B. Max

That is pure speculation and something which you are only guessing at. Your very reasons for such a conclusion is an admission that at the very least the US doesn't take this country seriously and at the worst no one recognizes it's soveriegnty which comes from its ability to defend its self. Which it can not do. Even the danes have whacked off a piece of it and claimed it as their own. Although i would say since they signed it all over to the eskimos, let them defend it. Which would be an even bigger joke than the way this country is percieved with good reason.

Martin is fool to think that the americans would consult canada after he has said they won't participate. Can anyone really see the americans calling mr. dithers and asking him wheather they should shoot down an incoming misslie before it hits. He and the liberals have relegated canada to the category of irrelevant.

Maybe it is time you woke up. http://www.article8.org/AffectsYou.htm

Wrong, you are talking about the Vriend case in regards to employment. Klien has said all along no gay marriage in alberta. Not that i have any use for the klien liberals, but the couirt clearly threw it back to the government. Klien would have had no choice but to use the notwithstanding clause. If klien the liberal were any good at all he would force the matter back to the courts in order to use the notwithstanding clause. I don't expect that to happen until we clean out that nest of scoundrels and replace them. We have tolerated the forces of filth for long enough. The time is long over due to do some serious offending and begin to reverse the years of athiest social engineering thats been eating away at the country like a cancer. This looks like it will be a good place to start, and end with scrapping the phoney charter of wrongs and special rights along with tossing out the liberal activist judges and their of reign tyranny. They will be your company hell, not me. So, notwithstanding the facts that: a) the Commons subcommittee which drafted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms debated for two days whether to include sexual orientation in Section 15, and voted 26-2 to leave it out; that the issue has not received formal public debate or referendum; c) that Parliament as recently as 1999 affirmed by a vote of 216 to 55 that the definition of marriage was between a man and woman "to the exclusion of all others"; d ) and that roughly 50 percent of the population is opposed to redefining marriage, gay marriage has arrived, and appears to be unstoppable, simply because a bunch of social activist judges say so on the basis of their liberal ideology. http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issue...s/done-deal.htm

The spectrum of rights assigned to different animals is an entirely different conversation. The point I think I made is that the SCC did not "add" sexual orientation to the charter, they merely confirmed that it was already there. And I think that this is obviously correct, given the wording of the charter. If this doesn't convince you, I'm really not sure what else I can say. Specified inclusion != exclusion. No they didn't. The court did not read in sexual orientation or sexual choice. Nor did they say it was there. The alberta government would have used the notwithstanding clause if they had. They said they would look the other way if the government wanted to read it in. It is not there and it never was. Nor is anyone being discriminated against. Nor is anyone being denied a right. This is about the government making a right out of a wrong under the guise of equality. Gays have every right to get married, as long as it's the opposite sex. Just like everyone else. The charter of wrongs and special rights in this case is living up to it's name, while exposing its self for what it really is, as trudeau intended it to be. That being a blueprint for social engineering for the ideology of cultural marxism.

But it says right there: But you see, people like B. Max consider places where gays, fornicators and adulterers get put to death model societies. I stand corrected. Well at least some of us learn something new every day. Others prefer to remain ignorant and make stupid statements.

Hey, where's you quote from? The one I've got doesn't go into their blood upon them. http://www.bartleby.com/108/03/11.html

I can't remember ever hearing of people who have affairs being put to death. I haven't even heard a call for it. I believe it's quite common in most muslum countries.

Who says the behaviour is bad? You? Please spare us form such drivel, would you. Actually as far back as the writings of the bible have said that. Hooey. The Bible doesn't say that at all. Not that it matters what a parade of nutbars have recorded in a book anyway. Oh yes it does, and more people care what it says than what you might say. Where then, does it say that? It says it right here, and it also says a lot more. To try and use one wrong to justify another is ridiculous. Eating shelfish is not seen in the eyes of god as an abomination as is homosexuality. It is seen as an unclean food. 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Lev. 18.22 http://www.bartleby.com/108/03/20.html#13

It's not rubbish at all. What you are peddling is the rubbish.

Who says the behaviour is bad? You? Please spare us form such drivel, would you. Actually as far back as the writings of the bible have said that. Hooey. The Bible doesn't say that at all. Not that it matters what a parade of nutbars have recorded in a book anyway. Oh yes it does, and more people care what it says than what you might say.

Fortunately, there's so many othe rlabels that apply in your case: bigot, asshole, ignoramus, throwback, knuckle-dragger...the list is extensive. No, those would be indicators of your cesspool intellect.

No the whole world does not agree. The historical records show cooling over the last 40 or so years, not warming. The hockey stick is part of the faulty computer models they used to claim global warming when the actual temperatures were saying otherwise. Fact, there is no global warming, that is a myth.

Who says the behaviour is bad? You? Please spare us form such drivel, would you. Actually as far back as the writings of the bible have said that. Not that one needs a bible to know that it is bad and filthy behavior.

It would seem that dodgeball is where your limited talents and knowledge of the subject are vested. I never claimed putin said anything. Actually i understand many peer review articles HAVE poo pooed the global warming theory, and anyone who has looked at the claims of the fearmongers have found them to be without substance. http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpos...92-fa78432433bf http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/l...lec19/lec19.htm

Me thinks I see a homophobe. There is actually no such thing as a homophob. At least not in the terms you mean. It is actually a misdirected term conjured up by the porn merchants and promoters of filth. It's intention of course, to hang a scary lable on those who would disagree with their bad behavior and otherwise silence any opposition to their agenda. Used correctly, you would have to direct the term at yourself, and also admit to its desired intent.

The fact is eureka, you don't have an arguement. You have presented nothing that could possibly make arguement for that which you claim to be fact. Further, you and the chicken little science can not stand up to the scrutiny of close examination of the claims, made by the sky is falling crowd. Your arguement for your claims seems to revolve around calling people idiots "The last refuge of a scoundrel" who do not buy into the socialist junk science, misleading information, and outright lies. Driven by the politics of envy, socialists have always relied on lies to advance their agends, also discredited, and relegated to histories trash heap.

The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than it has ever been for as far back as it can be reasonably assessed. Then why has the temperature been decreasing over the last 40 or so years, at a time they claim it has been warming. Which is a proven fact that throws cold water on the global warming fear mongers with their junkscience and outright lies. You make wild claims based on nonsense and have not been able to prove one thing you say, nor have the scientists who preach global warming who's entitlement to their next government grant depends on doing the bidding of their socialist government masters. Ooops http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=16...2-04&do_alert=0

Now if some asks you if you are married, they will also have to ask if you are married to a man or a woman. An unintended consequence of promoting more sexual perversion.

You need to be lord high in ordre to have your unreasonable, self-righteous opinions made into oppressive legislation. What grief? Trudeau was right. Tell me, what business does the state have in the bedrooms of the nation? On what basis? Now there's an incomprehensible statement if ever there was. I've never seen a bedroom in a school! Now there's an incomprehensible statement if ever there was. I've never seen a state in a bedroom. ********************************************** Trudeau was right. Tell me, what business does the state have in the bedrooms of the nation? On what basis? None i would say, but at the same time the state has no business in promoting the filth as something normal or exceptable behavior. By allowing the filthy anti human behavior in the schools is to condone it. The state has no business in promoting the sexual perversion of the bedrooms of the country in the schools of the country.

Just because you say so, I suppose? And when were you appointed Lord High Guy, may I ask? I don't have to be lord high of anything to have the same opinion as many many other right thinking people. That idiot trudeau brought this grief on us by saying the state hand no business in the bedrooms of the country. The next thing we new the bedrooms of the country were in the schools looking for new meat. It's one of the reasons that those who can take their kids out of the government brainwashing institutions to home school them.

No, friend you are wrong. The reference you supplied clearly applies to "crown lands". All it means is that the province of Alberta owns resources on the lands it owns directly, just like other provinces before it. That is to say, it empowers the provincial crown to hold land distinct from the pre-existing federal crown. It does not grant the province any rights over land or resources it does not own outright in a normal fashion. But look, this is a simple, well known set of facts. Seriously, instead of arguing with me from a basis of ignorance, go read about it. I'm not making this up; I am simply reporting the constitutional facts to you. What the hell are you talking about. This is what it says in the constitution. Transfer of Public Lands Generally 1. In order that the Province may be in the same position as the original Provinces of Confederation are in virtue of section one hundred and nine of the Constitution Act, 1867, the interest of the Crown in all Crown lands, mines, minerals (precious and base) and royalties derived therefrom with the Province, and all sums due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals or royalties, shall, from and after the coming into force of this agreement and subject as therein otherwise provided, belong to the Province, Alberta owns the resourses, that is what the constution says. What part of belong, don't you understand. When the criminal trudeau tried to grab alberta's resources, alberta shut in the oil. If and when alberta secedes, the oil, the ground it is in, and everything else will go with alberta. If the east doesn't like that, to bad.

Such a ignorant statement from someone who wants to keep that door closed. Homosexuals have been around for all time. As long as it is a union between two consenting ADULTS it is naturaral and normal. Denial of their acceptance will not make them go away. Many homosexuals were drawn to the prisesthood and nunnery in attempts to hide and probably control their instincts. It backfired when these people could not control their instincts and abused children in their care. Heterosexual sex was treated this way in the past; children and young adults did not even know the proper names for their private parts and we never talked about pregnancy or sex. Pregnant women were not allowed to work. We wore large billowy clothing to hide our big bellies. Do we want to remain ignorant and deny the truth that such relationships do exist? Personally, I would prefer naming the union of homosexuals with a slightly different name to distinguish the two, As their sexual practices do not extend to procreation; I would not want to see them have the same rights to adoption of babies as heterosexuals. Nature creates such abnomalies for a reason; they are created without the desire for procreational sex; perhaps for a reason. Let's open the door slowly and see how things develop. Lets call it what it is, and put it back in the closet and this time lock the door.

The environment is not a Provincial matter. Your dirty air and practices do not stay within your province. Why should the rest of Canada and/or the world suffer for your money hungry irresponsibility towards an environment that extend to outside your jurisdiction. Alberta has ownership over its resources and their byproducts. The feds, in that area are nothing but lawless government. In other words a tyranny who seek to control what is not theirs. The fact that alberta's air is quite clean is due to alberta's regulations. Although, we are most grateful that quebec sucks and keeps the eastern stench flowing in an eastern direction. THE SIXTH SCHEDULE.(78) Primary Production from Non-Renewable Natural Resources and Forestry Resources. 1. For the purposes of Section 92A of this Act, (a) production from a non-renewable natural resource is primary production therefrom if (i) it is in the form in which it exists upon its recovery or severance from its natural state, or (ii) it is a product resulting from processing or refining the resource, and is not a manufactured product or a product resulting from refining crude oil, refining upgraded heavy crude oil, refining gases or liquids derived from coal, or refining synthetic equivalent of crude oil; and ( production from a forestry resource is primary production therefrom if it consists of saw logs, poles, lumber, wood chips, sawdust or other primary wood product or wood pulp, and is not a product manufactured from wood. Albertans also understand that putting food on the table is not greed, or in anyway money hungry. In fact we take great pride in providing for ones self and family and reject dole as any source of pride or way of living. Through the hard work of the individual to be all that he can be is the the only way to prosperity and providing for ones self, now, or in later years.

The Albertan government and the people of Alberta are two very different things. This is the distinction TS is making I believe. However one trys to twist it does not change who owns it. Anyone trying to touch it will find out just what that means. Most albertans have little or no use for the eastern government. We survive in spite of it, not because of it.