dizzy

Out of context, I would have no way of knowing what side of the conflict you stand on based on your statement.

Here's another article: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/05/06/2010-05-06_plan_for_mosque_near_world_trade_center_site_moves_ahead.html It looks like a beautiful, modern building, fit to the footprint of the existing structure and without the characteristics of mosque architecture. It will be built by built by two non-denominational organizations at a cost of $100 million. It will serve as a place for Jumah for 1000 - 2000 muslims but it is predominantly a cultural centre that includes a swimming pool and a 500 seat performing arts venue. This is clearly meant to be a gift to the people of new york. I think it would do good for the collective healing process if they would accept.

When have you seen an opposition party perform differently? Like it or not, this is the nature of accountability in our legislature; the government proposes, the opposition finds holes.

FTR I'm quite happy with the healthcare I receive. But I'm also not alone in recognizing that there are problems, some of the more significant surrounding the question of where to find more dollars. The CHA is a framework for easy money and is preventing provinces from making big change. In the end, the shrink in funding that came from the move to the CHST leaves provinces with only one option, which is raising taxes (something Ontario and now Québec have already done, arguably BC as well if you consider the HST). As of today, the only example of large scale change to the status quo on this front came by the supreme court decision that forced Québec's hand on limits to private insurance and practice.

No politician seeking a second term would dream of opting his province out of the CHA. More importantly, there needs to be more room within the CHA for provinces to innovate, and that requires federal action.

Just as the left vote split is giving the conservatives minority governments now. The Bloc segment needs more dissection in terms of vote intentions, as many here would vote conservative because of the common ground on restraining federal powers. But as a sketch, most voters sit left of centre here. BTW I miss Chretien/Martin, too.

If I could trust them to not do too much damage, my ideal would be for the tories to win a small majority, clean up some of the insitutionalized thinking in government, gut HRSDC, impose two-tier healthcare (or restore full provincial responsibility for it, which would accomplish the same) and then lose the next election before they got into their candy issues like revoking same sex marriage, abortion rights, etc.

Wow, all this forum heat from a news item that barely made it through the 24 hr cycle.

Pwned! The americanos are right in this thread and AW summarizes why in this post.

Here's a snapshot of crime in canada: http://www2.macleans.ca/national-crime-rankings/ I feel pretty safe, but I don't live in a high crime region and, in fact, neither do the vast majority of Canadians. Criminal activity seems to be highest in our smallest cities. Winnipeg and Edmonton, as mid-sized cities, are notable exceptions.

Looks like we've made our decision, too. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canada-rejects-un-request-to-lead-congo-mission/article1552792/ I'm actually quite surprised. Elements of the canadian military have long held a desire to return to africa to address the failures in rwanda.

The hyper-technical discussion about the nature of the loan aside, yes canada wants this bridge more. Greater access for the passage of trucks into the michigan means a greater flow of dollars into ontario. Canada has the financial capacity to facilitate this project and the strain of higher than average unemployment in the southwest ontario regions that surround it.

Your "undeniable" is actually only "a grain of", The flip side of your rather cynical assessment is that many employers appreciate the work ethic of immigrants over lazy, entitled canadians.

The type of immigrant our country wants mostly earnestly is skilled/educated. Look at the numbers on immigration by class for evidence. This can't effectively be sourced through a country of preference strategy. You use a point system to accomplish this and apply it to individuals. I've already provide this link, but these are the demand areas for economic class immigration. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/apply-who-instructions.asp#list Another thing to consider is that, if you apply a preferred nation approach to immigration, you enhance the conditions for ethnic grouping, which is apparently one of your issues. Skilled immigrants who are single are the most globally mobile, so they will also jump ship more readily when job opportunities become available elsewhere. Family-oriented immigrants will tolerate lower pay and compromise more readily on work opportunities in favour of providing stability and opportunity to their children. And their kids, who grow up integrated within our culture and value systems, in turn contribute to the workforce when they complete their schooling. How do you feel about China and India? These two countries are providing the majority of our immigrants.

My apologies, I thought you were suggesting that our immigration problem was sourced in a reality where corporations here only hired from specific universities. Instead, you're suggesting that immigration policy mirror those corporations who hire based on where a candidate completed their studies. So, I'll offer a different answer. An economy has much more complex needs than a company that produces a particular type of widget. Using your argument, universities here should only be able to grant degrees in sectors where there is perceivable employment potential. What any country needs are people who are committed, adaptable and growth-oriented. If you take in immigrants with these qualities, you're in a much better situation than with people so narrowly skilled that they become next decade's problem.

The day before I start reading archie comics again

So, you don't find it telling that a comic with a large christian following is comfortable selling a gay character? Ellen is likewise cute and equally benign, in a political sense. When she talks about her marriage, housewives across america clap. The times, they are changing.

As both you and Mr. Bandelot suggest, it is a conservative comic. That its publishers are comfortable recognizing gays is why I'm so confident that your children will vote for same sex unions.

Archie comics are bringing to preteens what Ellen brought to American housewives... a chance to see a homo up close and realize that he/she is just like them. Reading about this topic, I learned that Archie also recently got into an interracial relationship. Clearly, "Riverdale" is ready to accept the inevitable.

Then I guess I'm back to my original point, that preteens will help tip the voting scale in favour of same sex marriage.

Great, then we're in agreement that same sex marriage rights will eventually extend across the US.

This is some funny sh*t. I've never heard of this dude until now.

Like what's happening in the US now, provinces led the way here. De facto Marriage rights were extended to couples in Ontario in the 90s through common law, followed by ceremonial unions in Québec in 2001 and then by provincial court rulings starting in 2003. Whatever the motivation, change on this front will happen in the US. It's good that archie comics has recognized the trend.

Maybe, but if the current crop of voters aren't ready to step up and do the courageous thing, you can likely count on their kids.

Preteens are only a couple of presidential elections from being voters. If a comic book can help normalize the presence of gays and lesbians, then maybe they're a step closer to the legal recognition of same sex marriage.