Excited to have you come all the way out, Al! Thanks again!

This is another comment.

Test comment. Testing.

Scott,

Congratulations on writing an article that was one paragraph long, yet somehow solicited the craziest flame war I've ever seen on this site.

If only people had taken my suggestion that we rename "marriage" in law to "mutually adjunct persons", issuing "mutually adjunct persons licenses", the world would be a much happier place.

Ditto. Great film!

It is quite conceivable that many, many Canadians would agree with both of the following statements:

1. Abortion is morally wrong.
2. Abortion should be safe, legal and available.

I suspect most Canadians, like me, do not automatically feel it is the Government's role to impose their individual moral views on everybody else.

I watched Ferris Bueller's Day Off the other day, too. What a classic!

Every generation lies to their children about something. How about Santa Claus?

When I was growing up, we learned that the world would not survive once there was more than 5 billion people on the planet, but that nothing would slow the population explosion. Now "expert opinion" has it that a peak population will occur without government intervention of any kind.

There's probably better examples.

The point is that kids survive, learn and become a bit more skeptical as a result. That skepticism can either lead to cynicism and apathy, or activism and advocacy, depending on the individual.

This is nothing new.

Blah, blah, blah. Look at that nice TV and truck; this is a YouTube stunt, plain and simple. It's not terribly funny, but it got a couple of holier-than-thou, knee-jerk anti-Americanistas foaming at the mouth, which amounts to some good ol' Canadiana comic relief.

The real moral of the story: never ever bet against the Saints!

Colby's post is excellent, and his point is valid. It's not about liberal-bashing, it's about the way a debate unfolds on a hot-button emotional issue.

As I read it, his point isn't that these liberals are bad or wrong, only that they failed to recognize the nature of the debate itself.

When "emotion" takes over, the message and messengers become far more important than facts or rational debate. In my opinion, this is tragic, sad and unfortunate, but it's also very true.

Colby could have just as easily had been speaking about the issue of same sex marriage in Canada, where the social conservatives clearly blew the debate (at the price of public opinion) in a very similar way, i.e. people might have been more sympathetic to traditional marriage if the opponents hadn't rattled on half-crazed about "damnation" and "the Bible" to make their arguments.