cybercoma

On the otherside why should they be given a free ride when the rest of us are stifled by paying thousands of dollars a year in taxes and education? Seems a little unfair in a society that preaches equality.

Why should they have to give up their home, heritage and culture to be members of OUR society? They were here first and we just decided to show up and squat on their land. The aboriginal poeple just decided to let us be without bothering us and now we've decided we're going to assimilate them into our "mainstream" society? It's this kind of thinking that's the problem with our relationship with the aboriginal people of Canada. Sure some of their land claims are ridiculous and damn near impossible to implement this late in the game (being that millions of people have settled in places like Vancouver). We realistically can't expect all of them to pack up and move so the native people of canada can move in. On the same token though, we can't simply brush them off and say, "join mainstream society or fuck off," either. This was their land that they allowed us to prosper on and we've done nothing but turn our backs to them. The VERY least we can do for them is give them a tax break and free education.

Obviously you don't see the need to clarify your glaring contradictions. Tell me, am I to expect you to just copy and paste ad nauseum from now on? If so I'll be more than happy to add you to my ignore list, kinda like the rest of Canada has done to the NDP party for years.

Actually, I live in Windsor, ON and still think it's idiotic that taxpayers from all over Canada are helping the CITY OF TORONTO pay for public transit. Raise property taxes, take it from provincial taxes, since transit will help save on the number of cars using the roads and not everyone who uses toronto transit lives right in Toronto. But to hvae the entire country pay for it? That's sheer idiocy. Hey we want a new arena in Windsor, maybe the rest of Canada can foot the bill for that too....

Yeah, I can barely remember last year either...but it has nothing to do with selective memory, it's more than likely all the drinking.

Nothing like tossing around caucasian racist remarks to make a point.

Amen to that!

Too bad the Liberals and the Conservatives don't have the kuhones to stand up to these US bullies. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Weren't you the one that said we don't need a military because we have the United States to defend us? Don't make me go find your quote. Now you're going to cry when the United States creates no-fly areas in Canadian territory. Give me a break, you've already sold the country out on the issue, now you're double-talking.

Damn Quebec for thinking both of them are responsible.

This is the most idiotic thing I think I've seen in the news lately. Who gives a crap, Grewal should step down for being such an absolute moron as to illegally record a conversation and try to use it as evidence later by doctoring the tapes (if that's indeed what happened). Stephen Harper can piss off too if he's going to defend that kind of bottom-feeding lowlife stunt. We already know seats have been offered and such, one needs to look no further than Belinda Stronach. This is such an obvious diversion it has become ridiculous to watch.

If that were true he'd have joined the Liberals. So how much are you guys selling judgeships for these days? How much for a senate seat? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The only member of the COnservative Party who was willing to do anything for power was Belinda Stronach.

Let me know when the FEDERAL government drops millions upon millions of dolalrs into Calgary's transit ssytem.

I thought the NDP wanted to get to the bottom of this! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They just want to get to the bottom of the bank account, who cares about corruption? I thought that was obvious.

To steal a concept from Will Ferguson, author of Bastards and Boneheads: Canada's Glorious Leaders Past and Present, Finance Minister Paul Martin: Bastard, Prime Minister Paul Martin: Bonehead.

On the topic, I should add how proud I am that someone in Alberta who will never visit Toronto is paying for their subways and buses.

Just because issue A ranks higher than issue B doesn't mean issue B is NOT an issue.

Here's a crazy idea, because murder is wrong and you agree with them. Homosexuality is their business when it's thrust upon society as something that has to be accepted lest you be some kind of insensitive asshole. People don't agree with it and have every right not to agree with it or not feel comfortable with it. If homosexuals can't deal with the criticism then they need to keep their personal lives in the bedroom where it belongs.

I'm sorry, show me where I said we should do the same things to clean up the environment as the United States?

I did not say that. I said that they should not use their religion to justify laws that take reasonable freedoms from someone else. If you don't believe in abortion then don't have one. If you believe that a gay relationship is sinful then don't get involved in one. But you have no right to go around calling doctors murders or describing homosexuals as pedophiles. Someone who is a devoted evangelical christian can be a excellent MP provided that person is willing to accept that others have a different moral framework and that is perfectly valid. It is the unwillingness to compromise which is the problem. That has to be the biggest irony of the right-wing conservative christians: they seem to have forgotten this very worthy tenet of Christianity in their crusade to rid the world of gays and evolution. At the same time that Bush was moralizing about the sanctity of Terri Schavo's life he was cutting the medicare programs that many poor people depend on in order to pay for his tax agenda. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If someone believes abortion is murder, why on earth would they allow it? "I know you deeply and morally believe abortion is murder, Sir; however, you have to give people the freedom to do that." Same goes for homosexuality. If someone believes it is disgusting perversion that is corrupting the values of children, then why should they sit back and accept it? Furthermore, why does the government have to be the one spending so much on healthcare (since you mentioned cuts in relation Terri Schiavo), particularly in the United States. There are third party insurance programs that most employers are on board with. In fact they give people the choice of which programs to enter at some places. (We're talking about the States here) Not to mention -- and this happens here as well -- charities, churches, etc. often times pick up the tab for the truly poor when they need the help. None of that is good enoguh though, you have to take people's money by force instead of putting it in their pockets and letting them take responsbility for their health or donating their money to help those who need it. People with serious drug and food addictions and make the conscious choice of doing other health threatening things should take responsibility for their health instead of depending on someone else's hard earned money going towards paying for the consequences of their vices.

Yeah, someone wake me up and get me a protest sign when those female oppressing suicide bombing christian fundamentalists (?) are nearing 50% of parliament. Thanks.

Then put them in a cage until that happens, preferably one far away from me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fair enough, but their sentence would still be different from an adults in that case and I think the point of the topic was to charge them as adults, which I'm arguing against and you're now agreeing with.

This reminds me of a famous basketball player who, several years ago, boasted about the number of women he had slept with over the years. I can't remember his name, but he was very well known among basketball fans. My point is that promiscuity is not found only among gay men, and the stats quoted here don't preclude gay men from being monogomous. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wilt Chamberlain.

I tend to agree with you, eureka. We cannot legislate morality and because something is legal, that does not make it moral. The State cannot order people to like or even respect other people. Simply put, gays want to be able to use the word marriage because they want to be respected. I don't think changing the meaning of a word can do that. As to this television programme, the last time I watched daytime TV, it seemed to me there were weirder subjects than two guys getting married. ("My boyfriend had an affair with my daughter's husband but I forgive him.") <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is just it, people can be tolerant of gay relationships but they don't have to LIKE them. People have every right to be uncomfortable with the things that make them uncomfortable. Telling people the HAVE to accept homosexuals through legislation will just serve to infuriate those who are morally opposed to it.

The Kyoto Protocol is absolutely worthless. It's a money hog and those dollars don't even stay in Canada. The United States couldn't have been more correct in thumbing their noses at it.

God forbid Christians be represented alongside the Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhits, Muslims, Jews, and other religions who are in parliament.