Mad_Michael

I can't believe ANYONE would mention the phrase "war of attrition". WW1 was fought according to that strategy. The Generals deserved to be shot by firing squad for that criminal act.

Unless you cite a source, your data is meaningless. Here's some data for 2003/04 Source If you know the various Provincial populations, the subsidy per capita rate can be calculated. As for PEI being the largest per capita recipient of Alberta & Ontario taxpayers, that is pathetic. PEI already has 4 Federal Senators, its own Provincial Legislature and several MP's. All for a place that has less population than the riding I live in where we have 1 MPP and 1 MP (and no free money from anyone). Subsidies breed dependencies. That's what subsidies do. They are not good for anyone.

You have done neither.

As it stands in Afghanstan right now, all the nation-builders and peacekeepers in the world are absolutely totally useless. If Afghanistan was not overrun by the Taliban, then they could do their own nation-building - they could do their own peacekeeping. But they can't - why? Because the Taliban will shoot them. So, if Canada wants to do its part for 'world peace and security' and help Afghanistan, that means we must send soldiers to go shoot people (and potentially get shot at or blown up). Once the nation is free of Taliban control, then and only then, can one engage in nation-building and peacekeeping. So for all those who feel that Canada has no business sending our troops into a dangerous warzone, that's fine. But you can't build a nation in a warzone. If people believe in humanitarian missions and helping to build a better and safer world, then they will support sending troops into Afghanistan. If they can't support the idea of sending Canadian troops into a warzone, then they have no business lecturing us about the importance or desirability of nationbuilding or humanitarian missions. Canada is in Afghanistan in the interest of world peace and security. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan has proven itself to be a major danger to world peace and security. That regime must be eliminated. The ONLY way to do that is with soldiers and guns. If there is a hot issue in Afghanistan it is all about strategy - and the lack thereof. The Americans are marching to their own drummer - in many ways operating at cross-purposes to that of the official NATO mission in Afghanistan. Two hands fighting two different battles for two different goals is not a good strategy and one of the reasons one might be tempted to call Afghanistan a 'quagmire'. Indeed, given the American games being played in Afghanistan, I'd be tempted to say that Canada ought to pull out of Afghanistan since nothing beneficial is going to come from the US mission there and the US mission there is exerbating the difficulties of the Canadian mission. Unless our allies are on the same side, fighting is a waste of time. At the very least, I'd recommend pulling out of Afghanistan with an agreement to return only if the Americans agree to a common strategy (and support it). Otherwise, Afghanistan will remain one of the most dangerously unstable places on the planet - only a matter of time before they cause more trouble. Damned if we do and damned if we don't. Thank you Mister Bush.

Keene's English Mustard is the very best. Not for the faint of heart though - it is very strong.

Conservatives courting the 'green' vote is absurd. They would be fools to waste their time. Actually, public support is almost as LOW as for the other parties. That is a rational reflection of the faith Canadians have in our political parties actually doing something about global-warming. Conservatives and NDP are the least likely to actually do something since both of these parties are beholden to the largest polluters in the country. It ain't gonna happen. Even the Liberal Party, with solid support for it is quite unlikely to actually do anything substantive on the issue. Until you can figure out how to address global-warming without actually interfering or inconveniencing Canadians, then the politicans are going to steer wide clear. Environmentalism has been on the horizon for a couple of decades now and there are some curious lessons here for politics. First and foremost, eve if every Canadian tells pollsters that the environment is the number one issue, they lie. Environmentalism has had ZERO impact on electoral politics. Indeed, actually being 'green' is probably a good way to be kicked out of office by those same voters who claim the environment is the most important issue. Suffice it to say that 'environmentalism' has not yet been proven to be anything except 'Flora MacDonald syndrome' so far at the ballot box. (For you young kids, Flora MacDonald ran for the Conservative party leadership back in 1976 - and was considered a popular favourite - until the first ballot when it was found that she had about 1/4 of the votes that were publicly declared in her favour. In other words, lots of delegates kept telling pollsters that they loved Flora and were going to vote for her - then didn't - this is the present case with environmentalism - everyone is for it - except when it comes time to vote).

I'm talking about public property here. How much second hand smoke/exhaust do you inhale walking down the sidewalk? Shouldn't you have as much right to walk on a sidewalk (which you paid for through taxes) as a smoker without endangering your health? Comparatively speaking, when you walk down a sidewalk, the emissions from automobiles are exponentially higher than any your exposure to second hand cigarette smoke, even if you are walking down the sidewalk with a smoker. But you see, cars are popular, cigarettes are not. Thus, there is laws against smoking and public subsidies for car driving! And of course, all the harm from airbourne pollutants is blamed on cigarettes - despite the fact that harm from airbourne pollutants is rising exponentially, yet smoking has been falling for 30 years. But smoking is the cause, just keep repeating the mantra. Smoking kills, smoking kills. I'm sure that makes everyone healthier while they suck another lungful of automotive pollutants.

The big car companies ARE the Ontario economy and the principal engine of its wealth.

Oh please. It's true, all I hear from the Pope is birth-control, chastity and abortion. Not once has the Catholic Church acknowledged the scandals that plague that denomination. That is because actual scandals don't actually plague that denomination. A few isolated cases of priests abusing minors have been identified and addressed. The Catholic Church has publicly taken responsibility in those cases and paid enormous settlements and whatnot. However, statistically speaking, the Catholic Priesthood in North America has a statistically lower rate of sexual offences than would be considered 'statistically average'. Ergo, there is not a significant actual problem here. As it stands, your own child is ten times more likely to be abused by your husband, brother or father than any Catholic Priest.

How about knighthoods granted to pop singers? Slightly less absurd than writers of fiction and considerably less elitist.

A boycott of Israeli products? It is about time. Thanks for the news!

Turkey.

I recommend you check out marriage laws in Israel and notice who has the State authority over the issue there. Israel is thus not a pluralistic society. Israel wants to pretend that it is pluralistic, but it doesn't meet the basic definition. All of this says that there is a lot of 'grey area' when it comes to pluralism and not all nations are perfect. I agree. However, there is a basis functional defintion of poltiical pluralism and Israel doesn't meet it in a way that most Western nations actually do. Granted even the most pluralistic western nation falls short of absolute perfection-pluralism, but that is secondary to the key point here. Israel is not a pluralist society even at the basic political definition.

I can't think of anything more absurd than granting 'knighthoods' upon writers of fiction, regardless of their political correctness or lack of talent. Pretty much devalues the ancient noble concept of 'knighthood' to something considerably less impressive than a boyscout merit badge.

Considering that politics is all about public opinion, it's not a bad idea to want to get public approval for advertising. If most pepole think it's a bad idea, that kind of defeats the purpose of advertising. You clearly don't understand the nature of advertising. Nobody cares if you like any given advertisement or not. All that matters is, 'does it work?' Indeed, more than a few successful advertising campaigns have been quite unpopular. Absolutely. It's their money, they can waste it how they want. I'm just saying it's not a very smart move and will probably lose votes for the Conservatives, if anything. Just like their attack ads. Just goes to show that having a lot of money can actually be a disadvantage for the Conservatives. I can't possibly see how sponsoring a race car in a series of races that less than 1% of the Canadian public will ever even hear about can possibly produce a negative externality for the Conservative Party. Everyone already knows that the Conservative Party is anti-global warming. And the enviromentalists/elitist socialist types are the only ones likely to be upset about it but they don't like the Conservative Party anyway so that's a moot point.

Which newspaper do you think NASCAR fans would read instead? See the OP. It would appear to be the Toronto Sun. Which of course explains why I've never heard of Canadian Nascar!

Ask him what he had to take to get licensed in Canada (unless the licensing is provincial?) Licencing for medical, law, pharmacology, dentistry and engineering are all definitely Provincial.

Government exists to do those things that private interest is unable to do. Government thus serves a few common interests (national defence, bank regulation, roads, public works, etc). A majority of people do not have the right to steal from a minority merely because they are a majority. That is absurd - and dangerously fascist. That is always their argument - implementing the 'will of the people'. Great. Go to Russia for your healthcare then. I could tolerate this as a matter of public health information. And Canada has a long history of doing this through our public education system, so I'm not sure what your point is (or if you have one here at all).

I'd be guessing "zero" of any of the types named. There has never been any nation organised according to the principles of capitalism, socialism or communism. Elements of all three are found in all western nations - including also ancient feudalism and subsistence farming.

Indeed. Essientially, my right to my private property would gaurntee me the ability to kick anyone that smoked off. If I venture elsewhere, I play by others rules by my own choice. My second hand smoke exposure is by choice (and until this year, I had plenty of it in Calgary bars). How do you reconcile yourself with automobile exhaust or toxic emissions from factories? Or coal-fired electricity generating plants? How come they all have a 'right' to pollute the air at their will - an action that clearly causes others to suffer. Indeed, air pollution actually has medical science to back up the claim of harm (quite unlike the article of faith that backs up second-hand cigarette smoke damage).

Alcohol tax should be removed as evidence has shown health benefits to consuming one or two drinks daily: responsible drinking should be encouraged. Encouraged? The Government has no business telling me I ought to drink more or less, whether it is good for me or not. That is big-brother government interfering in my life. That is obnoxious politics of the worst kind. I don't care what the government thinks about food/beverage consumption. The Government retains the right to tax alcohol lightly or heavily. That is their business.

How about to charge him under the law which the U.S. seems incapable of doing? And what Canadian law did he break? Stop fouling up the discussion with facts! Some people have axes to grind here and you are interfering! What American law did he break by that token? Damned if I know. But that is beside the point. I should think it obvious to all that the Americans have proven that they don't need such petty details to animate their security/police/detention apparatus. Indeed, if the Americans want to charge the fellow in a proper court of law, they ought to. Fact is, they haven't.

I really don't know how much I could put into anything McGuinty Says. Changes with the wind, and his promises are never fullfilled. When he stands up to defend something, it is for his political benefit, not a Provincial Benefit. Perhaps that is why I don't trust a word out of his mouth, and you would be wise not to either. Indeed. And especially true now that Dalton is on the campaign trail. Nothing any politician says during a campaign can be taken at face value. Everything must be assumed to be 'spin' until proven otherwise.

Since when does a political party need public approval or public opinion poll support to engage in self-interested advertising? If they want to waste their money, it is their perogative to do so - and none of my business. Why is this an issue? Who cares and why?

But why is it important to make any such comparisons at all? Is such analysis only limited to American foreign nationals, or is the rest of the world fair game as well? Shall we compare opposition leaders to other American "Georges" in another futile attempt to define them (e.g. Stephane Dion and John Kerry)? Is the Canadian political landscape so lacking in properties and textures as to be undefinable without American foils? If the CPC = GOP, then shall we conclude that the LPC = Democrats, complete with John Dean blessings and keynote speech? What is the nature of this political psychosis? Are you referring to Howard Dean - the former Governor of Vermont and now Chair of the DNC? One can only wish Canada had more politicans of the calibre of Howard Dean (author of the 50-state strategy that played no small part in the Democratic victories in 2006).