tml12

Agreed. Oh my...

Agreed and well done by Mercer. I want to make a Canadian Tire commercial now!!!

Perhaps the multicultural society is what is most at fault. I mean, if immigrants from a country (say "X") wanted to live in an "X" community, they could have stayed in their own country. As we saw in France and in the UK, when you ghettoize people and put them in their own communities, they feel left out and they rebel against the society that put them there. As an Arab friend of mine said: "Many of these kids were born in France, so the Arab countries don't consider them naturally part of their parent's Arab country. Yet the French see them as immigrants, not actually French. So, though it is wrong, what do you expect them to do? How do you expect them to feel?"

The liberal feds need votes...anywhere they can get'em,they are sacrificing the very core of this country to get them,and leaving the rest of us,and i mean all of us,even those who are the 'targets' of thier 'help',in thier wake! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have no doubt should the Conservatives oppose this they will be targeted as being anti-immigrant and intolerant.

plusgood, You wrote: "Sure, it is not perfect and it can mean that sometimes those most qualified are not hired, but I think on the whole this policy is better. Ultimately our civil serives will encompass greater diversity and be able to better meet the needs of all Canadians." I respect your opinion, but you seem to believe that in the end hiring minorities in the civil service will make it better able to meet the needs of Canadians. How? Work and discipline should pay off. People that work hard to become qualified in a particular area deserve to be selected first. This is not discrimination. This is fairness. Hiring a minority just because they are a minority is not only discrimination, it is an insult to both the job and the minority. It sends the wrong message to our citizens and the wrong message to our community.

Uhm.... You know, when you add up all the crap the government does in determining who to hire it's little wonder how many idiots find their way into the public service. Seriously. You want to establish a pool of potential employees. You put out an ad, and start with 1000 applicants. Certainly among those 1000 will be some absolutely outstanding employees. But wait, the employee must be fluently bilingual (for no good reason), so that eliminates 950 candidates right off the bat. You're left with 50, but half are white men. So you're down to 25 that you can choose from. Although, in reality, because most visible minorities are immigrants the proportion of them with really good language skills in both official languages is much lower than in the general population, so really, you're left with perhaps 10 to choose from. And that is BEFORE you've even tested them in anything. All the rest were eliminated on the basis of inconsequential and immaterial criteria like race, sex and language ability. So now you've got 10 left, but only 5 pass the tests. So how big is that pool of potential recruits again? And how much quality is going to be in it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree. I think this "affirmative action" stuff is just a scheme to put lesser qualified minorities in positions that more qualified people should be in. I am by no means a racist. But the important question is: do we want a government that mirrors our society or an efficient/quality government run by quality people with the skills and credentials needed (whether they be men, women, minorites, or whomever). We live in a society where multiculturalism/political correctness have taken over. Now one can just use their identity to get ahead. I have many minority friends who say this embarasses them and makes it seems like they are lesser people that should be ghettoized. And you know what? They're right.

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?...d7-723991e9d12e Can you believe this? And I am not just angry because I am a white man. If they banned white women, or black women, or black men, or any minority from joining that would be wrong too. This is an outrageous attempt to disenfranchise a portion of our society...can anyone defend this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think you have it right Shoop. I mean, Martin hasn't gotten his groove back since Gomery. He has always been on the offensive and has never really gotten to the public point of respect he once had. Having said that, you really must wonder what Canadians fear about Harper. I mean, sure his past is a bit right-wing...but he is not running as Liberal leader after all. I don't know what part of the country you live in, but I find it interesting to assess these points.

BD, You wrote, in response to 1968 changes: "They don't like the alternatives. It's the old "better the devil you know..." routine." When the alternative is extreme diplomacy and appeasement and decimation of the armed forces, I really don't think a 90-year old veteran is going to have trouble telling you what he prefers. I mean, imagine if Trudeau, not Churchill, was PM of England.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think, though still a big IF, that Harper may actually get a shot at governing if Martin continues to dither around in this bubble of senselessness. I mean, the guy is like "nothing is happening in the government right now...I am governing!" Will he even knows if Parliament falls? At this point, really only time...and with the Martin Liberals, the economy...will tell.

You're afraid to walk the streets of Saskatoon? You're fuckin' afraid to walk the streets of Saskatoon?! :angry: Listen, you race-baiting Jesse Jacksonesque/Al Sharptonesque SOB. You try to be white and walk the streets of Saskatoon! I am 5' 11" and 190 lbs (not a small guy) and I have to be very careful in downtown Saskatoon, because there are Indian thugs all over downtown Saskatoon trying to shake down people for money/ball caps/t-shirts, etc. When the conservative Sask Party mentions all the beatings and sometime murders (for ball caps/t-shirts) in Saskatoon (there was a murder in front of the biggest mall in the city - downtown - at 5:30 in the afternoon - by a native gang), the NDP (socialists, but they won't admit it) accuses the Sask Party of "fear-mongering". I know 2 women who work downtown (afternoon shift) who are scared shitless to wait for their bus because they fear of being beaten/raped by the 3 major Indian gangs (Crazy Cree, Indian Posse, and I forget the 3rd gang but...). I drove thru the "hood" a couple of weeks ago to go visit a friend and I was shocked! Gangs all over and not a cop car in sight. The New Marxist Party (most call it the NDP) had promised 200 cops years ago - which proportion-wise would have meant about 45 extra cops for S'toon but, of course, they reneged (all thugs are "victims of society") and Saskatoon is under siege by gangs. Instead, the NDP is absolutely obsessed with having the lowest utility rates in the country. Our utility rate package is $10 less/month than Alberta. Yay! Sure, our wages are 75% of Alberta's, but we save a whoppin' $10 a month on a utility package. Saskatchewan needs the lowest utility rate package because the NDP has made this province dirt-poor. Socialism = everybody poor. Look at my signature if you doubt me <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Whatever loosens criminal penalties=OK for the NDP. Sad, but they are not tough on crime. BTW: I love New Marxist Party!!! (So do my friends...)

If Martin allows his government to fall, he will be making the biggest mistake of his political career. While the result will probably be another minority, even a Liberal one, Martin will likely be finished. Martin's best chance of winning his majority dream? Call the election 30 days after the second Gomery Report. This way, Goodale can present a real budget and the Liberals will have a better chance. However, since I may vote Conservative I may just want the government to fall sooner...

I agree. I believe all countries have a collective duty to help other countries out, however it seems the U.S. has too many pressing concerns at home now. I believe it would be wise to just start worrying about home before the U.S. worries about abroad.

If there's no fiscal reward, why would they bother to do anything... It seems to be the attitude towards energy policy, environment, health care, indigenous Canadians, etc... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sadly err, that is probably true.

Since he does not enumerate the 'changes' that bother him it is hard to comment further, however, I suspect he is a man of his generation who is not willing to accept certain social changes such as acceptance of gay relationships. If that is the case then his opinions are about as significant as a vetran of the US civil war that laments that society accepts that black ands whites should marry.His blanket condemnation of Canada and Canadians because the Liberal party's failing is also extremely unfair. The blame for the the current political situation rests almost entirely with Quebequers who vote for an obstructionist party like the BQ. If they voted for the CPC or a federal equivalent of the ADQ then the Liberals would have been gone long ago. The last point is, I find quite pathetic that many conservative supporters seem to connect the worth of Canada to the party that is in power (i.e. if my party is in power then Canada is great, if my party can't get elected then Canada is sick). It is a not so transparent attempt to avoid asking the question: what is wrong with my party that it cannot appeal to the majority of urban voters. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "Changes that began in 1968" seem to refer namely to the start of the Trudeau years. Trudeau was not who believed in a strong army, preferring diplomacy, compromise, and other left-leaning strategies. With that, he decimated the armed forces. If he is referring the the Liberal handling of our armed forces, I am not sure you can really disagree with his opinion and the sad financial state of our armed forces today (think, submarine...)

I cannot believe the Liberals would let the government fall before the second Gomery Report. Any election before that will probably not result in anything but another minority, probably a Liberal one but with the greater chance of a Conservative one. I don't understand the Liberal logic here.

Preston Manning Charles Krauthammer Michael Ignatieff Irshad Manji Mark Steyn Naomi Klein That's MY short list. Can you make your choice...PLEASE!!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Michael Ignatieff is probably the smartest person in that list...

No more so than Paul Martin. That will not stop his opponents from using his association with Chretien to imply he was involved. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> True...though he seems pretty much covered in Teflon...that man wants more influence in this country's government.

As one who is also Catholic, I agree, but I will say that this is one issue which is very icky. To many Christian conservatives, Darwin represents one who challenged the Bible and represents some sort of scientific atheism. In other words, I don't think they will let it drop like that. What I can say is that I do believe the option should be available...but in private schools. It would be inappropriate to teach intelligent design in public schools.

When you come East you may feel that your "Liberal values" are tested. What is certain is that you will be in a more Liberal Party-friendly culture, especially if you are in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, or Halifax. You will eventually make a political decision that is best for you, though remember that you may change your mind several times along the course of your life.

You stupid ignoramus idiot! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Talking to yourself again, Yodeler? You're so cute ... XOXOXOXO! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Can this be a multiple-choice question...PLEASE!!!

Anybody who is a 'Chretien' liberal does not have a snowballs chance in hell of becoming PM (assuming the Liberals would be dumb enough to elect another leader that could be linked to the sponsership scandal). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I am not sure that John Manley can be directly associated with the sposnorship scandal.

Fair enough Leafless, I respect that post as being very fair with what I said. I believe, as I stated when I started this thread, that I cannot understand why some American Bush supporters say "I don't care about X, Y, or Z, I just don't want my taxes raised, then they vote for Bush." My point is, Bush is not a fiscal conservative. It seems to me, and you are certainly more than able to disagree, that if you support this Iraq war then you should support having your taxes raised to pay for it. Certainly to, as you put it, "crticize the Bush administration fiscally at a time like this could point the finger at what could be interpreted as a senseless war initially" is a fair logical conclusion. However, I never criticized the war directly, just the fiscal mismanagement and the underestimation of how much it would cost. If you are going to support this war in the States, then you must be willing to pay for it. Early tomorrow, I will be going to Washington DC on a business trip. I really want to see what the opinions are down there. I will withold full judgement until I return. Again, I do not criticize the war ITSELF, but the fiscal management of it...

Of course you know it is impossible to prove there isn't a Jihad against Christian Western capitalism. But if you will attack fleabag and I for our views, I suggest you also be on the defensive. After all, things cannot be proven either way. And I am still waiting for you to indicate how my views are a threat to world peace...