Scotty

Apart from a desire for an elected senate you could replace the name above with "Chretien" or "Mulroney" or "Martin" or "Trudeau" easily enough.

We learned in school that Americans were all about "I" and didn't care about "U" and so refused to use it in any of their words.

You heretic! Burn him! Burn him!

Are you saying that the general level of political, cultural and social sophistication in the Muslim world puts them 600 years behind us? I mean, if they're that barbarous and backward, should we even be letting them run their own countries?

But what you're advocating is that we modify our behaviour because unreasonable people on the other side of the world will be angry with it. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Suppose I really enjoy drawing pictures of Mohamed as a donkey and a pig. Suppose it amuses me. Why shouldn't I be able to do it?

Do you have any kind of statistical evidence of that?

del

If you're posting publicly then it was meant for me. If you want to engage in private conversations you ought to PM the person you're talking with.

This sort of smirking, disrespectful answer isn't likely to endear you or your party to anyone. Telling us to read your umpteen page red book is not an answer. Everyone knows those things are written by spin doctors and lawyers who parse every sentence to try and make people think what they want them to.

Not in the states. I was reading on the weekend about some guy who mislabeled the salmon his facility produced and he got a year in prison!

Smart like Trudeau, you mean, who ran our economy pretty much into the ground?

Then perhaps you should have done a better job making it.

In his column in the Globe today John Ibbitson, reading over Ignateiff's version of the big red book, says Ignatieff is trying to take us back into the Trudeau days of big social spending, taxing corporations and the well-heeled, and continuing deficits. He says the Liberals have now changed their story on replacing the F-18s. That's news to me. They were always in favour of a replacement, but wanted a bidding process first. Now, Ibittson says they've abandoned any plans to replace the F-18s at all. Also, they have abandoned plans to get rid of the deficit, but are only saying they will reduce it. John Ibbitson Would any Liberal supporter like to comment on the veracity of Ibbitson's statements? Then there's John Ivison, whose skepticism is pretty much along the same lines. Lots of social spending, permanent program social spending, but little attention paid to financial matters. Liberal Platform is Buyer Beware

I couldn't say what's in Harper's heart, but he has governed pretty much as a progressive conservative, really no further to the right than Mulroney or Clark were. What I'd like is for him to make things work efficiently and effectively with the least amount of waste. Is that so much to ask?

Because Harper has been so extreme???

I thought yous said not all that long ago you were working a fairly low-rent job... working with children or something...?

No one bears responsibility for the actions of others. Trying to hold him responsible for the actions of crazy people in Afghanistan is reverse bigotry. What you're saying is crazy Muslim savages have no control over their actions, and so will always react in the same violent way to the slightest perceived insult, even from the other side of the planet.

The people responsible are the crazy religious nutters who attacked and murdered people. By trying to shift responsibility onto the Florida pastor you are at least partially excusing them and saying it wasn't their fault. It WAS their fault.

The comparison isn't really ideal. Yes, you can occasionally get a crowd of savages to attack someone or something. Witches are burned in Africa fairly frequently, as an example. And there are occasional deadly riots in India, as well. But only Muslims seem to take murderous umbrage at minor events happening half a world away in places they've never even heard of before. Only Muslims can get all bug-eyed violent because someone suggest they heard a rumor that some guy they never heard of in a country they've never been to might have drawn a picture of someone who might in some way resemble Muhammad's great aunt Ethel. What!? Someone drew a picture of muhammed's aunt Ethel!? Find foreigners! Kill them! Hack off their heads! Argghhh! Cue mob of screaming, howling Muslims with drool in their beards looking to kill foreigners...

You and your brother delivering newspapers?

Unfortunately, Muslim leaders are and do.

The Christian religion, at least in Europe and much of North America, has little influence and is paid little heed. As for democracy, it is only as useful as people make it. If much of the population could not be bothered to vote then the zealots have much more influence than their numbers would suggest. Islam, as I understand it, is not merely a guide to moral behavior, but a guide to political behavior. Many, if not the majority of its adherents, want laws and government to reflect the Koran. So to a certain extent, they are traitors to the existing order which has welcomed them.

Why on earth would Harper accept Mercer, as anti-Tory an entertainer as ever existed, as the 'moderator' in a debate with a Liberal?

Except in the actual debate. Look, this is all patently obvious on both sides. Harper wants to debate Ignatieff, confident (with reason) he would prevail. However, the Tories don't want to push away the NDP and elevate this election to a two-party race. He doesn't want to see NDP voters staying home, or worse, voting Liberal. Also, he's well ahead in the polls, and really has little to gain in a debate unless he absolutely crushes Ignatieff. Ignatieff, on the other hand, is way behind, and is game for anything that will make hims seem more important, put him on the same level, so to speak, as Harper. He'd love to have a debate with just him and Harper, shutting out the NDP and hopefully losing the NDP support, status and credibility as a serious contender. All he has to do, given what little everyone thinks of him, is survive, to come out ahead. I'm sure that the Conservatives would love to see Harper against Ignatieff in the main debate, then Harper against Layton, then Harper against Duceppe. But they're not going to give Ignatieff a gift by elevating him alone.

Restrictions on gun ownership come from the acquisition of a firearms license. That is where we need to be ensuring those who have a gun are honest and sane. The registration basically attempts to duplicate that, with a horribly screwed up data base, at enormous expense.