newbie

Probably a number in the middle would be more accurate.

It's amazing how the U.S. department of defense knows exact numbers down to the men they've lost. Yet Bush's P.R. man, Scott McClellan refuses to even entertain or speculate an approximate number of Iraqi civilians that have been killed. I'd be interested, Aslan, who these lefties are that have discredited the Lancet study, and where are their findings? I think I'd believe a John Hopkins study over what has been presented so far. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0127-23.htm

This is a strange discussion when I find myself defending the Catholic Church.Newbie, you implied that the Catholic Church was engaged in such activities today, meaning in 2005. Your links refer to cases in the 1980s. (No less horrific but not the point of my question for evidence.) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> August, they are still covering up. To me that is part of the victimization and abuse. Plus, given their terrible abuse record, do you suggest that pedophilia has disappeared from this organization just because the press can't report it? Or that victims automatically come forward? Or that victims cannot, under law suit, discuss such events? No, I have no absolute proof that a priest on this day abused someone; but I do know they are hiding evidence and not being truthful about their actions. I heard such testimony less than a year ago, and knowing this church from the inside I can tell you that no efforts are being made to change policy on how they handle sexual abuse or its victims. My wife has yet to receive an apology, even after the priest confessed in court.

Very good Coyne article August. Thanks for that.

Proof?

1. That was my point. 2. Evidence? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Evidence? Clearly you must have been living on another planet for the last few years. This is a world wide problem. I'm not going to do your homework for you, other than to suggest you talk to some victims. Ask Bishop Henry of Calgary about taking on a pedophile priest recently, and then having to ship him "away" when it was discovered. http://www.nopedo.org/english/pages/actualite8.html. Father Frank Van Tiegham, of southern Alberta, was tried and convicted in the mid 1990's for sexual abuse. My wife was a victim of the results of Henry's predecessor, Bishop O'Byrne, who destroyed the lives of countless young boys and girls. For more education, try this link: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Rel...SS/sexabuse.htm The cover-up of this activity is massive, and I know first hand of many details but am under a court-ordered censor as a condition of my wife's settlement, which is further victimization.

Well, you kind of made my point don't ya think: A principle, convicted moron runs our province, oops I mean a moron with conviction. Yeah, the sick keep getting sicker, the students are ignored, the streets and foodbanks are flooding with homeless, crime is way up, gambling and drug abuse hitting the roof - a great legacy Ralph. And the crème de la crème, the $400 for each man, woman and child. Oh, and let's not forget his former government (of which he was a part of) and their terrific investment ideas: Electricity Deregulation NovAtel Communications Ltd. Swan Hills Waste Treatment Centre Lloydminister Bi-provincial Upgrader Millar Western Pulp Mill Gainers Magnesium Company of Canada Alberta Pacific (Al-Pac) Pulp Mill West Edmonton Mall Northern Lite Canola

Revisionist thinking. The premise of the schools was to educate native children and give them economic opportunities that they would not have if they stayed on the reserves - a sensible idea even today.Some natives actually benefited from the experience and say so today - but you won't hear them on media which has bought into the native victim act. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sadly, this did not turn out to be the case. Interesting you call me a revisionist. There are far too many websites and actual stories of abuse to deny your claim. But here are some of the highlites: From http://www.canadiana.org/citm/specifique/abresschools_e.html These schools were the source of the many problems and concerns: * They were breeding grounds for potentially fatal diseases like smallpox and tuberculosis. * Students were not allowed to practice Aboriginal customs or speak Aboriginal languages. * They were poorly maintained to the point of posing serious safety and other health hazards. * They were the source of great animosity between the government and Aboriginal parents who refused to let their children be taken away from them. * They were poorly equipped to properly clothe students, particularly during the winter months. * They were source of dangerous fires often deliberately set by problem children. * The food served at these schools were particularly lacking in nutritional value. * The work was physically demanding and harsh on the students. * Teachers were often so ill equipped that they could not teach students much beyond completely alien religious ideologies. * They were the source of great absenteeism, on both the students and teachers' parts alike More links: http://www.afn.ca/residentialschools/ http://www.lcc.gc.ca/research_project/ica/..._execsum_en.pdf http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/gs/schl_e.html http://www.collectionscanada.ca/native-res...al/index-e.html http://www.irsr-rqpi.gc.ca/english/historical_events.html 1. It's not about the money August. It's a little thing called healing. 2. Unforuntately this is still happening in the Catholic Church today 3. This is hardly a "fad social theory." This has been an ongoing process for many, many years. Look it up.

You don't think being taken out of your home, tossed into a foreign environment, forced to speak another language and then being physically or mentally abused is not enough to qualify?

You give him too much credit. It doesn't take a genius to watch the profits flow out of the ground. Any alcoholic high school drop-out could run Alberta. And as far as what Ralph said, it's probably the wisest thing he's ever said.

I had to comment when I read this. If someone expressing his opinion of his or her government equates to hatred of his country (and for some, unpatriotism), then we're all in trouble. To me Mr. Moore is a hero for having the guts to stand up and challenge the absurdity and vile of the current U.S. administration. Michael Moore is first and foremost a film-maker and can be as biased as he wishes. I suggest challenging Mr. Moore's facts that he presents on his website and in his books.

That's right, our hero Brian had the biggest debt ever, forced GST thru senate by appointing senators (the exact thing he accused John Turner and Trudeau of doing),2 failed constitutional formulas, ruined East Coast fishery, implicated in the airbus scandal, sold out Canada thru FTA...and on and on. I'm sure the other side will counter each one of these with lies and blaming the liberals. Good luck folks. I'm outa here.

I wouldn't be able to dig up enough facts for your satisfaction.

[quote name=shoop' date='Nov 8 2005, 04:39 PM Are you going to agree that both Turner and Chrétien were wrong in campaigning against both, or can you have it both ways newbie? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> FTA: both were right to campaign against it, softwood lumber just the beginning. As far as unemployment rates, it is the lowest it's been in 30 years. Liberals in power for 2/3 of that time, hardly coincidental.

But it did not turn out to be revenue neutral. Far from it. The government takes in about $10billion more per year than it would if it still had the old MST. And again, the Liberals benefited from the Mulroney government implimenting this, and the stubborness of the Tories in putting in in place - against ferocious, and as it turned out, completely dishonest and hypocritical opposition from the Liberals. The only thing the Liberals could have been said to have done to help Canada fiscally was ignore their promise to get rid of the Mulroney GST. They did nothing else. Frankly, they weren't smart enough, and they had no ambition anyway. They only Canadians they had any interest in helping out economically were themselves. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Drivel. The Libs had responsible financing with 8 balanced budgets. Hardly a generality. And yes, there were short-term cuts, but necessary. You can't have it both ways Argus. As far as job creation, I'll let the facts speak for themselves: http://www.statcan.ca/english/Subjects/Labour/LFS/lfs-en.htm

Will the real Butcher of Basra please stand up!

I think some of the problem here with poverty on the reservations is corrupt band leaders.

Expedia has various affiliates in different affiliates in various countries, including Canada. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Anyone can conduct a survey. It would make more sense and have more credibility to get an independent one done.

I think you flunked kindergarten. How can you have contempt for the Bush administration and not have contempt for the people who voted for him? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's called respect.

That's not a contradiction. You can easily dislike one's opinion and still like the person. I think I learned that in kindergarten.

Probably due to the treaty we signed. http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/can-am/seattl..._caribou-en.asp

frontpagemag: A little too right wing for my taste. But I have read (from more objective websites) that Saddam was fond of Hitler and Stalin. As far as Ali Ibrahim Al-Tikriti's credibility on the WMD, well, he didn't come by the name of Butcher of Basra by selling cookies. If there is a hint of truth in this interview why isn't he being tried for his crimes?

You're right lovecanada. I was just trying to make the point that we can't always have it both ways. Some of our laws do violate or contradict common sense parenting. I guess it ultimately comes down to doing the best we can for our kids.

Might not be logical but it would be law if Casson had his way.

This is the bill in question. B. Bill C-15 (1) Amendments to the Criminal Code in 1988 repealed the aforementioned unlawful intercourse and seduction offences. In their place, Bill C-15 created new offences called "sexual interference" and "invitation to sexual touching" that now prohibit adults from engaging in virtually any kind of sexual contact with either boys or girls under the age of 14, irrespective of consent. Introduced at the same time, the offence of "sexual exploitation" also makes it an offence for an adult to have any such contact with boys and girls over 14 but under 18, where a relationship of trust or authority exists between the adult and child. Read Casson's bill as well: http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus...13_cover-E.html It still criminalizes any kind of sexual activity (kissing) between two people under 16.