CANADIEN

I thought that I could not find anything funnier than social conservatives demonstrating that in fact they are quite OK with working women - as long as they are social conservative politicians. Or social liberals who think Sarah Palin is a bad mother for wanting to work... at a job they believe a social conservative like her should not get no matter the gender. But there is better thqan that. Sarah Palin has the support of... Ann Coulter. Yep, the same Ann Coulter who believe women should not even vote. :lol:

My deepest apologies. I was under the false impression that you started the thread. :lol:

English doesn't exist in Ontario? That's probably why I never hear it. Once again, you are proving you cannot read. The New Brunswick government is scrapping earlt French immersion because they think starting immersion in Grade 5 is a BETTER way to TEACH French as a second language, not because they think the rights of anyone in the Province are harmed. In another word, it is the federal government business when it serves your bigotry.

Not to worry, I do. You're the one who don't. And I see don't see any proof there are any municipal or provincial services I can get in French and English. And they include people who want to ban certain languages from commercial signage... like you. Like you, he calls it dysfunctional because he expects we won;t get what he wants from it. Unlike you, he's not thinking about language issues when he says it. Your right. And you have demonstrated again and again that you want the government to deny people to use languages other than English . If you had any integrity, you would stop hiding before the "they force mke to do it" feable excuse, which nobody buys.

French is not a foreign language.

No surprise there, since there are no reason you would find credible anyway. So, because you reject that notion, anybody who believes it is dishonest, or nobody. Whatever. It does not carry an understanding, implicit or otherwise, that the mother is an incubator, or anything other than a human being. It carries an understanding that there are two human lives involved, and that the right to live is the most important human right of all. As for the "the right to life position is so wrong, it denies the woman any say in the matter" argument, it conviniently ignores the fact that the "pro-choice" position - or your "the woman has the absolute choice, except when she does not have good enough reasons" variation - includes little, if any, consideration of the other human life involved and his/her interests.

Would the same thing be said about a male candidate?

The UK is losing its democracy? care to provide concrete examples?

You mean, I have not given a reason you would accept, and since there are no reason you would accept... And I am not saying that an embryo is a person because someday it will become a person. I am saying that that personhood begins when life begins. Actually, I believe the criminilazation approach to be the wrong one. The number of abortions will be reduced not by jailing doctors and mothers, but through a culture that welcomes life. Ours does not. And what makes such reasons more frivolous than let's say not wanting to curb one's liefestyle and financial confort, or not wanting to put one's career on hold? Why should abortion be permitted in those cases, but not in cases where having a girl instead of a boy will impose additional financial harship (which is the case in many Asian countries)? Aside from cases where the life of the mother is threatened, or at the very limit when a pregnancy is the result of a rape or incest, there cannot be a hierarchy of acceptable and unacceptable reasons to abort. The pro-choice argument that life does not begin at conception, or that personhood does not begin at conception, is wrong, but it has at least the merit of being anchored around the issue of what is life and what is personhood, not on the fuzzy notion of what is or isn't a good reason to abort.

Life is not a house. it is not a product. It's LIFE. When a pregnancy goes to its term, the outcome is a child. Period. The most important human right is the right to live. So except when there is a risk for the life of a mother that right to live does indeed supersedes any other right. This is human life we are talking about, not just a collection of cells. The only unreasonable demand is that the definition of who is worthy enough to be allowed to live be strickly a matter of individual choice. and I don't know how many "pro-choicers' think through all the ramifications of letting who should or should not live be a personal decision. So-called "pro-lifers" who oppose adequate funding for accessible health care, decent social programs, effective education (especially early childhood education), measures to reduce poverty at home and abroad, measures to preserve the environment; those who approve of the death penalty; those who support illegal and immoral wars - those people are little more than hypocrites.

Not a typo. Sarcasm.

A U.S. Government that would honour the wish of its citizens - if they so expressed that wish - would be acting democratically. And how would you propose then to change the decision of the People? By murdering every citizen who had freely made that choice until those who share your view are the majority? Or would you just cease power by force?

The right to bear arms doesno't appear in the Canadian Constitution. And we are so oppressed, right? Never mind the fact that our crime rate is far worse than the one in the U.S. No mainstream U.S. politician is actually advocating a repeal of the Second Amendment. And it such a repeal is unlikely to occur. You, on the other hand, are demonstrating a willingness to resort to terrorism if you don't get your way. Killing American soldiers, American politicians, perhaps even American civilians. Perhaps even overthrow a democratically elected government, right? If anyone is spitting on the grave of countless American men and women who have died to preserve democracy, it is you.

Why is the truth so scary?

Actually, ny brain has progressed... Yours haven't.

You haven't progressed from the days dinosaurs were roaming the Earth.

Except that when you were young they were not called women - they were called female pterodactyls.

You don't. Just turn the TV off the same you do with your brain.

Let's give credit to Bush. At least this time he was ready.

Less we forget... a man who is clearly a misogynist says he was scammed, and we are to believe him no question asked. Is it because he hates women, because he's a man, or because is Canadian-born? Far from me to say that the woman in question wasn't a scam artist, as I don't have all the facts. Suffice to say that if I were a woman I'd stay far away from him.

She chose to become pregnant and to carry her pregnancy to term, she became responsible for that child. She recklessly endangered herself and her child by not taking apropriate precautions the moment her water broke. It is one thing to say "I would sacrifice my life to bring a new life to the world", it is another thing to risk killing both oneself and the child so that "he'll be born in Alaska."

The growth of the fertilized egg into a full human being begins right from the moment it is fertilized, and the DNA blueprint is clearly human DNA. Division of cells, an integral component of the life cycle, begins right at that moment. You are of course welcome to argue that this is not where life begins. It is life, and it is most certainly not a giraffe life. It is human life, and therefore it posess personhood. Yes Yes Talk about being ludicrous. Miscarriages are no more an holocaust than car accidents. That being said, I don't see what's your problem with improved pre-natal care.

This one merits a place aside from everything else you wrote. Those who get it know by now that I have no lost love for any piece of legislation that states "there is only one official language, and people will be forced by law to use it only, or at least to use it above any other language". But think about the nerve... the government of a province giving an official recognition to the language used by 80% of its population. I suppose Quebec should declare English as its sole official language? :lol:

So... it is not the duly elected members of the Ontario Legislative Assembly who voted the French Language Services Act. It is not the duly elected members of Ottawa City Council who voted the city's blingual services policy? Whatever. As apparent as the sun rising in the West every morning.

I insist. I have to thank YOU for not even getting it when I mock you. Unless of course you can provide actual PROOF there are municipal services offered by the City of Ottawa in French only and not English. Same with provincal services offered by the Government of Ontario. And I said something everyone around here knows... You call it dysfunctional when you don't get your prejudiced way. You have the right to complain, indeed. Like I have the right to complain that the education system doesn't acknowledge that the Earth is flat. The difference is that unlike you I know I would be complaining about something that doesn't exist. I was referring to the monopoly you exercise on being ridiculous. This coming from the man who wants to use the government to prevent Ontarians from freely choosing to use languages other than English on commercial signs.