Bryan

The pro-abortion crowd's entire message is an exercise in hypocrisy. You fundamentally must have the right to be alive before you can even discuss any other rights beyond that. Unless and until you acknowledge that unborn child's right to even be alive, you have no credibility in discussing what a woman's rights are.

I'm no Royalist, and at one time I used to think dropping the Monarchy was not only a good idea, but something we needed to do. Now, years later, I'm OK with it. The symbolism and tradition is nice. It doesn't really hold us back from anything, it just adds a layer of character.

What I find disgusting is people making excuses and blaming somebody else for abusing their own children.

Even those are unacceptable. Employers are always discriminatory when they hire, that's why there are interviews. If the owner of a company doesn't like me because of the color of my eyes, my skin, my religion (etc), tough poopy for me, go find a different job. No commission should have the right to tell an employer who he must hire. "Promoting" violence is far too vague. If actual violence ensues as a result of direct incitement, that's already covered under the criminal code. Again, no reason for the HRC to have any involvement (or to even exist).

msj, No matter what source you use, no matter which hard data you like or which estimates you do or do not factor in, one thing remains the same no matter what: Polar bear populations are increasing. There is debate as to what degree they are increasing, and as when and where they are migrating, but there is no debate that the population is increasing. The reason why the environmental movement gets the "rolleyes" treatment more often these days, is because people are tired of being lied to. Suzuki and his contemporaries are going around telling us that Polar Bears are dying off, when we know for a fact that he's lying. You can't get caught lying time and time again, and expect people to take you seriously.

No there are completely disparate issues. I'm all in favour of pollution control. What I'm not in favour of is this ridiculously deceitful political campaign against carbon dioxide.

You said: This is a thread about carbon taxes, not pollution taxes. Those would be completely separate things.

So it'll be win-win then?

It'll make the production of food and clothing less expensive. It'll make heating your home less expensive. It'll make just getting to work less expensive. It'll make many employers overheads lower so they can afford to pay their employees more. It'll get you more of your own money still in your own pocket.

That's precisely what they are, and exactly what they were doing all along. The Province of Ontario were the ones who saw the job they were doing, and decided that Christian Horizons was providing better care for less money than the province or any other agency could, and decided to hire them to provide even more of the services that they were already providing. The Province got what they hired, and the organization IS a dedicated ministry. They are absolutely within their rights to have a code of conduct for that ministry. If the citizens of Ontario lose this resource, it won't be because Christian Horizons walked away, it'll be because they were driven out.

CO2 and pollution are two different things.

What function does a carbon tax specifically serve that other already instituted taxes do not? In what meaningful way is a carbon tax anything other than a convenient excuse to raise general revenues?

Income taxes are used for all kinds of things, some legitimate, some not. A carbon tax is a political ideology that's being used as an excuse for a tax grab. A lot of people are in favor of this ideology, and think the ends justify the means. I'm saying, let them pay for it, because I'm not going to pay a tax that serves no function other than paying homage to their fantasies.

No, what's crap is expecting a government handout, and then using that expectation as an excuse to murder an innocent human being.

Christian Horizons is a religious organization, not a secular one. Their name should be the first clue. That they are a member of Evangelical Fellowship of Canada should be another. These kinds of statements in their literature should reinforce that: "Christian Horizons is an evangelical ministry seeking to reach out with Christian love to people with disabilities." "Christian Horizons is a non-profit, Christian charitable organization. We seek to reach out with supports and friendship to persons who have exceptional needs. Our purpose is to contribute to the exceptional person’s quality of life by addressing his/her spiritual, emotional, intellectual, social and physical needs. We serve in a manner that considers each person’s intrinsic value as loved by God and bearing His image." "How It All Began In 1965, a group of Christian parents who had children with exceptional needs felt there was no place they could turn for help. They were exhausted and could no longer provide the level of care that their children needed at home. Yet, they were unhappy leaving their children in an institution with a hospital-like environment. They wanted more for their children! With both options being unsuitable, they decided to join together and create a service that would meet their needs. That year, the Ontario Christian Association for Exceptional Children was born! The group soon became known as Christian Horizons, and their services expanded to children and adults. What once began as a summer camping program grew to include a wide variety of support and vacation programs across Ontario and even internationally. Today, our caring workers meet the daily physical, emotional and spiritual needs of the many individuals we support! Whether they need minimal support or 24-hour care, individuals enjoy a home environment and an excellent quality of life as they master new skills, make friends and experience God's love."

People in favor of a carbon tax better be prepared to start paying huge premiums on everything they buy or consume, just to prove they aren't trying to force others to pay for their ideals. In fact, that's how they should do it: hold a referendum on carbon taxes. Only those in favor of them will have to pay them. Irrevocably.

That's funny. If there's one thing I would criticize the Federal Conservatives for, it's for not being conservative enough. These guys are far from Alberta Conservatives (the promise of which is what got them my vote). They're really not very conservative at all, they're just the least bad of two not very appealing centrist options.

I certainly hope you are right, but I just can't see that happening. Not as long as there are so many left-wing judges out there.

More disconnected thinking. Science and business are not synonymous.

Funny, I've yet to hear a single good argument for a fully private healthcare system. The disconnect is thinking of healthcare as a product to be sold.

Nah, make them still pay into the public system. If they want to pay extra, over and above, that's good for everyone. That's the trick: as long as everyone still pays into the system, AND as long as the private clinics pay their own way fully outside of it. Cross the two at any point, and all bets are off.

And the whole thing is a deliberate misinterpretation of the evidence. Young people getting in more accidents is just a factor of the number of young people driving. More young people drive around just for the sake of driving around. The older they get the less they drive. The longer they've been driving the more bad habits they develop. The older they get, the less capable of controlling the vehicle they get. I have to laugh every time I read people torturing statistics to make young drivers look bad, especially with the number of cotton tops I see parking by braille. I've never been scared to drive with or beside a 20 yr old, but I'm terrified every time I see a 70 yr old on the road. Here in Manitoba anyway, young people don't pay more for auto insurance. It's based solely on merit. Good driving record means good rates, bad driving record and you pay through the nose. Back to the OP: Why do people think that additional private clinics will hurt the poor? More people who can afford to pay out of pocket takes strain off the public system, and gives the poor better access to those services. As long as these members-only clinics do their own diagnostics

Harper is also starting to alienate his base by moving too much to the centre trying to court that eastern vote. The CPCs position on Climate Change, and their choice of a red tory finance minister are NOT what I signed on for. The party has become way too Liberal for my liking.

Sarcastic or not, I don't get the sentiment. Didn't god call us to be good stewards of this planet?

All of the above. In each of those cases, the parents can take a direct hand in how their children are raised. It doesn't matter what your idea of proper care is, the standard of care still needs to be directed and managed by the parent, not the government.