CANADIEN

You forgot about the part where the Tea Partyer gets to argue that he will get a full box of cookies if th CEO gets all the cookies, then blames the union guy for evrything.

Don't have the Canadian numbers, but they cannot be that different from the following. In 2006, the Program on International Attitudes at the University of Maryland conducted a survey asking a sample of Americans and Iranians the following question (amongst others): "are bombings and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians sometimes justified?" Interestings results.. Often justified: 3% of Iranians, 5% of Americans Sometimes: 8% of Iranians, 19% of Americans Rarely: 5% of Iranians, 27% of Americans Never: 80% of Iranians, 46 of Americans http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2007/05/23/polls This is not to say, of course, that Americans are bloodthirsty would-be murderers of innocent civilians. Yet, we are supposed to believe that Muslims are just that until proven otherwise.

Interesting that, at long last, the little secret is out. The problem is immigrants, but hey european immigrants are just fine. Good for them that they do not offend your prejudices. Although, we should be careful about where these European immigrants come from - nit too long ago, irish, Italian or slavic immigrants were unwelcome for about the same reasons you put forward today. BTW, as the past decades has demonstrated, the vast majority of Muslim immigrants to Canada are unlikely to blow things up when unhappy.

Oh really? My experience is anecdotal, but those hijab-wearing women I know hardly wout fit the definition of "non-progressive" or "anti-progressive". Not that relgious belief or the wearing of religious symbols or clothing is by definition the opposite of progressive anyway.

Actually, I do not live in that part of town. I know just enough of it though to know that once that bus service is no longer available, the walk to the nearest bus stop is quite a bit more than 500 metres. Actually, anyone with knowledge of Toronto geography will know that once this route is gone there will not be buses running everywhere. But it is sustainable to have people unable to get to or from work in a timely and safe fashions. Nobody is advocating maintaining the current level serices at all cost. But there are economical, sensible solutions that have been adopted elsewhere that could be implemented here. That you and other Fordites won't even consider that they might exist is telling. One example of such an alternative service delivrey mode is the taxibus concept, first launched in Rimouski, quebec in 1994. Instead of buses, taxis are used for public transist, through a service agreement. This service model costs less to the municipality than buses would, is highly efficient, and as an approval rate of 94%. The model has since been adopted by other municiplalities throughout the country. In Montreal, it has been used in providing services in parts of the island with less transit riders. (info trom the federal government)

Perhaps the TTC have to recheck their calculations for some of the routes then. In the example I provided, somebody standing at the corner of Cherry and Commissioners street after 10 pm on winter nights will have to walk about 750 m to the nearest bus stop, in a relatively isolated area of town, including a stint under the Gardiner around the point where it turns into the DVP. I would not recommend it to most people. As for the "reductions are only in non-rush hours, so it won't affect most people" argument, it doesn't fly. People in toronto should be able to access public transit at a stop located within a reasonable and safe distance, and this at most times.

Let's call what TTC service cuts are, cuts. And in some cases, they are justified. That doesn't mean though, that a route should be reduced or cut just because there are few people using it. Sometimes, this may be the only route servicing a given area - example, the 92 A is the only line servicing the eastern portland. Nothing else nearby. Should services in the evening or week-end be cut because few people is using it, or wouldn't it make more sense to keep offer the service while making it less expensive to provide?

Keep in mind that any amount of "it is not right to bully little Johnny because he has two mommies" or mentioning the FACTS about sexual orientation (such has it is not a matter of choice) is considered by some as being socialist indoctrination.

Big companies buy land knowing it's not profitalbe. Yeah right Now, using food for fuel is actually a bad idea. Using by-products of food production is not. Interestingly enough. criticism of the diversion of food crops to the production of biofuels has come from environmentalists a lot more than it has come from business quarters.

Keep digging. Big companies didn't come with the idea of biofuel. They use it as a way to make profits on the cheap. The use of corrupt, abusive, even downright violent methods throughout the Global South by multinational corporations to acquire land, whether for mining, or mass industrial agriculture, is well known. Thanks anyways for admitting that those countries aren't free. That being said, I got have a good laugh at the idea that buying vast tracts of land for the purpose of growing biofuels has nothing to do with biofuels.

Nice try. It is not environmentalists who took land away from local communities and owners in the South. It's big companies, which couldn't care less about the environment and saw a cheap buck to make. If ethanol had not been a cash cow to them, no amount of "it's better for the environment" would have lead them to turn to it.

Aiming at the wrong target here, aren't you? The problem is not that some environmentalsts promoted biofuels. It's that big multinational companies have seen them as a cash cow, and have in the process stolen land from there rightful owners, destroyed communities, limited the capacity for people in the South to feed themselves. But hey, they're rich and powerful, hence they do no wrong, do theyÉ

And how's that, pray tell?

Sooo, it is fine by you if Canadians don't know who sits in the Federal Cabinet and don't care when they LIE? But then, only public apathy and the dismal performence of the leadership of the Liberal party could lead to a Conservative majority comes the next federal election.

And you have the stats to suport this claim? Correction. The number of gay people who live in the closet and pretend to be who they are not has increased. News to you. A family with two parents, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation, is different from families with one parent. Nope. How people deal with their sexual orientation is a choice. What their orientation is isn't.

Have mercy on fuffaloes.

What we need is more people who follow god's command to treat other people like if they were Christ, wouldn't you agree? Because then what is more important is not how many parents a child has or their gender, but whether or not they are loved, nurtered, encouraged, and if they have a roof over their head and food on the table. As for families being happier when there's a mother and a father, there are plenty of examples to show that this is not an universal truth.

Pornography is not a silly thing. And nobody here has said anything against the Pop-and-mom and children family model. Do yourself a favour and don't make a fool of yourself by arguing that's what's happening here.

Stop insulting traffic pylons.

OK then. You will be lectured by a Christian, namely me. What Bitsy posted is right on, and only moralistic hypocrites would claim to be Christian and ignore it. You want to talk morality and decency? Treating others like if they were Christ Himself is the ultimate morality. Time you start living it.

If that's what was happening, perhaps you would have the shadow of hint of a beginning of a point. Sorry to burst your homophobic bubble, but telling a 8 year old that little Johnny down the road has two mommies is not gonna change their sexual orientation later on.

People are free to live the way they want, yet we need a dictatorship. Go figure...

Intresting, isn't it, that Mr. Falange has a problem with the so-called "indoctrination" by teachers when, on the same day, and in another thread, he calls for an authoritarian regime to ahem give role models to our children. No to indoctrination, yes to forced adoption of a political ideology.

Careful what you wish for. A Franco-like regime might not like your attempts at making films about flying bodily fluids. More seriously, thank you for removing any illusion people may have had about your hatred for democracy, human rights and just plain decency.

This is time for you get a grip on reality. With all its shortcomings andfaults (and I am one who thinks they are many), the Harper government is a democratically elected government. In this country, when you want to change government, you use the ballot box.