Yaro

And if Canada decided to, what is the US going to do? Invade? Do you seriously believe this? Do you have any idea how desperate the US is to get some financial help in Iraq and Afghanistan? You do realize that the EU is a bigger market then the US right? And that they are both China's and India's biggest trading partners? You do realize that Canada is the richest resource country in the world right? You do realize that the US debt load is so massive that it may already be past the point of no return right? That the total per person debt in the US is larger then it was in New Zealand when they declared bankruptcy? The US is in no position to threaten anyone with anything other then a conventional military assault, which is virtually meaningless. I think Harper is in for a huge shock when he realizes just how difficult the current US administration is to deal with. Canada is not large enough to become a significant influence on American policy in any of the ways you suggest, in fact the only way that Canada can maintain any influence on the US is by maintaining control of our natural resources. Free trade does just the opposite, it completely negates any influence Canada has on the US. Your logic is ass backwards.

Actually the easiest thing to do would be to cut a deal with the Chinese, they will have a much larger sub fleet shortly then the US and are predicted by most to be the worlds most powerful military within 40 years. They also have control of the Panama Canal so there desire to prevent unauthorized use of the northern passage is far more valuable to them then to us. I am sure we could work out an economic agreement that would be very beneficial to us. The Chinese also don't have the kind of militarist history that the US does so if I am going to deal with one devil or the other then that choice is somewhat obvious. Of course the easiest thing to do would be to build about 300 small cap nukes and randomly "test" a low yield, no fallout nuke in the a random spot in the northern passage every 6 months or so.

So let me see if I have this right You went to vote and found to many darkies for your liking working at the place. You were so intimidated by the darkies that this may prevent you from voting in the future. This seems to me to be a problem that will work itself out in about a generation or two.

The Globe and Mail is slightly right wing as of right now, not long ago it was fairly balanced and not long before that it was slightly left. So the two of you are ok with all of your media sources being controlled by corporate interests? Its certainly an interesting debate, there was a time in the early 70's when Naom Chomsky agreed with you a great deal, so much so that he wrote an entire paper on how dangerous it was to have the government in control of a media source. I wonder now if even he still believes that the corporate media is somehow less corruptible. Just thought you might find it interesting you agree with Chomsky on something, I am sure it must be a short list.

How about dealing with the pedophile problem in the Catholic Church before trying to attack the gay community over it? I mean seriously, if you want to do something about pedophile that’s great, its a huge world wide problem that I would be willing to put a great deal of resources into. First let’s talk about the Catholic Church and start putting those responsible in jail along with all those that have had knowledge of it without doing anything about it. That should take care of a good 20% of it or so in the western world. Second we can go and set some watchdog groups to watch over soldiers in every war zone on earth and make sure that no sexual abuse of little girls happens. Third we can start hitting all those companies who import underage girls to use as party favors. Fourth we can start going after all the sexual tourists; of course many of those are rather powerful political and corporate figures so I guess this is going to be one hell of a dust up. NAMBLA are a bunch of twisted morons, they have nothing to do with the gay rights movement and statistics support the complete separation of the two groups. This post is the work of someone with an obvious inability to separate there irrationalities, it’s a rather sad little play on the obvious emotionalism that pedophilia brings to the fore.

No, the ultimate act of selfishness is forcing someone to live against there will because it satisfies your twisted sense of value. But I understand now that self determination isn't really big with the modern conservative. It doesn't improve it, and its not about improving it. Self Determination, the ability to decide what happens to ones own life, get it?

Just off the top, I am not relying on my own opinion here, I have consulted with a both my retainer, and my wife who are both lawyers. You posted material that you full well know is simply not honest. I do not believe I know more then you, I believe that you posted an opinion based upon a faulty premise. That is that without the non-withstanding clause that SCC decisions become final, that is completely and unarguably untrue. With support at a significant enough level parliament can pass ANY law, in a democracy the super majority is final. I can certainly understand where you might not agree with the standard without the not-withstanding clause and I think we agreed to disagree on that before as an accepted matter of personal opinion. I've actually invoked the Charter on behalf of clients and obtained remedies pursuant to it in real courts with judges and everything. This is untrue. The Charter can be changed, that is the proper mechanism for making such changes. Exceptions are in and of themselves the cancers that create tyranny. The whole point of the Charter is that it applies equally to everyone, when you make exceptions you, by definition, create inequalities. This is not a fair example, by my understanding of this case Ann Geddes could have been arrested by the original law but I sure as hell can't fairly be caste in the light of defending a pedophile. No action is parliament’s prerogative; your suggestion that because parliament chose not to take the steps necessary to invoke supremacy they do not possess that supremacy is factious. Or through the process of altering the Charter, an onerous task to be sure but not impossible and the logically and morally correct path. No you don't, you change the mechanism and raise considerably the level support required. I am not defending Martins position on the matter, that’s not relevant. As a lawyer you posted information that was untrue, there are many here me included that would have taken that post at face value if I did not happen to have a discussion with my retainer about this very topic. I could very well have used your post to base own decision making off of and that’s what I found objectionable. Well that and the fact that I asked my wife about it and she hates talking politics and I am sure that it cost me a night of sex, and in reality THAT is what really ANGERS ME!

This is hardly surprising, the CF-18's are pieces of crap with worse uptime ratios then the F15's and we have already spent a huge amount of money just maintaining the force that we have there which is relatively speaking close to the size of the US occupation of Iraq, and in far more hostile territory. I think it’s about time that we be a little realistic and accept that Canada can't do any significant good in a country on the other side of the planet with a population of virtually the same size. Time to pull out.

Still embarrassing yourself I see, you don't know anything and its obvious to pretty much everyone. The BLS doesn't keep those statistics, you see as long as people as slow witted as you can read whatever statistic they feel like releasing and taking it to mean the same thing as statistics released in other countries then people like you can be kept on the treadmill with the tiniest piece of cheese, congrats. I have spent a great deal of time in China as well, and I find it hard to believe that anyone who has been there wants to compare themselves to China. Not that its at all reasonable to compare an area that's been settled for 5000 years to an area that's essentially been settled for 300. And Brazil is for all intents and purposes a 3rd world country, congrats the US has been income equity then a 3rd world country. I don't believe you. Nobody could have traveled extensively in Europe and suggest that its a nightmare state. In some of Europe the tax rates are moderately higher, in others its lower. Besides which tax rate are you talking about exactly? Income Tax, Corporate Tax, Vat's, Sales Taxes, Production Taxes, Property Taxes? I doubt anyone here earns minimum wage, not that you would even understand the point. You see wage disparity ratios are a very good sign of significant social and economic issues. All of the most productive societies in the history of the planet had relatively low disparity ratios, Germany in the 30's, Russia in the 20's, the US in the 60's, Japan in the 70's and 80's. A high disparity has almost uniformly been followed problematic periods for nations, like the US in the 1890's and 1920's, Argentina in the 70's, Russia in the 70's, and I suppose now in the UK and US will be added to that list soon enough. Ya I am sure, because its not like "guaranteed pension funds" are disappearing left right and center to be bailed out by the US government at 50 cents on the dollar and I am sure that all those seniors working in walmart and kmart - although I am sure not for long considering their health issues just love to be out there working at 70. While I have no problem with Canada bashing (freedom of speech and all), are you seriously trying to tell me that there aren't a significant minority on this board who bash Canada every chance they get? Leafless? Montgomery?

I'm kind of surprised at you FTA Lawyer, that post was complete bullshit and you know it. With or without the Not Withstanding Clause parliament would maintain the ability to make laws, it would still be supreme and with an amendment could override anything that the SCC says. I am not sure why you would post what you posted because quite frankly anyone with even peripheral knowledge of the law knows its untrue.

No offence but who cares? The Conference Board of Canada is essentially a subsiderary of the Conference Board of USA which is a right wing think tank. Its like saying that the Fraser institute likes the Conservatives, or the CPA likes the NDP its essentially meaningless. Maybe next you will tell us that the Heritage Foundation supports the Conservatives or that the Brookings Institute supports the Liberals, won't that all be a shock.

What I really don't get is that a good 80% of the Conservatives on this board are head over heal in love with the US but then get all defensive when its suggested that they would like Canada to become more like the US.

See stupid statements like this kill the credibility of those who say them. Its posts like this one that quickly turn a board to crap.

As it should, why would we support unproductive adults to the determent of there children? Children in daycare perform better in virtually every way. So let’s examine the effects of the two major plans were talking about: Conservative Plan Create a Disincentive for two income families reducing the size of the workforce and Canada’s aggregate productivity Cost every citizen directly in the form of taxes Hurt children who benefit greatly from daycare or Liberal Plan Create an incentive for two income families by providing a subsidy to productive parents Increase the size of the workforce therefore increasing the aggregate productivity of Canada Help children to perform better in life Gee that’s a though choice right there, normally I am all for just letting people decide to do what they want with there money and I still don't know if the whole idea of a national daycare program is a good one but I know that the practical value of the Liberal plan from a technical standpoint embarrasses the Conservative plan. But I suppose that’s par for the course.

I have yet to see a single post from River God that hasn't had very well sourced information. If you don't like what he says thats fine but nothing he has said is "unbalanced" or "fanciful", and to suggest it is just shows a painfully obvious desire to turn a blind eye regardless of the facts.

Its election time on a board that is about 75% conservative and about 35% far right, its not really surprising that the pack mentality has taken such a strong grip.

Fascism as defined by the man credited with its creation is better defined as Corporatism; it is the amalgamation of the bureaucracy and aristocracy. All the rest flows from this basic fact.

And this is the fundemental mistake being made, this isn't a "right-wing conference", this is a group of sociopaths. There philosophies are not in any way main-stream "right wing", they advocate some things that I have no doubt nobody on this board outside a few of the more looney toon members would find acceptable and quite a few of them at that. Do some research on this group and I am fairly certien you will come to the same conclusion.

Hardly, I think you would do well to actually read up on the collective philosophies of the group that River is speaking of. He is pretty much dead on from what I can tell, I am simply surprised that such a direct link exisits between Harper and this group. Excellent post River, I for one appreciate the information.

Yes and no, it should be noted that a great many Americans strongly support the policy and administration. I think the worm turned on this when the administration was returned to power for a second term, I know thats when many Europeans came to the realization that the government in the US IS representative of the people.

I tend to agree, the federal system is too easy, but Canada has some absolutely BRUTAL provincial prisons. Maybe we could find some kind of happy middle along the way. The death penalty is pointless, it is cheaper to keep someone locked up for there entire lives and you won't be executing any innocent people along the way. Not that I have a moral objection, but it’s just about the most impractical solution there is. I see this as one of the major problems going forward, DNA evidence is very rarely as conclusive as it’s made out to be. I agree, but when the prosecutors make a deal they have to stick to it even if it wasn't a good one in retrospect. It sucks that such a human being got off so lightly but sometimes the cost of honor is high.

In answer to the original question it could best be summed up like this: NDP, ideological left: The NDP is willing to sacrifice overall practicality and efficiency to move the country towards a more socially conscience position. The NDP has thus far been the only party to successfully convince most voters that they have any real moral stand. However the NDP by virtue of being the ideological left will scare investors and the markets hurting Canada's economy at a time when we are very fragile because of the collapsing US economy. If you are voting strictly on morality, then the NDP is the way to go however the NDP have stated pretty clearly that they will put Canada back into a deficit position as they believe in the use of the Deficit-GDP ratio. Liberal, practical center: The Liberal party has been in power for 13 years, and has run Canada about as well as it could be run. Really they have only a handful of poor decisions in that time and if a reasonably dispassionate person was to judge them purely on there record then this election would be a landslide. However the Liberals do have some corruption issues, Paul Martian is a very well respected politician that may not survive even if the Liberals are reelected and it is clear that the fiscal restraint that was shown in the past is probably slipping in an attempt to maintain power. The liberals however are not to be taken at face value on many things, they are without a doubt the most politically adept party and really do have a great deal to be arrogant about. This is also the party which wills most likely best deal with the Americans in the coming years. Vote for the Liberals if you believe that morality is secondary to competence, as there policies are undoubtedly the best reasoned and will be the most beneficial for Canada as a whole. Conservatives, ideological right: The Conservatives are the party of protest; they have and point out many problems with the government and the way it is run today. However as policy makers they are the worst of the three by some distance. Harper is the most dishonest of the three leaders and the most politically incompetent, he is also a man who with a decided lack of charisma and backbone. The conservatives also have problems with a small (20%) but vocal minority of hard-core religious fundamentalists within the party that hold significant influence within the party. Largely the party of the uneducated and angry, the conservatives lack almost everything required to form a competent government. However they are also complete outsiders to the current system, there is little doubt that a conservative government would cause the most change of the three, and change is needed periodically. Vote for the Conservatives if you feel that Canada needs a fairly radical change of direction, if you believe that Canada should be more like the US, and/or if you believe that there should be more social policy based upon Christianity in Canada. It’s unfortunate that with the inundation of American political tactics that none of the three parties represents a clear a decisively superior choice. Personally I will be voting Liberal, simply because of there track record and because I don't see Canada moving in a positive direction under either of the other parties.

Then let there be no doubt, you are an idiot. Canada is in FAR better shape then it was in 1993, and anyone who thinks that students will be voting conservative is getting melted brain syndrome. It will never be as good for students as it was in 1993 because we have to compete with the US and other jurisdictions that provide far less in the way of educational opportunity.

Untrue, while there are some private components to Canada's healthcare system it is for all intents and purposes still a single payer administered system and far more efficient then the US system. It is also to an almost complete extent, centrally managed. There is virtually no realistic similarity between the two. In the US it is not uncommon to pay 700 USD a month for good medical insurance, in Canada similar level coverage is in the 250 CD range. Medication patents are far more reasonably controlled and a plethora of other issues. While there have been severe cuts made the Canadian medical system getting the massive deficits that Mulroney left us with under control it is completely unreasonable to suggest that we have a two-tiered medical system (although there are definitely small avenues of two-tier availability). Canada is an amalgamation of an essentially French State in Quebec and an essentially English State in the rest of Canada. Canada is Bilingual, the fact that languages are localized is meaningless, and there isn't a major country in the world that doesn't have multiple dialects that are as different as English and French. Hell if you have ever traveled in Britain you knows that you can travel 20km and find that people are speaking virtually a different language. There is little doubt that there are significant differences between Canada's multiculturalism and the US's melting pot theory. Although I believe that the US has the right of it and that it should be the responsibility of immigrants to adjust to local society rather then vice versa, it is obvious it’s a huge difference. Canada is a country with a population 1/10th that of the US's and a little over 1/3rd of GB's, Frances, or Germany's. Canada doesn't have a military at the virtual request of the US, if you knew your Canadian history to any extent you would know all about US requests that Canada stop developing arms so that engineers would be willing to leave Canada for the US arms developers and NASA. While it is technically true that both countries have Right and Left, I don't think its any secret that we have very different political philosophies, we also have very different levels of religious participation in our politics as well as daily lives. Canada is a more "gentle" nation by nature, that hardly surprising since the US is about as violent a society as exists on earth. If you have been to the US south and find significant similarity between it and Canada then you must be from a part of Canada so back-water I have never been there. And while it is true that there are many parts of Canada and the US which are similar there are an equal number which are completely different. Canadians as in general have a different philosophy on virtually every major issue then Americans. Abortion, SSM, Tax levels, Governments role in Education, Medicine, environmental protection, Gun Control... There are far more social differences then similarities. Canadians are also as a group far more educated then Americans. Clearly you have a strong affinity for American lifestyle and policy, also clearly you really know very little about the US. I would suggest living there for a while, if you find it to your liking then I would suggest moving there because I get the distinct impression that our rift with the US will only grow over the next 20 years (Since that is very much in Canada's best interest).

I have a very simple solution to the gun problem, hold people accountable for all actions taken with there guns. Regardless of who takes the actions. I have no problem with gun ownership but if you handle them or store them in a manner which allows them to be used to harm someone then you should be held responsible.