CANADIEN

The point that I do not need to be coerced or indoctrinated by the Government into being a Christian aside. What is being proposed is a THEOCRACY. An authoritarian (dictatorial) government, children forced into a receiving a religious education, and of course the requisite amount of intolerance, bigotry, homophobia, you name it. I need God. I do not need a theocracy, nor do I want one.

You know of course this statement will be remembered next time you try to stir up anti-Muslim sentiment thorugh exagerated and unproven claims, don't you?

You have the result on a poll about this latest decision? News to you, but voting for a candidate rarely, if ever, means agreeing with all his/her decisions or positions. Good. Now, let's not forget the fact that there is actually no racism involved here. The use of the term apartheid to describe policies of the Israeli Government is inaccurate, inflammatory and quite frankly borderline idiotic, but the claim that it is anti-sematic is nothing more than the same attempt at silencing/demonizing that welcomes any criticism of the Israeli government.

The fact that nobody here as said they don't want the members of the Housing Corp. Board jo to resigns proves you live in a world where reading skills are not required.

Learn to read. Smitherman is not the mayor of Toronto. Smitherman is not the guy who made a fool of himself in Council by saying he doesn't think the people hired to provide advice are important. Ford is the guy who said that. Tell us: does the idea that the mayor of a city of 2 million people think he doesn't even need to seek the opinion of the people hired to do exactly that - providing advice make sense to you? That's not how a business would be run, but that's OK for a city? The same way the "right" proved to be an embarassment under the previous Mayor, don't you agree? You know how ALL of us voted? Considering that I didn't vote for either Ford or Smitherman, you are proving once again that you do not know what you are talking about. And once again, Smitherman is not the Mayor, Paula Fletcher is not the Mayor. Ford is. As you keep saying all the time, don't deflect the subject.

Laughable indeed. The mayor has proven himself to be a buffoon. The role of the city's planning and legal staff is to analyse proposed policies and make recommendations based on their PROFESSIONAL expertise. It is one thing to say "I consulted with staff and in the end I decided not follow their recommendation". It is reckless for the mayor of a city of 2 million to dismiss PROFESSIONALS employed by the City as unimportant. No matter the political stripes of the mayor. Now, I fuly expect you to demonstrate you don't know what I am talking about by claiming I want the Mayor to ignore what the populations wants. Won't work. Not saying anything like that. Instead, i am saying that a prudent Mayor would seek and consider advice from his staff on the feasibility (financial or, in this case, legal) of what he intends to do, even i in the end he chooses to ignore it.

Except that nobody here has said that the auditor was wrong. Nobody here has said that wrongdoings were right. Which has not prevented you from claiming that's the case. When his responsibility, his DUTY, is to lead City Council in acting in a prudent and reasonable manner. It is also about the poor people when you clamor for costs to public programs that will affect them negatively.

Indeed it is in this case. Well, you don't get to be the only one who doesn't make sense. But again.... No, they're not.

Completely perverted? Why? Because it may mean that public employees will not be that easy to screw and exploit?

what is insane is that, as is usual with you, you launch baseless accusations against other posters. The prudent and logical course of action for City Council is to review the findings of the auditor, determine what actions to take and implement them. Not to do a public lynching. You are of course welcome to prove you don't know what you are talking about by saying that approve unethical waste of money, or that do not believe the Auditor, etc., etc., etc. You are even welcome to believe that anyone here will be your claim that you are speaking out of concern for the poor in Toronto.

We are not talking about bankruptcy here. we are talking a party to a contract abrogating said contract and then rewriting the terms of that contract. Unless one wants to argue that a civil service union is akin to a creditor, the comparison does not hold water. And no, I was not talking about going for bankruptcy (esepcially since I have no financial problems ), but mrather just deciding that I do not have to pay my bills and VISA has no recourse.

Political governments are a creature of provincial legislation indeed. Municipal councils are still ELECTED, which means that ultimately they work for US the people.

Most 18 year olds I know (attending Mass in an university based parish) have more common sense and judgement than we can ever expect from some people who shall remain anonymous.

There is also the little things about the capacity to tear union contracts apart... Legally binding contracts... Oh well... I just got my VISA bill; do I have the right to claim that I cannot pay and therefore I now owe them nothing?

In the State of Michigan, public sector pensions have been taxed differently from private sector ones. That should not be the case. Municial governments, school boards, etc.

I am no fan of corporations being able to do political speech. But Dred Scott? Pleeeeeeaaaaase.

You anti-Canadian you

Public sector pensions should be taxed the same as private sector ones. That being said, considering that most retired people are on fixed income, a partial examption on tzxes on pension is a good, even necessary measure, and it is quite objectionable that this would abolished in the name of fiscal prudence while at the same time massive tax cuts are given to the richest segments of society. Well I guess that Joe-Six-Pack deserves fiscal protection... until he retires. As for other measures proposed in Michigan... Things may different there than they are here, but here ELECTED local officials work to the voters, not the provincial government. While the provincial government has a lot of control about the number of elected officials, their powers, their responsibility, reporting requirements etc., and the end it does not choose and employ them. We, the people, do. Provincial/state governments should be able to suspend the powers of elected local officials who act improperly. But this is not what is proposed here. Instead, we are talking about the usurping of the power of the people to be the ultimate judges of the performence of ITS elected official. Even worse, CORPORATIONS could be appointed to take over local governments, with the power to fire ELECTED officials. This is an attack on democratic institutions. Last time I checked, the Constitution of the United States didn't start with the words "We the Corporations".

Did Martin say anything mysoginist? Is there evidence he woul have acted otherwise if he had been confronting a man instead of a woman? Nope. So no matter what he said, to argue that it is worse because it was said to a woman and this is Women's Day is a sheer non-sense. Like it or not, women have achieved enough over the past 100 years that they don't need to be patronized with arguments like that they need to be protected from heated rhetoric.

Here's the First Family proving once again that they're a bunch of secret Muslims. They should go after falafel joints. Everyone knows they're part of a Muslim plot to poison Americans.

I have seen people who opposeteaching Canadian history. And of course they are wrong. But I have never ever seen anybody call the teaching of our history un-Canadian. Guess this goes in the same category as the flying bodily fluids at the Gay Parade. If you actually think it's treason, then, once again, you don't know what you're talking about. As for attacks against Canada, if I were you I would first go against those who advocate an authoritian (in other word, dictatorial) government, something that would be contrary to and an attack against our democratic institutions and traditions, therefore against this country.

I am personnally not in favour of fine, as opposed to plain suspension. But frankly, it take so gall for someone to say "I don't want to be in the union, and I will betray you all when it suits me, but how dare you not treating me like a member of the union?"

You'll wish that I didn't get curious and didn't click to see what new bit of crap you'd written. Here is exactly (including the typos), what I have written on the issue of strike breakers. which means this is exactly what I think: My opinion of racists is also well known to anybody who has read my postings on this site. You, Sir, are a liar.

Huge numbers? Nobody. Racially-based? The jury is out. Quotas? You, nomatter how much you claim that prioritizing a certain group of people is not establishing a quota. It is.

Actually, it would not be that much better, because it would ASSUME that a candidate has a better chance of succeeding financially speaking because there are more people from the same place who have made it. Which is contrary to simple logic. You want the most likely to make it? Youg et them wherever they come from.