Melanie_

What's worse - not being on the poll, or being on the poll and not getting any votes?? Not that I'm bitter or anything!

You obviously have been brainwashed by the elitist, anti PB&J minority. If you would care to examine the issues, you would see the proud traditions that PB&J carry on, and the sacrifices that have been made by countless loaves of white bread to allow us to breath free today in a world where PB&J can be enjoyed by the multitudes. PB&J forever!!!!!

I don't recall ever even having discussed this issue with you. As far as I'm concerned you are, to be as polite as I can, a nonentity. Have you ever posted anything of note? Apparently not. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Do we need a list of who Argus will deign to talk to? Really, Argus, at the risk of being labelled a nonentity myself, that was rude.

I certainly hope the ban isn't permanent; he lost his temper, sure, but that wasn't his usual approach to this forum. His contributions to the discussions far outweigh a momentary lapse in judgement.

Thanks for the bulletin, onlythetruth. I am awaiting the Star People and the Ascended Masters with baited breath. Should we be making signs and standing on top of tall buildings?

What a way to teach a kid a lesson! No surgery for you, your mom is an irresponsible parent and hasn't made something better of herself! Pretty harsh.

Cybercoma's response implies a resentment that this single mom would receive anything from the government to help her afford health care. It's the underlying attitude that she doesn't deserve help that I am concerned about - I have read several posts in this thread and others that blatantly state that if you can't afford private health care you are lazy, don't work hard enough, etc. The problem is our economy needs worker bees, who may not make a great deal but still perform necessary jobs - how much can the market bear to pay them enough to afford private care? I know you have stated we will still require public care, but if that single mom's kid is in need of surgery, is it fair to tell that child that the service would be available quicker if her mother only worked harder, made more money? If I'm misunderstanding you, Cybercoma, I apologize.

You're forgetting that hte single mom making minimum wage is getting a welfare cheque from the government, not to mention publicly funded foodstamps (health insurance) to help her buy groceries. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Which is still not enough for her to afford the surcharge all the cashiers are now charging (although I'd like to know how she can have a job and get a welfare cheque at the same time?)

I don't know any woman who had an abortion for "convenience". Or any who took it lightly. I think it is a myth that women use abortion as a method of birth control; for most it is a last resort. Every woman I know who has had an abortion can tell you when, what the circumstances were, and the emotional toll it took on her. Getting pregnant changes your life irreversibly, even if you choose to terminate the pregnancy; it is such a personal life event, I find it incredibly arrogant for anyone to try to dictate to a woman how she should proceed.

I'm no fan of Harper, but I will give him credit for this. He is doing what makes sense given his political belief; he is spending time with his son (a display of family values) while not attending an event that contradicts the family values he chooses to espouse. Attending the gay pride parade would have been hypocritical, and imagine the fuss if he had taken his son to it! No, I prefer that he stick to his position - it makes it clearcut for those of us who oppose it. And I know this sounds naive, and some of you will claim I am falling for the media blitz, but maybe he just wanted to spend some time with his kid. Its not always about the publicity, I'd like to think he's a caring dad; we can disagree with his politics, but lets give him some credit as a decent human being.

Only a man would suggest it! Believe me, one husband is trouble enough. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Second thoughts... I would get to be the Bossy First Wife! I would never have to wash a dish again, or do laundry, or vaccuum.... All those other wives would have to get jobs, too, and I could sit at home all day eating bonbons and watching Oprah. Or perhaps posting on Internet forums....

SatanHarper, in one post you threaten the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, and in the next you are coming out against incest. Hmm, its been a while, but it seems to me the story goes that after the fall of S & G Lot fathered sons on both (maybe three?) of his daughters, and God seemed OK with this. Oh, and didn't he offer them up to be gang raped as well? God seemed OK with this, too - Lot was a righteous man in God's eyes. Perhaps as long as only heterosexuals are engaging in incest and rape, its not such a bad thing?? I am not trying to incite a religious debate (it has already been incited) or disrespect people's beliefs. But it is a sore point with me that the fate of S & G is held up as something that homosexuals deserved, but these other pieces of the story are conveniently ignored.

Only a man would suggest it! Believe me, one husband is trouble enough.

Argus, I'm not suggesting that the US isn't a democracy, or even, August, that they don't have the history that inspired the Western world. I readily agree with both of you on this. But I am tired of hearing about how much better they are than everyone else, and I believe their arrogance and superiority complex drives people to look for things to criticize about them. If they are as superior as they project, it should be self evident. That is what this thread was originally about, Bat thinking the US was the most democratic country in the world, based on the image and packaging of democracy that they export to the rest of the world.

mcqueen, no one is foisting anything on you. No one is telling you that you should be in a same sex marriage. How does it harm you for others to be in one? And do you recognize that your position harms them? Your faith doesn't have to change, but when you expect others to live by the dictates of your faith and not their own beliefs, you are foisting your faith on them. Also, marriage is not a solely religious term, many people are married by justices of the peace, or even Elvis.

The definition of marriage has changed so many times, I'd like to know what the "traditional" definition means to people. Not so long ago, marriage between a man and a woman meant a woman had no right to property, her children, or even her own body. Not many marriage ceremonies use the word obey in the woman's vows anymore, but it was still an option when I got married 20 years ago. Our society has recognized that "traditional" marriage marginalized women, and has adapted to give women equal footing (or so we are told). So, having evolved in the past, why should it not evolve again? It does my marriage no harm for others to be committed to each other, mix or match. The only people who can compromise my marriage are myself and my husband. The other thing I have noticed here is many people talking about choices and lifestyles. That is just not accurate. Sexual orientation is not about choice - I don't think many would choose to be persecuted, disowned, discriminated against, etc, if they could choose otherwise. Whether it is a product of nature or nurture, gay people simply are gay.

This isn't exactly federal humour, and it is dated (probably a few years old now), but still worth a chuckle, especially if you are a Monty Python fan. Subject: The Axis of Evil by John Cleese Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil," Libya, China and Syria today announced that they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they said would be more evil than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of in his State of the Union address. Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new Axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. "Right. They are just as evil...in their dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. "Everybody knows we're the best evils...best at being evil...we're the best." Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil. "They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. "An axis can't have more than three countries," explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "This is not my rule, it's tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So, you can only have three, and a secret handshake. Ours is wickedly cool." International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered. Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what has become a game of geopolitical chairs. Cuba, Sudan and Serbia announced that they had formed the "Axis of Somewhat Evil," forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the "Axis of Occasionally Evil," while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the "Axis of Not So Much Evil Really as Just Generally Disagreeable." With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the "Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics." Canada, Mexico and Australia formed the "Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Some Nasty Thoughts About America," while Scotland, New Zealand and Spain established the "Axis of Countries That Want Sheep to Wear Lipstick." "That's not a threat, really, just something we like to do," said Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell. While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't perhaps making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axis, although he rejected the establishment of the "Axis of Countries Whose Names End in 'Guay," accusing one of its members of filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges. Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn't want to join any Axis, but privately world leaders said that's only because no one asked them.

OK, I'll agree to conservative, not ultra right wing, although I haven't heard him directly on either topic you mention (mostly because I can only bring myself to listen to him occasionally, for short periods of time).

Lib, if you are looking for another ultra right wing radio talk show, you should listen to Charles Adler on CJOB in Winnipeg. He is the most pompous, egotistical windbag you could ever hear, and refers to his listeners (followers? disciples?) as "Adler Nation" - only those that agree with every word he speaks need call in to express an opinion. I listen to him once in a while for the entertainment, but admit that he can get under my skin on some issues.

These statistics put the US among the freest nations in the world, but certainly not the most free, as American spin doctors are constantly boasting. I think that is the crux of this debate - sure, the US is democratic and has a free press, but it doesn't lead the world, and the incessent trumpeting of superiority is what causes people to look for flaws.

http://www.wcpss.net/news/2001_eog_reading/index.html This link shows why they feel it is necessary to divide children's test scores based on their skin colour. It sounds like they are trying to help the black children, but they do so by calling attention to differences as if the skin colour had anything to do with it (rather than social issues, poverty, entrenched discrimination, lack of opportunity, etc.) Could a white child, living in the same conditions, produce the same test results? The implication is that the white child would still score higher. Could a black child, living in affluence, produce the test results shown for the white children? Again, the implication is no.

Friends of mine moved to North Carolina a few years ago, and in preparation for the move checked out the websites of several of the schools in the area. These public schools had a breakdown of the average child's grade point average defined by their age, gender, and race. 6 year old black boys, 6 year old white boys, 6 year old black girls, 6 year old white girls, etc. Also, when they got drivers licences, there is a spot on the licence for race - you designate whether you are white, black, or other. The argument was that you just needed to know, not that it was a judgment or anything. Yeah, right. With this kind of entrenched discrimination still practiced and justified as "just keeping track of the demographics", no wonder racism is still as widespread as it is. Can you picture any school in Canada posting grade point averages of 6 year old white boys, 6 year old native boys, on their website?

I think I'm the lone voice from Manitoba on this board, so I better defend my province! We are doing quite well with an NDP government, and I don't anticipate change any time soon. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah how hard is it to run Manitoba? Just sell wheat! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ouch! Just wait, as soon as we figure out how to export mosquitos, you'll regret those words!!!

I think I'm the lone voice from Manitoba on this board, so I better defend my province! We are doing quite well with an NDP government, and I don't anticipate change any time soon.

Here in Winnipeg, we had an openly gay mayor for 6 years; it was never really an issue that I was aware of, and when he left municipal politics to run (and unfortunately lose) for federal office, the general consensus was we lost a great mayor.