BHS

I'm not arguing. There's no doubt in my mind that the gun registry(s) will eventually be used to confiscate firearms, which will have zero impact on gun crime but will make liberal ninnies feel like they're doing something positive.

Culture of restictive gun laws. Restrictive gun laws threaten our real culture. The johny come lately liberal curltural marxism is not our culture. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hand gun ownership has been restricted in Canada since 1934, or to put it into perspective, about half as long as Canada has been Canada. That's hardly johnny come lately.

That's an interesting take. It's not against the law if the authorities don't investigate it.

So how do Ontario regulations control smog from the US? Did previous governments erect some sort of invisible pollution barrier, that Mike Harris dismantled? Sounds like you see partisanship because of your partisan dislike of Harris.

I'm surprised that no one has bothered to post on this issue since the NAFTA tribunal issued it's ruling that American tarriffs are illegal and the US government owes BC logging companies $5 billion. I've been intentionally cutting back on posting lately, and I looked at the new posts tonight expecting at least something - I mean, their are plenty of Hate America First members who I'm sure are royally upset about Bushco's intransigence in the matter. So where's the bile?

This issue does make a nice quid pro quo argument to bring up when the Americans complain about our drug laws though. How can they complain about Canada legalizing pot (which they fear will lead to an increase in smuggling into the States) when they in turn threaten our culture of restrictive gun laws with their relatively liberal gun culture?

I posted my avatar as my personal photo, but I'd like to use it in threads. The first forum that I posted on kept avatar images small and it was a handy reference when skipping through a long thread looking for an old post. I've read other forums since then that allow these horrendously huge avatars that take up the whole screen, which is just annoying and has the opposite effect (the threads are actually harder to follow).

This made me laugh out loud. Ahh, highschool.

Pardon? What are you attacking me for? The portion of my post that was quoted is relevant to the conversation and completely accurate. Since your post is nothing but complaint and adds nothing relevant to the thread, why don't YOU bugger off? Wanker.

Better watch it there. Suggesting the PM use a consultation process to find the best candidate is awfully close to Yankeeism.

I'm a little confused here. Harris is responsible for emmissions eminating from the US? That sounds unlikely. It also sounds unlikely that Ontario Power Generation went out of their way to make their emmissions dirtier after the laws were changed. I'm familiar with the way the company works, and this sounds like a PR nightmare that they'd want to avoid at all costs. Total BS. I remember 1995 very well. The public sector unions were chomping at the bit for a fight before Harris introduced his first piece of legislation. They walked out on illegal strikes to protest the Harris government in toto. The simple fact of the matter is that burgeoning public employment can't be sustained forever. The cuts had to happen at some point, and Harris was the man who did the job. If the unions are still smarting, too damn bad.

Right: just what the U.S. would want: another 30 million Democrats. No, but it would help us hardworking, taxpaying citizens get rid of some of the obnoxious whiners who complain endlessly about this country (even as they reap the benefits of living here) and extoll the virtues of another country, but lack the courage of their convictions to actuially move there. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, I put more into this country than I take out of it, thanks.

eureka: You must have a doctorate in economics from some pinko university. It's the only thing that explains how even the most basic concepts of economics could end up getting so muddled in your posts. Maybe you should move to Cuba. I here Castro pays his people what they're worth.

It’s not unknown, although I have seen estimates as high as 45 million, I have never seen an estimate lower then 25, so I used 30. There are by most estimates 20 million illegal Latinos, and a very significant number of Chinese and Koreans. The US government has continuously underestimated the illegal population for domestic political reasons (its just about the hottest topic in the US for politicians, but that source of extremely cheap labour helps to keep the labour market so liquid-and helps in there ongoing deception concerning there completely false unemployment rate). This adds a great deal to the US productivity numbers. The fact is that productivity numbers are severely skewed by a number of issues, and like most statistics released by governments they is heavily manipulated. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So you admit that your numbers are more or less pulled out of your arse, and then you accuse the US government of fudging unemployment statistics. If I can't believe your first statement, what makes you think I'm going to believe whatever comes after it?

There's the highway. There's the border. I'll even get you started on the citizenship thing: ta da! Bye! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You obviously didn't get the gist of my post. (Hint: I won't have to move for it to come true.) Update: That would really suit your agenda of turning Canada into a Third World socialist cesspool, wouldn't it? Having all the hard-working, taxpaying citizens move to the States to leave your kind up here to try to committee your way into paradise.

Um, how do you know it's 30 million? Your own statement suggests the number is unknown.

Maybe not the fourth page. I saw it back there somewhere.

I think you're confusing me with a politician. I'm not a member of any political party. I'm an independant who leans "right" in my political viewpoint. I supported the Common Sense Revolution under Mike Harris, and as I stated previously it's my opinon that Ernie Eves was steering the Ontario government away from that philosophy. The Common Sense Revolution being a spent force, I voted not FOR McGuinty but AGAINST a PC government trending left, as a strategic vote. My hope is that the effect of the PC's losing power would be to wipe the Ernie Eves cadre from power within the party, which more or less happened. (That the wretched John Tory was selected for his replacement is another matter altogether, and nothing I had any say in.) You've apparently never considered anything other than a partisan political position for yourself. But do you really think it's that unusual for an informed voter to remain independant? I have zero information about the structural condition of whatever hospitals were bulldozed, other than my own experience of public hospitals being run-down to the point of ruination. Blame Mike Harris for our current health care woes if you insist, but the problems you describe would have happened under any administration. It's the nature of the healthcare quagmire we've created. I blame Tommy Thompson. Did it make sense for Toronto to function as seven different cities? Amalgamation is a painful process, but kind of inevitable. I lived in Toronto fifteen years ago, and smog was a HUGE problem back then too. So what do you think happened? Harris gutted the anti-pollution laws and suddenly all the cars being shipped to Ontario are built without regard for previous emissions standards? I don't recall saying he did a great job, though I think he did a good job considering the forces aligned against the changes he proposed and stuck to keeping. I went back to a post on the fourth page or so that explained why I voted against Ernie Eves, and if you hadn't read that far back in this thread I can't imagine that you'd read any further, so I'm assuming that I didn't say it at all. Who cares. I think I've done a reasonable job of explaining my position.

Agreed. It occurred to me recently that all government activity is essentially socialist in nature. How much you wish to attribute the success of the first world on government intervention is entirely up to you. My personal opinion is that our success is based on the relatively small amount of influence our governments have on individual choice, which in turn is the key to freedom and prosperity. My problem with a single tier health care system (for example) is that it reduces individual choice in country (that is, ignoring the choice to seek treatment elsewhere).

In theory, if not in practice.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Oh, the melodrama of it all. The US is the big bad wolf of the world and nothing can stop the inevitable onslaught of their global domination scheme. Yawn. Wake me up when I get to vote Republican.

I was going to comment on Amartya Sen's concept of "capabilities" but I got sidetracked by that Earth Charter thing. I'm going to go slit my wrists now.

When it happens, I'll be right here admitting I was wrong. Until then, I'm certain Bush will get away with it, as did Clinton before him. Any court action that happens will be without the support of either the Dems or the Repubs, because both parties have an interest in keeping the war option open for their own candidates. And as I've mentioned, the Supreme Court has a historic reluctance to review the matter.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I'm well aware of what the US Constitution has to say on the matter. The person here who appears to be incapable of grasping the situation is YOU. Get your nose out of the theory and have a look at the practical effect of law, for a change. Laws are meaningless until they are put into practice.