not responsible. There is one big reason that (I think) is causing this stupid rush into deficit: If the US is doing huge "stimulus spending", our government can't be seen to be doing less. So in answer to your statement "every other western nation is doing it", well... yes. And for the biggest example (the US), this is just a continuation of disastrous economic policy. Sometimes "everyone else is doing it" is NOT a good reason to do something.

"The federal government will run a $34-billion deficit in the coming fiscal year, and a $30-billion deficit in the following year, a senior government official said." http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/22/...ok.html?ref=rss Now, the solution is for our nation to go even further into debt? I'm a liberal (usually). I believe in government spending (to a point). So we have two options: Lower taxes (and lower spending). Or leave taxes higher (and keep spending higher). BUT WE CAN'T DO BOTH! This is NOT a Liberal/Conservative issue. Trudeau and Mulroney (and others) all got us into this debt mess. If we want to spend a lot, fine. If our leaders decide we need to spend an extra 10 billion to stimulate the economy, that's fine. But don't pretend that just because we're in recession, that we can go back to playing the "we'll pay for it later" game. That doesn't work in your personal finances, and it doesn't work for the country. This is a simple matter of accounting. Let's commit to doing what we can pay for. If it's worth doing, it's worth paying for (and raising taxes for). If it's not worth raising taxes for, it's not worth doing.

Actually, on that point I agree with you. We should really should have a law that allows Citizenship to be revoked if you fight for any army other than the army of Canada. Apparently we don't have such a law or are not enforcing it. My hatred of his actions does not revoke his citizenship. And we have to deal with this issue under our LAWS, not our emotions! So while I agree with you here, and would revoke his citizenship if I could, I also don't believe in re-writing laws to deal with individual cases. Cheney and Bush have been doing too much of that lately.

Whether we consider Omar Khadr to be "scum" or "a terrorist" or "a freedom fighter" isn't really the question. Whether we consider him to be a "good Canadian" is also not the question. He has Canadian citizenship. That's not a matter for debate. The Canadian gov't (including both liberal and conservative leaders) has taken the lazy approach, which is to let the US deal with it. Looks like we'll have to deal with it soon. As a 15 year old, Khadr was fighting in Afghanistan. Whether he was a 15-year-old terrorist or a 15-year-old soldier, he ought to be rehabilitated. Whether that's in a hospital or a jail is up to a court to decide, not me. Thousands of young teenagers in African countries (Rwanda and others) were recently enlisted and trained to be vicious militia fighters. The things these "kids" did were monstrous. However, when the violence is done, civilized countries have the responsibility to try to help people like this. Not call them scum and let them rot in jail. Two last points. 1. If I'm a person of Afghani descent, fighting IN Afghanistan against a foreign army, am I a terrorist? Or am I a soldier? I'd call him a soldier. 2. If a soldier is in a firefight that leaves EVERY other member of his squad dead, is it really a "crime" for him to throw a grenade at the enemy forces that just wiped out his squad? Or is it an act of war? To call this murder seems like gross hypocrisy to me.

Deficit spending.... everyone who keeps a budget (personal, corporate, or political) knows it's a bad idea. If you keep it up too long, your debt becomes increasingly expensive to maintain (interest). Free money now means pain later. It's pretty obvious that the US is up to their necks in debt, and it's starting to cripple them. They have less spending power and less control in the world because of their debt. If the US is up to their necks, Canada is chest-deep. We CAN'T afford to get further in. What's fueling this deficit spending approach? Fear. And we should highly examine any decision that is based on fear. That's true in both personal and political decisions. Don't allow your fear of the poor economy to force you into supporting what we all know is dumb economics! I (usually) vote liberal. But that doesn't mean I support unwise spending. Cheers all!