Renegade

Maybe he was, but it would be a personal check and not taxpayer funds. Museum will help build `new Canada'

Universal health care doesn't ever "pay for itself". The wealthier subsidize the poorer in order to have a uniform standard of care. In order to have a better standard of care for a poorer nation a wealthier nation would either have to lower the standard of care it provided or require people to pay more. That's the hard choice, isn't it?

And what reason is that?

IMO those who interpret it as an endorsement of Hindu religion would be idiots. Harper also attends East Gate Alliance Church in Ottawa. Shoud we take it as an endorsement of that particular church? Is it your expectation that Harper should not attend East Gate Alliance Church because he is Prime Minister?

Un Charter directives are generally "motherhood and apple-pie" statements. They do not generally address the hard choices which have to be made to implement those initiatives.

To those of you who are proponents of universal health care and believe everyone should have free access to the same level medical care, I have a question. Why does your concept of univerality end at your country's borders? Why not fund universality in healthcare for all the poor of Asia, Africa, and Latin-America?

I'm not sure it has reached the breaking point in the US. Most estimates have the number of uninsured at around 46 million. That is about 15% of the population. Regardless, there can be changes made to the system which addresses the concerns of the majority without completely tearing up the system and starting over. As well, while the majority seem to be concerned about their personal medical coverage, I'm not sure they are concerned about implementing universal coverage.

It is interesting to note that the of the Americans on this thread, the two most ardent supporters of healthcare reform in the US are two who are uninsured. I wonder if this is reflective of the US population's attitude in general. While there are a significant number of uninsured Americans, the majority are covered. Will the majority who are covered care enough about the minority who are not to advocate for healthcare reform or do they only start to care once they find themselves without insurance or alternatives? Possibly this is the biggest impediment to healthcare reform in the US.

Actually no. It is completely at the discretion of the government what they should and should not pay for. For example, when the liberals came into power into Ontario they delisted some of the services which were previously covered. The Chouilli(sp?) Supreme court decision in showed that the government is not obligated to provide any level of service. It simply cannot block private providers if it cannot itself provide adequate service. Is there anything besides your opinion and those of others which show that? Is medical care a consttuional guaranteed right?

Why MUST it?

Isn't that what vaccines are for? Controlled exposure to disease. If we were to let nature take its course, we would also let virulant and potentially deadly disease spread unchecked. In nature that has the effect of culling the weak and filtering them out of the population.

Then you should have your memory tested because it is clearly faulty. Multiculturalism and official bilingualism have long been part of the Liberal platform. As for the Charter, the power to invoke the not withstanding clause was not the wish of Trudeau or the Liberal party. It was put in at the insistance of Alberta and not Quebec. In fact Quebec refused to sign. It seems at odds with your statement, that the Charter which so favours one province, would also have only that provnce missing as a signatory.

Then I suggest you start your own political party which will protect the "White Majority" interests, since you don't feel any of the national federal parties will. Perhaps you and like-minded pople can elicit enough support to get elected, but I doubt it. Wow, you must really think that Canadian voters are idiots, who are duped by different sets of politicins again and again. My opinion is that voters who are so stupid as to be so easily duped, do not deserve to hve their interest or culture protected.

Both of you seem to point to wilful intent or willful disregard. Does intent matter? Should I not be responsible for damage I cause regardless of if I intend to cause that damage or not? If a tree in my yard topples and falls on my neighbour's house, am I not responsible for the damages regardless of the fact that there was no wilfull intent or wilfull disregard?

Suit to be filed against TB-infected air traveller Looks like ths has come to pass. Where exactly is the line? If a child comes with a cold to kindergarden and infects my child, can I sue his parents? How about if the tranmission is unintentional?

You make it sound like they can be visiting Canada for 6 months and are entitled to medical benefits after 90 days. They are not. They must move back to Canada and re-establish PERMANANT residency to get the benefits. Eligibility When they file there tax return, they will pay based upon they move to Canada, so I don't see your point. Perhaps you are suggesting that medical benefits should be withheld from those who don't pay taxes? If so, why bother, just change the system to pay as you go.

Then the "Great White Majority" would have demonstrated their will through their inaction and lack of concern about protecting their race and culture It would seem it is the other "enlightned" whites are in the minority and are having trouble accepting the inevitable will of the "Great White Majority".

Why? Surely the "Great White Majority" would want to have a government protect its culture and would reward it with a return to power??? BTW you never answered the question as to what responibility individual voters bear for choosing the Liberals.

Ok, let's say you are correct. They managed to convince enough non-Quebecers to vote them into power. What responsibility do those who supported them bear? Are you saying that English Canada was so naive that they gave up their free will for MULTIPLE elections? And now that the Liberals are no longer in power, now what? Is English Canadian culture saved or are the Tories also duping English Canada as well?

The are not obligated to file a tax return if they are not a Canadian resident.

Non-residents of Canada are not entitled to free healthcare.

Ok let's assume they do. So what? All parties do. It is many times easier to appeal to emotions than rationatility. It is up to us individually to distinguish between emotional appeal and our rational best interest and act accordingly. Are you relieving Canadians of responsibility of their actions by transfering that responsiblilty to the Liberals? It's quite easy. Really. Just sit back and let the world unfold as it does. If in a 1000 years there is no White race or culture, no Black race or culture, no Chinese race or culture, but rather a mish-mash of integrated races, so be it. You'll have to be more specific. I'm not sure what you mean. How are they treated as "rats in a box"? I haven't a clue what you are talking about, but let's take what you say at face value. So what? Poliitcal parties are free to collude aren't they? Isn't collusion the basis of minority governments? So where is it? You mean that not one of those majority "White Canadians" you speak of will stand up and lead? You let individuals off too lightly. People have responsibilty for their own actions and thoughts. You relieve them of the responsiblities of those actions and somehow blame it on political parties who duped them. Did it ever occur to you that people act the way they do because they CHOOSE to off their own free will?

If most "White" Canadians "do not know any better" and are so stupid that they are so easily duped by a Liberal government, then as Darwin would state, they deserve the fate they get.

Well we all mate within the same gene pool. There just happens to be 5 or 6 Billion in the pool and to a certain extent we are all related. In any case the "White" pool is big enough that it is unlikely that the inbreeding characteristics you describe would be anything but an anomaly.

Of course they are not. If "the White Canadian majority" truly belived that their "White culture" needed protecting, they would preserve those traditions in the same way any other culture does, by passing it on to their kids. If they truly felt they genetic lineage was threatned, they could maintain their genetic purity by mating with others of similar genetic characteristics and having lots and lots of children. They fact that they don't seems to indicate that others of "the White Canadian majority" don't have the same concern you express.