JOVIAC

So i guess we should stop funding Canadian Athletes then, eh? And the Russia - Canada summit series was just hockey too. What about all the other athletes who put the rest of their lives on hold just to stand on the podium wearing Canadian maple leafs. If you can't be proud of your athletes, what are you proud of? $20M boost for elite athletes Canada's sports system received a $20-million boost... http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/budget20...sue_sports.html This is money well spent! (of course we could just spend another $20M on the gun registry LOL)

Totally Agree about the Curling!!!! Great Game, Great Team, Great skip! You could see the pride in their faces

na•tion•al•ism P Pronunciation Key (n sh -n -l z m, n sh n -) n. 1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation. 2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals. 3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination. pride P Pronunciation Key (pr d) n. 1. A sense of one's own proper dignity or value; self-respect. 2. Pleasure or satisfaction taken in an achievement, possession, or association: parental pride. 3. Arrogant or disdainful conduct or treatment; haughtiness. 4. a. A cause or source of pleasure or satisfaction; the best of a group or class: These soldiers were their country's pride. b. The most successful or thriving condition; prime: the pride of youth. 5. An excessively high opinion of oneself; conceit. 6. Mettle or spirit in horses. 7. A company of lions. See Synonyms at flock1. 8. A flamboyant or impressive group: a pride of acrobats. Therefore: National Pride 1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one’s nation to give a sense of national dignity or value; national-respect

Hmmm.... Gretzky wasn't too young at 19-20 at the Canada Cup 1981-82 Canada Can-Cup GP 7 - G 5 - A 7 - P 12 Why do so many people think age is so important?

I am sooo tired of people making excuses for team Canada. They lost not because of talent, but because in each of the games they played they got out worked, out hustled, out played! And that is shameful because most people would agree team Canada had more overall skill in almost every category. If they played spirited hockey the way they played in the last 5 minutes of the Russia game, they would have been unstoppable. Then there were penalties. Canada had their share of penalties. Yes there is a period of adjustment as players get used to international refs, but a game is all that is needed for that excuse. Taking poor penalties in the offensive zone is the most selfish thing a player can do. At the Olympics, not only are they letting the rest of their teammates down, they are also letting the whole country down. Case and point…. Todd Bertuzzi. Of all the people you might have guessed would be in the box with a bone head penalty in the 3rd period of a tied game in the quarter finals, it would be him – and of course it was. It makes everyone wonder why he was selected in the first place. I’ll bet even he is wishing now that he wasn’t selected for the team! Would Sidney Crosby have made a difference? Probably. But once again, it’s a team effort and we had enough talent to win, or at least score a goal in every period – let alone every game. But we didn’t have a ‘team’. Isn’t that the coach’s job, to make a team out of a bunch of players? Maybe Pat Quin needs to step up and take responsibility. But then again, it’s not like they had a whole lot of time to practice together and set the lines and gel with one another. But which team did? All the good teams are NHLers and had only one day or so to practice. NO MORE EXCUSES. Here is what I really believe has happened. I can sum it all up in one word. PRIDE The European teams played with a lot more national pride then the North American teams. They played like they had something to prove. Think about this for a minute. All the European players come over to the NHL and play night after night of hockey in front of Canadians and Americans. Before each game they hear either Canada’s national anthem or the American national anthem or both. They see only 2 foreign flags flying in every building, never their own. Finally, the Olympics roll around and the Europeans get to play in their own continent. They get to wear their national jerseys with their country’s national colors and hear once again from their own home grown supporters – the ones that were there when they were just learning the game. They didn’t come from the world’s richest countries. And they certainly didn’t forget where they came from. They might be the underdogs on paper but they were not going to let anyone down. This was their chance to play for their country, and this is called PRIDE. It showed with all the European teams. And this is why both Canada and the States men’s hockey teams are already flying home licking their wounds. They just didn’t have the same level of intensity that national pride can bring out when players have something to prove. Canada has 4 years to learn this lesson. National pride will go a long long way when the Olympics arrive in Vancouver in 2010. It doesn’t come for granted and it has to be there when the puck drops for the first time in game 1 of the round robin. But what do I know... I'm Just One Voice In A Crowd.

How important is a federal political party's economic plan for the country? Does it rank above gay marriage? Does it rank above gun control? How about education? Health care? Others?

Daniel - remember saying this Me thinks you are a hypocrite

NDP = HANDS IN YOUR POCKETS! The proof is in BC and Ontario. It's like they have never taken an economics course in their lives. Sure it would be great to be able to hand our social programs to everyone with their hands out. But this comes with a price which must be understood. Does this come from taxpayers, or businesses or both? We are already taxed to the nose with disposable income squeezed tighter then ever due to real & actual inflation. Sure Governments find nice ways to deliver padded versions of inflation to make everyone feel cosy and warm so they will keep spending and buying - mostly on credit, and to keep the housing bubble from popping. But the truth is dwindling disposable income hurts low income individuals more then anyone else. So let just increase taxes on businesses. Sounds like a great idea... but big business are not stuck here in Canada. They are very profit driven. So they pick up headquarters and move to tax havens - and that's if we are lucky. Others pick up and move all together. Yikes... now we have to deal with unemployment. Just ask all the Ford employees how they feel right now. Oh, but you are in Vancouver so it doesn't matter. You just want cheaper cars and if Ford can give it too you by shutting down factories in Ontario that's ok with you. But wait a minute. Hollywood isn't making as many movies in Vancouver. They also don't want increased fees - especially now that the the Canadian dollar is getting much more expensive to the green back. Without any extra tax, Hollywood - well all American business for that matter - has to pay an extra penalty already due to the exchange rate. Looks like jobs will be lost their too, not to say profits to all businesses that reaped the rewards from Hollywood's spending practices. But here is the biggest catch of all. When business cut jobs, which jobs go first? The bottom up of course. That low income individual who you where trying to help by increasing corporate taxes is now unemployed and needs an even bigger handout. This is not fiction... it is reality. I agree, thanks but no thanks

I will not disagree with voting for a party and their policies. (Although many people get caught up voting for a single personality within a party) The main point of this discussion is how does one use their vote to influence change. Those who are interested in changing the governing party, changing how politicians treat the population, changing the corruption in politics, or changing other political calamities should understand a vote for any other party other then Conservatives will result in a Liberal government. This will equal no change. If you understand this and this is your voting desire... follow the party platforms to make your vote and feel good about further scandals.

This is really interesting. A Federal vote which first asks if we want to retain the government. In a scenario like this a government would really have to be doing a great job to retain power. Not that it would ever happen... but an interesting thought provoking idea.

Sad indeed... but the truth. Go ahead and keep voting for the party with your absolute ideals. Or maybe there isn't one because your absolute best ideals are not exactly represented so you create a new political party. Now you can have a clear conscious because you voted for everything that you believe in. However, the party which you don't trust or believe in still wins the election - because you diluted the votes. Another 4 years and the only message you have given the Liberals is keep running our Country without rules and consequence because people like you do not realise that the only time free people have any say in the operations of the government is by having the power to fire the leaders when they forget who they work for.

All I have to know about Martin and his loyalty to Canada is that on his Financial watch Millions of dollars where stolen from Canadian tax payers. Hmmmm?

You are exactly right! People think they are making prudent choices and voting without understanding that they are really just voting for the Liberals. We could learn from Quebec (and that's scary)

One of the problems with your definition of efficiency is that you are only looking at it from one point of view, when clearly there are two; a service provider, and a service user. From the service provider's point of view your definition of efficiency stands whether we are talking about widgets being processed or people. The problem with this point of view is that widgets don't care whether or not they should wait in storage at some point in the process if this improves efficiency as a whole. I would like to 'bump-up' what I suggested earlier... From the second point of view, which is from the service user’s point of view, are they being processed in an efficient way if they are waiting to get through a corroded pipe? You can quote all the documents and surveys which have been written about how efficient our healthcare system is compared to others, but the truth of the matter is there is corrosion slowing up the flow. This reduces efficiency from the user's point of view. How bad is it? Well, just try and get an MRI done, surgery performed, or get through an emergency room.

It is very interesting how some people in this discussion are satisfied with our system by comparing crappy other systems, or focus on the crappy side of a system without trying to learn from the benefits. We all know that we can do better by looking at ways to improve. Those that don't look for ways to improve will always be left behind - or in the case of our healthcare, be left waiting for treatment. I cannot imagine telling a patient who cannot get in to see a doctor for months how lucky they are because Canada is running one of the most efficient systems. Meanwhile your dog breaks their leg and you go and get it treated the same day at the vet. The point is that we need to improve our system. Canada used to be a leader in healthcare, but if this current system is the world's best, then god help the world. I think the right direction is considering as many options as people can generate. We must be open-minded to improving healthcare. The fact of the matter is that over the next 15-20 years, our aging population is going to put a strain on the system, the likes of which we have never seen before. Those that are happy with the status quo today are in for one whopping surprise tomorrow!