newbie

Actually, I don't. Most of the old testament was written to meet the needs of a semi-nomadic sheep herders living 4000 years ago. Every Christian selectively ignores those parts of the Bible which are not convenient. The only difference between denominations is which parts get ignored. The United Church does a better job than most when it comes living up to the principles which it believes are the core of Christianity. Just because you don't like those principals does not mean they don't have any. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Right on the money Spar.

I pray with you my friend....So if you pray to God and Martin wins does that mean God wanted Martin to be PM? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well maybe, according to Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Which begs the question, what happens to the Natives when and if Quebec chooses to separate?

Pretty narrow choices there. You missed my party, the Greens!

Don't you find it a bit sad when the U.S. bombs the hell out of Iraq for no reason, creates an insurgency, and then uses Iraq oil revenue to pay for the "reconstruction?" Are you willing to bet that Iraqi citizens will see squat of this money other than to restore what they already had? Cheney and Wolfowitz have been planning this for years. http://www.counterpunch.org/vallette03222005.html

Actually, a little less generalization would be nice. And as far as needing leadership like the U.S., you're in a minority there. In fact, most of the world would disagree with you. At any rate, you will have your chance to express your opinion in the ballet box.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oooh, a raw nerve.

Surprise, surprise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sounds like he struck a nerve shoop.

And all this over a little sex.

My point is (again) that we don't need to embrace symbols to be proud of our country. I am very proud of Canada and wouldn't want to live anywhere else.

Com'on, obviuosly we have a strong sense of nationalismm in the US. I don't doubt that but, you are infering that Candians don't. Have you ever read the Globe and Mail? They constantly come of like Canadians think they are "more sophisticated" then the US all the time? They seem to think we just got "lucky" to be where we are today. Like we are some dumb hicks that stumbled into being a powerful economy and military. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's your intrepretation, not mine. I don't think we need to constantly remind ourselves that we love our country, unlike some of your citizens who fly flags on lawns or wear flags on lapels.

Just a quick revisit. Remember Scott Ritter and Hans Blix. Do you remember what they said about finding all the WMD? Where was the immenent threat? Was it that urgent for Bush to go marching into Iraq when Bin Laden (remember him) was undoubtedly in Afganistan or Pakistan moving from cave to cave. Oh, and just what was the first thing the U.S. protected prior to the invasion. You got it. Oil wells, and not at the big cashe of weapons at Al Qaqaa, a crucial munitions dump, where most of the exposive material found its way into the hands of the insurgents.

That's a rather bigoted statement. Do you really believe that?

Actually, NEWBIE, America1 did NOT say anything about being "the best" country. I give him great credit for this, because "best" is a highly subjective term, and is a matter of personal opinion and nothing more. But he DID say the USA is a "much more powerful country in every possible way", which is a simple statement of fact with which I have to agree. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I didn't say he did pocket. But most Americans I'd be willing to bet feel this way. It's in their advertising, on their TV shows, and the politician says this all the time. Of course "best" is subjective.That was part of my point. Hence the word crap.

Willy, I am referring specifically to people who follow Christian fundamentalism. To them the bible is the ultimate authority, and everyone else's beliefs be they Hindu, Buddist or Muslim, are irrelevant for salvation. Some of their leaders, such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, proclaim that every word in the bible is true. Debate or skepticism is not allowed. Evangelists believe that it is only through Christ that you will get to Heaven, and some even claim if you haven't accepted Jesus you will go to hell. Some of these people use the bible to justify and further their own hateful causes, such as killing abortion doctors, homosexuals, and blacks (KKK). I realize this is an extreme fringe but they use the same bible as you do. I respect anyone's beliefs up to the point where they are used to harm others. I also have enough humility to realize that I could be wrong. Can the same be said of fundamentalist Christians today?

I agree. But I have a little problem with some of the religious fanatics who refuse to believe in anything but a 2000+ year old document as their source of truth and moral conduct.

Do you not think that science and God can co-exist?

I also think that too many religious people use faith as an excuse to believe in something, (infallible leadership or assumption of absolute knowledge) which can lead to an abdication of science and the world around us. And, in some cases, cult dependency even within mainstream churches. Seems to me science is the one thing that can ferret through the belief systems and arrive at some specific conclusions and truth. But to answer the question, some of the most moral people I know are not religious.

Yes I'm aware, I'm also aware that we are a much more powerful country in every possible way. You may not lik to hear it but Canada is getting involved in a pissing contest it can NOT win. I feel bad if your ego is hurt by that comment but, it's true. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Americans always go the undrying well with their schoolyard chant, "We are the best country in the world" crap. No one is in a pissing contest. Martin is simply standing up for Canada. You guys may be powerful but most of the world dislikes you. A great legacy for Bush.

Interesting proposal. He really has absolutely nothing to lose.

So now Canada is the "retarded cousin" of the United States. This comment and others are listed below. This is getting very ugly and totally unacceptable. I will also point out it is coming from the right. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...id=968332188492 http://mediamatters.org/items/200412010011

You're being entirely disingenuous. Not one of the things you've quoted was a lie. Firstly, it was a common opinion throughout the West's intelligence community that Saddam was making attempts to purchase components for refining U235 throughout the 90's. Secondly, if British Intelligence gave Bush bad information it's not a lie for him to quote it before it's disproved (and it still hasn't been). And you're third quote deals with an intelligence estimate based on Saddam's prior capabilities, and again it was not a lie to quote that estimate. Even if you didn't know the specifics, the generality of Bush's language suggests a man taking tough action to avert a potential catastrophe rather than waiting for that catastrophe to be confirmed. That you would characterize this as bald-faced lying suggests the depths to which you will sink to equate the seriousness of putting together a case for war with the unseriousness of defending the personal honour of an honourless man, who by the way provably did commit perjury. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Give me a break already. Look up the work lie in the dictionary. Bush had to take his "Daddy" Cheney in with him to the senate hearing so he wouldn't say the wrong thing. And he refused to have it taped. Smart, but totally dishonest. No, Bush is not only incompetent, he lies to the American people and the world. Clinton lying about a bj is wrong granted, but it took Starr how many millions and investigations to create this scam? Bush, whether he knew it or not a the time, LIED. Only now is he slowly acknowledging false information. How many examples do you want of Bush lying? The net is full of credited sources that I am only too happy to provide. As far as Clinton, look at my earlier list of shameful republicans. No comparison.

So how does this differ from an entire political party who's only aim is to break up Canada?

Some of these folks seem to forget that Martin has only been Prime Minister for 2 years, under a minority government, not 12 as Leader Circle suggests. Sponsorship was run out of Public Works. Seems to me that Martin could very well have had a hands off re adsacam approach given the affair was run out of PMO's office. Add to that the volatile relationship he had with Cretien and it is entirely believable.