The Terrible Sweal

Irony anyone?

That is not what he said. Didn't you read it? Other words? In fact, in YOUR words. How things seem to you, and how things really are are much different things. Takeanumber did not indicate anything that hinged on Ramesh's race, except according to the extraneous imputations of you and others.

Does it matter to you what that source is? If yes, how do you choose? Well we must have some source. Traditions, comon principles shared in the creation of this country. And what about where someone'e religious principles conflict with our common princples? Sure you mean what you say, but I don't understand what you mean. You asked what makes steaing wrong. I asked what you mean by 'steal' because what makes it wrong depends on what your theory of property is.

And the tories are STILL hiding the majority of the tapes. What unimaginable sleaze! http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics...ontent=n060269A

Does it matter to you what that source is? If yes, how do you choose? What do you mean by 'steal'?

I think this warrants an apology. Or is rascism okay if you don't agree with someone's position? I would prefer as a general practice if we would avoid careless accusations of racism.

What's the difference between a Regular Canadian and a Rich Canadian? The Regular Canadian wants more health care, the Rich Canadian wants more health care -- than you.

Cutting sentences in half is acceptable when you make it clear you have done so. Especially when the full quote was read by everone just a moment before. Misrepresenting you would have involved suggesting a different meaning than you originally gave. I don't think I did that.

Explain having your say.

yeah, cleaning their mess by stopping sending money to the province instead to stop spending money on crappy program like sponsorship and gun control... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Exactly. If ungrateful, ineffective provincials want more money to piss away on their business friends, let them tax for it like the feds have to do.

I thought the NDP wanted to get to the bottom of this!

They don't promote 'good' family values, they promote 'social conservative' family values.ly Clearly there is a lot wrong with this party.

That's sort of a two wrongs makes a right argument, isn't it? You seem to be saying that because on promise is breached this justifies breaching others.

Let's face it, you would say that about any analysis that doesn't condemn the Liberals for everything from hangnails to the Fall of Lucifer. And naturally, you made no attempt to actually address the points made. Let's see what the polls say then.

Kimmy, overall an excellent analysis, except this: I think it's clear that this situai falls much shorter of consommation than Clinton's. It is clear that everyone is telling Grewal there's no deal. They appear unwilling to talk about the senate really at all. As for cabinet, they don't seems serious about that either, but even if they were, cabinet is an entirely political position chosen completely at the government's discretion. Regarding the immigration allegationsn the help available was hardly substantive. Asking Volpe to swallow some rhetoric or trying to get an interim report released don't mean anything. There is no suggestion of influencing anyone's findings or halting any investigations at all. Finally, there is the suggestion of an 'understanding' but not a 'deal'. But it's clear Murphy wouldn't commit to anything specific, so its is possible that they meant an uderstanding to consist of perfectly legitimate parliamentary or party opportunities available to a newly high-profile dynamic MP couple. Grewal and the Tories overplayed their hand very badly. The Liberals were badly battered with Gomery stuff. Using sleazy tactics to add such a small measure more to the Liberals image problems was a poor move.

Thank goodness we had Paul Martin to turn this mess around!

I am a voter and a citizen. That's enough. What do you mean by "tolerant"?

Would you consider an atheist to be someone with "extreme religious beliefs"? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> To me, the contents or name of the belief system are not entirely conclusive. Of equal importance is the way the believer responds to the beliefs. I suppose it is possible that an atheist could be fanatic about it to a politically udesireabe extent.

Yes. I am trying to convince my fellow citizens that extreme religious beliefs make someone a poor choice for holding government office. What about if they have Black skin? An imperfect analogy, I think. Firstly, if I believed black skin made someone a poor choice for government office, in theory I am entitled to try convincing fellow voters of that. In fact, I don't think that, because blackness has no bearing on ability to discharge an office. Nor does it indicate a likelyhood of imposing irrational beliefs. Both of which are unlike extremist religious beliefs. This one is a better challenge, but still not too troublesome. I think cultural values are a legitimate concern for a voter to have. For example, a representative's effectiveness depends in part on her grasp of our institutions. But look, you questions seem to presuppose that my vote is constrained by an obligation to be politically correct. I don't think that's the right assessment. Not to me. I dismiss marxist-leninist party candidates on ground quite similar to exremist religious candidates.

Outside the military, in general, it is permissible for persons to record their own conversations without telling the other party. However, the uses to which the recording may be put are constrained by a range of laws. Customer service lines tell you because telling you expands the range of use they could put the recoding to. Also, it probably keeps angry customers from teeing of on the hapless staffers.

If you are askng a technical question, there are many available sources which will outline the prncples of sentencing and corrections in Canada. Yes, except for cases where the outcome would be calamitous. Trust in the state by individuals in their private capcity is essential to the state's ability to function. Why not tell that to you, me, Maher Arar or Gilles Duceppe? We all have rights. We are a society of laws. Persons on parole, perhaps, but persons who've completed their sentence fully? I'd say not. She should be free to sell her story or not, but it should be understood in advance that any and all commercial proceeds from the story would be confiscated.

No, it's about voters choosing the reresenatives that suit them best, as they see it. Yes. I am trying to convince my fellow citizens that extreme religious beliefs make someone a poor choice for holding government office.

So obviously we can drop the 'hidden' from before 'agenda'.

This says that you need the consent of either the originator OR the receiver.

No, actually, I hold my beliefs understanding that they are based on the best probabilities I can discern from a limited viewpoint. Clearly Faith goes further. In organized religions at least, it involves a positive belief in dogmatic 'truths'.