Randy Nicholas

We could cut 25 billion from the budget by letting GM fall, putting an end to their disgusting tax-funded marketing campaign. Special Interests, particularly as in quotes, is a very vague statement. What do you mean by this? I agree some special interests are not practical, plausible, or desirable, but blanketing them all into some negative category is at best naive and at worst completely ignorant. Women's rights is a special interest, yet I believe court dollars and legislative time need to be invested in this issue. The Arts are also special interest, and usually the first to get cut. Regardless, going after special interests is short sighted when corporate interests are hijacking so much more of our money. While it's nice to have jobs, we are an educated and resource-rich nation. We have absolutely no need to be pandering to corporations for any reason. Threats of not doing business here are empty. No company in their right mind would ignore a growing economy of 30 plus million consumers. The fact that we have socialized the auto-industry and will pay for it by cutting the measly social services we have and hacking at the arts, and likely locking us in this cycle of under-invested health care, education, and military, and all so a few thousand Canadians can keep their over-paid and over-privileged jobs, and and an even fewer number of Americans can cash in hundreds of millions, should be shocking. But we're just letting it happen.

The problem with Canada is that too many people are content to sit on the fence about everything forever.

Argus, the point is that even though it is illegal for corps to make direct contributions to parties now, she still gives THEM most of her ear. Points toward another level of corruption in the government, like secret rewards. Maybe they don't get campaign funding (doesn't matter, all parties have suckered enough Canadians into handing over their money willingly to pay for party hack salaries and tv commercials), but they get a sweet ceo job after they lose their seat or something like that. In any case, partisanship is so juvenile it's not even funny. Do you honestly think that were he conservatives in charge during the sponsorship scandal that it wouldn't still have gone down the exact same way? Sure the named companies and individuals would change, but the crux would be identical. Clinging to partisan politics in some childish 'us vs. them' mentality is a complete waste of constructive time.

So, the only quality a leader of a nation needs is the ability to memorize and recite speeches emotionally to stir the right people up? It isn't possible that a perfectly intelligent person is just terrible at public speaking without aid? I hate to break it to you - but the president of the united states is democratically elected. Even if you don't like if the president works for the corporations and the citizens. You can't blame the players if the game is broke.

Ah... whoops... talk about witless I misunderstood you, sorry. Personally I don't care if he lip-syncs his own speeches. It's still better than having someone else's speeches fed to him through an ear bud. Myself I'm not so good at the public speaking, but I hardly think that disqualifies me from anything but teaching public speaking. I can get it done if/when I have to. And I use every tool available to me when I have to publicly speak so that I don't come out looking like a moron. It's really easy to judge someone who misspeaks, but I think unless you have a hundred reporters throwing questions and microphones at you every day no matter where you go or what oceans you cross, and you perform flawlessly on each and every occasion to achieve 100% verbal accuracy, then one shouldn't throw stones. Sometimes when you try so hard to be perfect, you screw up just in spite.

A teleprompter is a high-tech version of cue cards. Using cue cards does not make a person witless, though believing so may. When you can do a million speeches a week without any sort of mental assistance, then you can talk about how horrible it is that a man who writes his own speeches also needs a COMMON visual aid to consistently deliver his message. Using available tools to increase his quality of speech-giving is nothing but intelligent.

Why does anyone care how Barak delivers his messages? Isn't the message more important than it's delivery? Isn't his action more telling that his inability to pronounce a word here and there? If THIS is the worst the anti-obama camp can come up with, it's pretty sad. Like grasping for straws.

The American Corporatocracy needs another war to distract from the abject failures of the war on drugs, and the war on terrorism, and the war on communism... Now the war on nukes. In a world like ours, where Mutually Assured Destruction is no longer a guarantee of our safety, it's a wonder any of us can sleep at night. What if every country had nukes, and every country had missile defense systems? Would that mean trillions of dollars wasted on defense? Imagine if there were no countries...

Well, actually, no. you got me. i never did. I just always assumed that a terrorist was a person who used extreme violence for personal reasons, religious or otherwise. Again, I think terrorist defines a person who wants you dead, who wants you to suffer. If it was just about cash or about land, or about food, we could easily solve the 'terrorist' problem. I believe all of these things contribute to 'terrorism' but certainly religion is a large factor. The bin laden's et al. use religion as a tool to control their armies and make them fearless. Nobody blows themselves up for money, do they?

Why should the charter protect people from printing things their religion deems offensive? Couldn't a person then refuse any services to anyone they define as 'offensive'? or just as long as it's their interpretation of their religion right? If a person is so sensitive that they won't allow others to enjoy their constitutionally secured freedom of expression, then that person should be in a different business than print media for the public.

I'm not sure we'll be able to get that point across to Army Guy et al., possibly because from their experience there is no difference between the soldier and the superior and the executive. It's all the military to them. But to the rest of us, it's perfectly possible to hold a high respect for the sacrifice our Canadian Service Men and Women make for us, and for each of their individual contributions, without agreeing with the overall mission and while despising the government. Soldiers are trained to not question their orders because everything is part of a bigger picture than just one group or one engagement, and the people up top are supposed to know what they are doing and have been where the soldiers are, so there's a comradeship that neither of us can appreciate or benefit from not being in the military ourselves. But there is objectivity gained from watching on the outside of the Military that Army Guy etc. cannot appreciate or benefit from, that allows us to make an individual decision whether or not to support a goal or a mission - that does not mean we don't support the army, but that's always where they go.

Well, the thing is, most things are complicated, and when they aren't, they've been oversimplified, such as what you have done here. My question also did not have to do with WHO is opposed to coalitions, but WHY. Every argument I've ever heard has betrayed a fundamental lack of understanding of the parliamentary system. To claim that the Bloc have no right in government is to argue the persecution of half of the second largest province in this country. That's just absurd. The Bloc are there because they represent the wishes of the people who voted for them, and they are no less valuable than voters in ontario, alberta, bc, or any other province, and their agenda is no less valid, however silly it seems to the rest of us. That S. Harper was able to illegitimately cling to power by feeding and spreading ignorance about the system will go down as one of the most disappointing and shameful moments in our political history, at least in my memory.

There are vast differences between Canada and Saudi Arabia beyond polygamy. Do you really think that the 70%+ of our population will completely abandon their Christian upbringing and become Muslim or Mormon just because it's legal to record your multiple marriages? Sounds like lunacy to me to compare a Western nation to a Middle Eastern one in this argument, and that's why it hasn't really come up. Concepts like gender equality do not exist in many such places, which is why it leads to the dangerous situations you are talking about. Legal Polygamy in Canada will always be a fringe lifestyle choice. There's just no reason to persecute these people based on the fear that their choice of who to live with will lead to dictatorships and burkas.

Passively sending the government a message is a waste of time. Will you send that message and then still drive on the roads, use the hospitals? Call 911 if you need to? Send your kids to school? If you live in a place it is your civic duty to pay the taxes. Not having a provincial sales tax just means they take it straight from your income instead. I doubt if you'll be saving any money in Calgary. Alberta has fewer people, so fewer bills to cover, but as more people minded like yourself make the trek, that will change. I know I'd like an Ontario with fewer conservatives! enjoy your life out west.

I tend to think we shouldn't prop up any business for any reason, but I don't think it's unreasonable for tax-payers to want their money put into our own economy right now where it can be. The Ontario public as a whole can suffer the few extra bucks per flag, because en masse we are quite wealthy, even in recession. A business in today's economy cannot afford to lose a steady and lucrative contract such as the Gov. of Ontario, to China. If the quality is different, then the Ontario company should be able to make the flags at a lower quality to compete with the Chinese company. But it's awfully cheap for a government spending untold billions in deficits to prop up the auto industry to cripple a local small business just so it can save itself a measly million or so over the next few years.

Do you think that has to do with a prevailing misunderstanding of parliamentary politics? Are people just opposed to a coalition because we haven't had one before? Or is there another reason?

I never said the military only targeted disadvantaged youth, neither did I say recruting efforts are nothing more than propaganda. in fact, nobody has said that at all. Those are all assumptions you made based on an initial, and incorrect, reaction to someone who wasn't immediately on the Army Rocks bandwagon. As for the 'intentions' of the recruitment department, I won't take a guess. However, i do know a thing or two about subliminal messaging, and about 'educating' kids early. It may not be the 'intent' to plant false ideas in the kids brains, but this does happen to varying degrees regardless of intent. Is it wrong? No more than kids watching GI Joe and getting false ideas. The point is to be open about it. Propaganda isnt' something to fear either, if we're educated to detect it, evaluate it, and take it for what it's worth. And lets not forget that the 'militarys image' needs betterment for a reason. And it's not simply because nobody understands it. Military's around the world have a reputaton that they have earned, and to change that reputation takes time, and action. The TV commercials say today's military is strong, and then we read reports about ancient and failing equipment, inability to protect our arctic borders, etc. They say the military is proud, and then we see videos of detainee torture. I'm sorry but you don't get to just sweep these sorts of thing under the rug and pretend everything is rosey and that people like Dr. Greenthumb have no right to their opinion because they have not lived YOUR life. neither you, nor I were there to see what Dr. Greenthumb is talking about. "Completely innocent' is a relative term, and that is what I'm trying to get you to understand. 'Completely Innocent' to you may not be to someone else, and it not for you to decide for them just because you feel you have a closer perspective. Point taken. I don't believe I ever said the entire military was out to get the people of Canada. Again I'll stress that I respect soldiers in any service. But you serve the people of Canada based on the orders of your superiors, and the direction of our government, and it's THEM we oftentimes do not trust. I dont' really care what your history is with Greenthumb. And whatever the reasons are, it doesn't matter. He can go around the internet all day long and talk about the Evil military. It doens't help your cause to get emotional and lump people into some pre-defined cut-out from some 'us against them' kind of mentality. I don't believe the prevailing belief in this country is that the military is evil, but I do believe that many parents may want their children to explore other options first, if only out of fear for their safety. If an army recruiter and a school undermined me by holding 'secret sessions', however 'innocent', and my child came home with lofty and misinformed ideas, I would use it as an opportunity for discussion, then I would call the principal and make sure he knows that I want clear notice of events like these in the future. Again, if nothing wrong is going on then there is no reason to not be transparent about it. What if parents want to attend these sessions with their children? It doesn't help us to keep our kids ignorant, which I think is the crux of your point, and on that we definitely agree. Next time though, when you read something that makes you angry, try not responding until the next day.

Why is it that what 'a lot of people' think something means? Does that mean it's correct? Right now, a lot of people believe the earth is 6000 years old, but they're wrong, aren't they? The point here is that opinions are irrelevant. It doens't matter whether YOU would have a legal polygamist marriage, or whether 'a lot' of people will or not. Nobody is asking you to. You can continue to think of marriage however you like, but you don't get to control other people based solely on your opinion. Because, despite all your fancy talk, that is all you have here.

This is about as likely to happen as Stephan Harper resigning as Prime Minister. The enemy of my enemy may be my friend, but it takes more than that to keep a stable coalition in power, or even get it off the ground.

Yes. You can't see the difference there, can you? In one case, the person in question is encroaching on someone else's right to enjoy the world free from discrimination. In the other case, the people in question are not doing anything to harm or encroach on any other person's ability to enjoy the world.

Violence is seldom the answer in civilized society. what does orgasm witha woman have to do with anything? We get it. You're straight and wonderful.

I think if you work with the public you should keep your private views to yourself and bite your tongue. I don't need to be refused service anywhere based on someone's archaic beliefs. He's entitled to his opinion until it affects my life. What if his business is successful because he's the only one in town with a rep for quality? We should say it's okay to make gay people have o go out of town, or across town, to get the same service as straight people? I don't think it's a slippery slope at all. We don't allow people to post "no Blacks" signs anymore. If your services are for the public than they are for the public. What next, should we allow catholic paramedics to refuse cpr to homosexuals? One is allowed to hold whatever beliefs they want, but denying a service, any service, based on a superficial 'offense' is called discrimination and should not be tolerated. If one can't handle encountering people of a different persuasion, than one should get a job where there is no dealing with the public.

says who? Are you holding humanity to the standards of the animal kingdom? you want to be careful there. I could sniff your superiority complex before you ever wrote this sentence, but thank you for making it clear. Now we are compared to cows. do I need to point out all the ways in which livestock and humans are different? Really? Actually, I ask questions because your 'answers' are vague and nonsensical. For reference, you mean 'too' when you are describing something as being in excess. Saying things all in caps does not make it true. You are now betraying a willful ignorance. Do you mean that you have met every homosexual, and they are all ugly, or that the few homosexuals you have met are ugly, so they ALL must be? Which is it? In my life I've seen many really ugly straight people who have wives. Your argument is baseless, ignorant, and ridiculous. I ask you for fact, you give me diatribe. I think the discussion is over.

and you must have been born stupid because that is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. and you've said a lot of absurd things.

There are many homosexual and polygamous families that achieve all the things you are talking about. These joys should not be denied any sane and reasonable adult. How do you define anti-nature? What source are you referencing? Natural means that which occurs without interference. Sexual desires and urges occur in humans of every race and gender. Stifling them with morality is in fact, much more unnatural than experiencing those urges and desires. Who is doing the controlling? This is an example of where you fly off on something... how did you get there? If 2, 3 or more people are ina committed relationship, it doesn't matter what outsiders think about it, or if they can understand it. How are homosexuals or polygamists being controlled by their sexual hunger? Good. Yes... What? Are you saying that all homosexuals are ugly or defective? And who told you human dignity was a tangible and finite thing? I also find it cute that you think people can be 'systematically moved towards a homosexual lifestyle". Okay, I follow your point here. People in positions of power should not abuse their power over others, and currently people in power do. What exactly does that have to do with the issue though? You are trying to argue the a majority of people are under-intellectually developed? Canada is one of the most educated countries in the world. And you still haven't clarified who's taking advantage of all of us poor homosexuals. Still, neither your opinions of the 'natural' way people should be, nor the opinions of anyone else on this forum can effectively argue against staying the hell out of people's private lives. Give me a reason BEYOND morality that polygamy and homosexuality are so corrupting.