Scotty

If you can't recognize an ad hominem as obvious as 'stupid' than your education was even worse than his. And the fact you managed to find some columnist calling conservative supporters stupid is no reason to post it here as a topic title. I'm sure I can find columnists calling liberal supporters all sorts of names too, but posting taunting threads on it would still be flame bait.

Wow. That may well be the most inane comment you've ever made. And give you set the standard for inane comments that's saying something. The boomers spent my money by living a very good life that they didn't pay the taxes to afford. They wanted nice pensions, but didn't want to contribute enough to pay for them. They wanted a really nice social safety net, but didn't want to pay for it. They wanted great government services, but low taxes. That's why we have a massive debt, all of which has been run up by the boomers. Their parents went through a depression and then six years of world war and left them a debt free nation. Look what the boomers left us...

If the CPP is solvent it is only because those who followed the boomers are having to pay higher fees for it. The boomers certainly weren't funding it. It's only recently the CPP deductions have risen. Compare what a retiring boomer now had to pay to CPP to what a person entering the work force in the last five years will have to pay during their lifetimes.

Apparently so. You'd think someone with a PHD would have a better vocabulary and a better means of expressing his disdain for people than calling them 'stupid'.

I'm sorry, but did the guy who just started a thread with the gleeful title that Conservatives are the party of the deeply stupid actually have the balls to complain about ad hominems? Just what kind of response did you expect?

For those outside Ottawa who wouldn't know, the Glebe is Ottawa's home of the trendy, the desperately fashionable and oh-so politically correct. It is the home of the gucci wearing granola cruncher set. Small wonder someone growing up there would become a philosophy major and would disdain conservatives.

What is the difference between punishing a rapist murderer and holding them 'accountable' for the rapes and murders they commit?

Let me speak for the majority of Canadians here. I don't care if this piece of vermin is a "risk to re-offend" or not. I don't believe he should ever be set free. Personally, I don't even believe he should be alive.

Utter drivel.

The oil industry is the driving force in our economy. Without it, we'd be an economic basket case. In a very real sense, those environmental groups trying to do away with the oil sands are trying to destroy Canada's economy. The big money coming in from the US is not a made-up fantasy and is hostile to our interests. I would be concerned if the government was NOT doing its best to ameliorate the propaganda campaign of these people. So the question I would have for you people upset at it is - why do you want Canada's economy to be destroyed? Globe and Mail

This is a guy who was cited for ethics violations as speaker and received millions from Freddy Mack to help keep regulators off their backs. You wish all politicians were like this guy?

I think you're missing the point. Perhaps the 'threat' of violence might be minor, but the threat of the increasing political power of this group within Israel's crazy quilt pizza parliaments is very real, especially given the group's increasing population. And the threat is not merely to women. This is a group which does no work. This is a group which does not join the IDF. Many members of this group don't even recognize that the Israeli state has any legitimacy, which is why the health minister refuses to be the official health minister. They're already 10% of the population - almost all on welfare. What happens to Israel when they become 20%-30%?. How does Israel pay for its enormous military with a third of the population made up of welfare bums?

How am I ignorant for not finding 65 year old women sexually attractive? Am I any different from general society in that way? Do you see a lot of men craning their necks to oggle 65 year old women at the beach? As for middle aged women looking like potatoes - I exercise for 30 minutes a day so I keep in reasonable shape. If they don't have the discipline to do likewise why on earth should I somehow try to force myself to find a woman who barely fits her huge ass into a chair attractive?

The problem is they're enjoying MY money, and their kids money. The boomers never paid their bills, and certainly never paid for their pensions.

There is what you need, and what you want. Then there's what you can afford. Toronto will either learn to prune down it's 'wants' or go bankrupt, and I really don't care which.

Why do I have a feeling that any web site which even had a Catholic contributor would be dismissed by you as 'bizarre'? I think you have a profound lack of understanding of how discussions and debates work. You say Catholic clergy are more prone to abusing children than anyone else. But you post no evidence whatsoever to support this theory. I say they're not, and post evidence to that effect. Now you insist I engage in a research project to provide more evidence to counter your theory? At which point you will no-doubt pronounce on the validity of that evidence. Uhm, no. Yes, bigots don't need evidence to support their theories, and are prone to dismiss any evidence which counters it anyway. From my reading, the abuse (mostly of adolescent boys and youths) mainly happened between the '60s and '80s, was mostly carried out by homosexual priests, and has all-but disappeared today, given new psychological screening of seminary applicants and rules of behaviour within the Church. I'm pretty much an agnostic, to be honest. Thus I don't have faith one way or another. I rely on actually looking into things and deciding my decision based on the facts as I find them. I think it's your anti-Catholic bigotry that is operating on faith.

Since they insist their oil industry be government owned they can't complain about us banning foreign government ownership in ours either.

By all means, sell oil to China. But process it here, and prohibit corporations owned by foreign governments from owning more than a small share in any Canadian company.

Granted, but Chinese oil companies are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Chinese Communist Party - which is made up, let's be clear, of mass murderers. Regardless of how delighted everyone likes to pretend they are about 'the new China', there are still NO human rights there, and brutality, torture, murder, and labour camps abound. In addition, of course, the Chinese government's needs may well be diametrically opposed to ours. Normal companies will base their actions on profit maximization. Chinese companies will base their decisions on what the Chinese Communist Party tells them to do. Drastic increase in tanker traffic? I don't think so. The amount of product to be carried remains the same, regardless of whether it's processed into different fuels. I don't see why one tanker carrying kerosene, one carrying diesel, one carrying oil, are worse then three carrying Bitumen. And if you refine it at the port there's no need for more pipelines. The up side, of course, is a lot more jobs and a lot more value added to our resource - which will stay HERE in Canada. Seems to me it makes a lot more sense to expand already existing oil handling facilities than build new ones up north which will require tankers to navigate what appears, from all accounts, to be extremely dangerous waters to get back south.

We lacked expertise and we lacked capital. But that isn't the case now. And I'd suggest that if external capital investment is needed we can do better than a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chinese Communist Party.

Absolutely ridiculous. And instead of focusing on 'healing' violent criminal natives maybe we ought to focus on their broken societies and cultures. Those who hurt others need to be severely punished, no matter how bad their childhood or how unhappy their lives were. Making excuses for natives, or in this case a Haitian, is what someone called 'the liberal bigotry of low expectations'. Ie, we can't hold them to our standards because they're just not as good as us.

There are circumstances where it is welcome, where it helps keep a company in business, or allow for its expansion, for example. Money coming into the country can certainly help the economy. On the other hand, where it approaches a certain level where economic decisions are being made in other countries, especially by other governments which affect Canadian industry it can cause a lot of issues. Then too there's concentration. If ten companies from ten countries buy ten oil producers across Canada that's one thing. If one company in one country buys them all that's something else, and most especially when that company is actually the government of China. As I noted with regard to the forestry industry. It was in China's best interest for our lumber companies to ship raw logs to China for processing, and buying up lumber companies certainly made that more feasible -- at a cost to Canada of scores of sawmills shut down here.

A mistake of arrogance? In other words, you like to 'skewer' anyone you think has made any kind of mistake, however small and unimportant, that you can jump on. In other words, you're a bully who boosts his sagging sense of self-importance by attacking people on line. Gotcha. Now I remember this conversation from an earlier occasion, and remember what you are. I've never had anything but contempt for bullies, and so I think you belong in my ignore file before I tell you what I really think of your ilk and wind up in trouble with the moderators.

Pre schoolers have more open minds than bigots of your sort. Bizarre pro-catholic website? You said you never heard of non-Catholic clergy involved and I gave you a cite listing an awful lot of such happenings. I did not at any point attempt to deny there had been a lot of Catholic priests involved in underage sex and molestation. But Catholics are, after all, as the cite points out, the largest, and most hierarchical of Christian congregations, and so it's far easier to track such things. If you want to hate Catholics, there's not much I can do about it, but there is NO EVIDENCE that the Catholic clergy abused underage people with any more frequency than happened in the general population. And the great majority of that abuse appeared to involve gay priests and underage youths, not pedophiles with small children. The Bishop was clearly of that type, though he never apparently actually went on to engage his sexual interests with actual youths.

Oh hardly indefensible. Especially against a group whose entire argument consists of "pedophiles are bad people!" No research, no cites, not even an effort to consider the point of a broad law which targets both pedophiles and ordinary people, and which does so for no discernible reason other than disapproval of their sexual fantasies. No evidence that the porn law has had the slightest impact or will ever have the slightest impact on the amount of actual child abuse. No evidence that the child porn law is necessary, or that the destruction of some sad men downloading pictures in their basement helps society in the slightest or makes children the slightest bit safer. .Please demonstrate how something is clear to those who have no knowledge whatsoever about a thing other than they don't like it? Really? Name them. I haven't read one academic study which actually says any such thing. There are a lot of 'activists' out there working on behalf of children who will produce any kind of numbers you like, but none of them have any scientific validity. When my position is based on logic and fact and yours is based entirely on emotion, don't expect me to take your moralizing seriously.