I Miss Trudeau

Give one good example of either. I won't hold my breath. Majority rule ought not be absolute.

Which has caused a lot of financial types to get a little antsy. As the USD is slowly becoming less and less the currency of the world, Bush has done nothing to alter policies to reflect that.

This is also true of people living within the West. This is the first federal election in which I live in a riding that has any chance at all of electing a non-Conservative MP. Perhaps I should lobby to have IMT alienation thrust into the election campaign. The differences between regions are not nearly as drastic as you imply. Its not as if everyone in Ontario is a Liberal and everyone in Alberta is a Conservative. Quite the opposite, actually. In our system, the people that don't vote for the winner generally receive no representation at all, whether they be a region or individuals within a single riding. I think party politics is part of the problem, though our FPTP system is the main culprit. I'd like to see a more robust view of democracy in the form of participatory democracy, or at the very least PR.

Its pretty telling, though, that anyone who doesn't accept his notion of structure or traditionalism opposes both. It couldn't be that they simply have a different idea of structure, nooo... they're clearly with the terrorists.

Perhaps, but sometimes he's really funny, too. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, in that grade 7 dick and fart joke sense. So, really, more pathetic than funny.

I suppose if you think that marketing is necessarily connected to consumerism, it might seem ironic. That seems absurd to me, but I suppose it gave you another chance to talk about "the Left" like the monolithic entity that it isn't.

Um, because he's not. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Every argument that has been offered to support that conclusion has been destroyed in this thread or elsewhere. Care to try another one?

So if I break into your home and beat you to death with a nerf football, I'd then have a right to your possessions and family?

Uhm...what does this have to do with the thread topic? Are you trolling again?

Gay kiss-ins are a "credible threat" of terrorism... I wonder if Bush illegally approved spying on any of these people for reasons of national security?

How is this relevant to the fact that GWB did, and likely still is, violating the law of the land?

I think you pretty well answered your own question. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Irony Hyperbole

While we're engaged in full scale hyperbole, I'd like to ask why on earth anyone would want a Conservative lead theocracy in our once free land?!?!

Seeing that goon with an olympic medal around his neck would absolutely destroy any faith I have left in the spirit of the olympics.

Which is precisely what anyone who has read the scriptures and lives by them believes. In fact, I would sumbit that those who believe that they ought to judge the behaviour and morality of others (not to mention those that seek to dictate what others may or may not do) are very much NOT Christian, based on the very scriptures that they claim to support. I don't think that you're very familiar with Christian scripture if this is the conclusion that you're arriving at.

I tend to agree. Most Christian denominations seem to suffer from a "forest for the trees" problem. The UC is the closest mainstream Christian church to Jesus' teachings.

A little self critical thought, please!

Care to provide an argument for that? It seems perfectly intuitive to me that there is a rather large difference betwen acts that are within the rules of the game and acts that go FAR beyond the scope of the rules. For example, I'm sure most people would agree that biting the ear off your opponent in the ring is a lot different than throwing a very hard punch. Even though the punch is far more likely to result in very serious injury or death. Why? Because when you step into the ring, you KNOW the other guy is going to try to punch you, and you agree to that. When he bites off you ear, you have pretty solid grounds for complaint, wouldn't you say? Sorry, chasing someone down the ice, throwing a haymaker from behind, and then pile driving them into the ice is NOT something that any hockey player (NHL or otherwise) expects to have happen to them. I'm not sure that you're correct on the legal issue, but I know you're talking out of your backend on the moral issue. Sorry, theres a minimum level of judgment that grown ups are expected to show. Chasing someone down, throwing a haymaker from behind, and then pile driving their limp body head first into the ice is pretty clearly an act that a reasonable adult would expect to have a high probability of serious injury. Seriously... try it full force on 10 unsuspecting friends and report back to us how many ended up in the emergency room. There are 3 possibilities with regards to Bertuzzi here: 1) He honestly didn't think that his actions could result in serious injury. A lack of judgment on that order is more than sufficient grounds for a lifetime ban due to the risk that it poses to all other players. 2) Bertuzzi was so enraged at Moore that his judgment was clouded. See above. 3) He intended to injure Moore. See above. Not to trivialize concussions, but, again, you're talking out of your backend. First, if the "moderate concussion" that he received was the more severe injury resulting from the incident, you'd expect Moore to be playing again. You know, in much the same way that other players with concussions return to the game fairly quickly. Second, what would qualify, in your estimation, as a broken neck? Broken clear through? A severed spinal cord maybe? Three broken vertebrae is a broken neck, as far as I'm concerned.

Telling that all of the responses complain about negative campaigning, but don't bother to dispute the central truth: Harper continues to claim that it would be unacceptable for anyone else to do what he has done for the last year.

I'd like an NDP majority, myself. Hope God is on my side...

Not gonna happen. Joe Clark will look like a big deal next to Harper within 2 years.

Not exactly. Its understood in Football that the opposing team is going to hit you as hard as possible, within the rules, every chance that they get, and often with the intent of injuring you. Attempts to injure opponents that are outside the scope of the rules are not tolerated in football. You actually see players thrown out of footbll games for actions that would result in a minor penalty or less in hockey. I wouldn't call what occurs in football violence, simply because everyone knows the rules of the game and that the rules are enforced strictly. Every receiver knows before they step on the field that if their QB hangs them out, they're going to get hit very very hard and they may not walk off the field, or ever again. They consent to that. Moore never consented to being viciously mugged by a nutcase when he stepped on the ice that night. If Bertuzzi had broken Moore's neck with a vicious, but clean, open ice hit, that wouldn't be a problem in my mind.

This came up from Yaro earlier in the thread, and the reaosoning baffles me. The issue isn't whether or not Bertuzzi's attack was the worst in hockey history, or even whether or not its in the top 25 worst incidents. It doesn't matter where it ranks in the annals of hockey thuggery, but rather whether or not this act is, on its own, sufficient to justify prohibiting him from representing Canada.

Does anyone else find it odd that the league trusts (and pays) these people to officiate games, but won't believe them here?

You're busy lamenting the demise of the ability for people like you to dictate what others can do in their own homes and businesses, and then throw around accusations of totalitarianism? Priceless.