Leafless

Warwick Green You wrote- " So we add another crime to the statute books-politically incorrect translations." In Canada our official national anthem was doctored immensely by own federal government in an illegal sense I say as there was as usual no Canadian participation to accept or reject the previous national anthem. Our official national anthem was 'God Save the Queen' sung in schools, even in theatres after the movie had finished where everyone stood and did not leave the theatre until 'God Save the Queen' was done playing out of respect. Lester Pearson got the job (pressured, as well as aspects concerning federal official bilingualism) just before Trudeau was elected of changing Canada's national anthem to 'O Canada' a song created by Quebecer Calixa Lavallee 13 years after confederation that was originally sung at St. Jean-Baptiste Day celebrations. So I guess it is left here in Canada to individual Canadians discretion to accept or reject the notion that Canada's own national anthem sprouted from the seeds of political incorrectness unseating the rightful version reflecting the TRUE identity of Canada.

Warwick Green You wrote- " There's nothing you can do to prevent translating a national anthem into any language they want." The 'Star-Spangled Banner' the American national anthem was not onlt translated it was totally doctored containing different lyrics to appease the growing Latino population by Adam kindron a Briton basically in protest concerning Congress and immigration reforms. This new recording 'Nuestro Himno' (Our Anthem) is an insult to the U.S. in my opinion and nothing more than a cheap take off of the original anthem to capitilize on the dollars Latino's will spend to buy this doctored recording. I think charges at this time should be pending against this writer for contributing and encouraging potential uprising by Latino's in America concerning illegal and false aspirations regarding U.S. citizenship.

betsy You wrote- Although both agreed about the "attitude"...both also grudgingly stated that the attitude seems to be working well with the public." Journalists sometimes who act emulating PM's or try to manipulate policies and decissions works against government and must be controlled to a ressonable extent.

I thought this thread began in English and the province this web site operates out of is not offically bilingual. Is this another example of the arrogance of French speakers is to outright change the common majority language English to accommodate a foreign language that is not official in the province of it's usage? Actually this line of thought even applies to Quebec a province that is not officially bilingual and craps on the majority language of the country with a foreign language that is not used as a common language of commerce. I suggest if you want to speak a foreign residential language at least have the courtesy to start the thread off in that language as this is neither a French nor officially bilingual website.

geoffrey You wrote- " D'ont you understand that a product in shortage increases in price? It's not even about costs, it is about supply and demand, the most basic of economics." Oil producing countries will not be in the positon to control a commodity that controls world society and if they think they are they will more than likely be forced to protect their resources.

betsy You wrote- " It makes me wonder if this is a created need so as to make the buisness of councilling lucrative." Could be. But maybe in the long run it's just cheaper than providing someone extended sick leave or early retirement and compensation for extreme stress related illness or nervous breakdown.

geoffrey You wrote- " Not many people heat with kerosine anymore." But they do do with heating oil and that went up in line with gasoline and the demand is high. But what is really causing the barrel of oil to skyrocket as well as getting ripped off by the oil companies. The answer to that is the same reason the Loonie is making such headway on the money market, a WEAK AMERICAN GREENBACK. In Arab land the weak U.S. greenback does not buy the same amount of oil as previously so what do the Arabs do to compensate----UP THE PRICE OF A BARREL OF OIL.

august1991 You wrote- " Make no mistake. harper, Emerson and the federal Tories are going to get credit for this." I don't know what the big deal is selling a national resource from our public forest namely lumber rather than a made in Canada finished product. All these bells and whistles from selling a natural resource to a foreign country! Man this is what I call genuine hi- tech Canadian manufacturing ingenuity. Surley we can do better than sell a 2"x4" or a log.

Renagade You wrote- " What is your point here? That discrimination is a normal part of the majority and that they discriminate against all kinds of groups so we should tolerate that discrimination." Normally discrimination is viewed as unfavourable treatment based on prejudice esp. regarding race, colour or sex but not necessarily confined to those three. In the example I gave heterosexuals and homosexuals could be viewed as being biased or against in some way against people who are celibate. In other words homosexuals could be guilty of the same discrimination they say they are victim of from heterosexuals by discriminating against celibates. I think this kind of group discrimination is a left over from prehistoric man when they depended on direct groups for survival and still dominates the mind to-day. Back to the question- So should we tolerate that discrimination. And I say to that unless it directly breaks the law involving some sort of criminal offense there is not much you can do about it since ALL MINORTIES are affected similarly by different forms of discrimation, even majorities are affected by all types of discrimination. But what homosexuals did about it was invent and pursue their own legal laws so to speak, like for instance the right of two members of the same sex to be married and subsequently the outright difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals was totally ignored in favour of the legal aspect. If all minorties pursued rights in a similar fashion to isolate their indifferences from other groups society could grind to a halt. I am contradicting what you said "It is completely irrelevant whether gays are gays by choice or not and the only people who make it an issue are those who seek some basis to discriminate." What I am saying is that it is relevant as gays have capitilized in the manner that they are now in the positon to do what they have accused heterosexuals of doing to them to other groups as being a more powerful group themselves. All your doing by fighting existing discrimination is propagating the seeds for further, new forms of discrimination.

Renegade You wrote- " It is completley irrelevant whether gays are gay by chance or not, and the only people who make it an issue, are those who seek some basis to discrimate." There as always been some sort self rightous ackowledgement of any majority in society to automatically discriminate on almost kind of any minority or to treat them with indifference. In this case it's a sexual issue heterosexuals vs. gays. But even if you were to admit you live a life of celibacy you would be frowned on by most heterosexuals and probably treated indifferently, probably as well as by gays as a celibate is totally out of the sexual equation. This proves discrimination is a normal fact of life concerning all races and different situations and is not only directed against gays. But back to ex-gays. We have a male family relative who is gay but for some reason turned straight and actually married a women. But three weeks after the marriage it was over already. I never did find out from this guy personally what was up but rumour has it he could not consummate his marriage and that's what ended it. This provides a small amount of proff that gays are 'wired different' but maybe this guy had some type of emotional problem initially.

geoffrey You wrote- " It's actually 35 gallons of which 50% is gasoline." No matter what quanity you use for a barrel of oil it still like you say, it is still approx. 50% devoted to gasoline. What about the other 50% devoted to home diesel, heating oil, kerosene etc. that increase is approx. the same as gasoline or could even be more. Therefore the $10-dollar increase in a single barrel of oil should only be $5.00 since only half the quanity of a barrel of crude is devoted to gasoline but he whole increase ($10.00) is applied to gasoline only. This is a huge rip off no matter what taxes are involved not saying of course that we are being over taxed as well.

Hicksey You wrote- " Most Republicans are as angry with Bush over his many missteps as I am." You are basically angry concerning the $1-trillion dollar war on terrorism via Iraq. I consider and support the War on Terrorism absolutely essential for the preservation of North America, freedom and capitalism AT ANY COST. The U.S. and it's allies have been playing with 'kid gloves' ever since the war began to their credit. There is no way you or anyone else can prove outright, just as I cannot prove at this time as a fact that this war broke an organized Arab terror strangle hold to break capitalism or to destabilize the world concerning Arab world domination. It is purely a matter of personal opinion and I positively support the Bush administration and it's efforts.

August1991 You wrote- " The last time I checked a $1.00 rise in the worlds price of a barrel of crude lead to an approx. increase of 1-cent Cdn. in a litre of gasoline." That's pretty close to what I posted. There is 4.5 litre's per gallon x 1-cent = 4.5 cents. I based my example on a $10.00 increase so 10 x 4.5L= .45 cents rather than the .48 cents I quoted. You also wrote- " Do you mean we are being ripped off now because of high prices ot that we have always been ripped off." Looks like we have been always ripped off. The more a barrel of oil increases the more were ripped off.

KrustyKidd You wrote- " So, what to do to protect your kids if they are out and about amongst us." Who are you talking about ' wild carelss driving housewives' in minivans. You also wrote- " What is the actual one reason you are against this." I simply do not approve of outright character assassination, discrimination and induced potential vigilante justice by our legal system no matter what the reason after the legally prescribed sentence has been served. If conditons such as this is attached to the sentence then I think it would be better to keep this type of offender incarcerated indefinately.

Wilber You wrote - " Tell that to the parents of a victim , face to face. I don't think I would want your subsequent dental bill." There are a lot of victims in this country Wilber that are basically laughed at in a place that is suppose to administer justice called courts. The legal system tells this to victims of various crimes every day and you know what...they legally get away with it and there is a severe penality for assaulting a judge. BTW- How would you know what the parents of a victim would reply. As far as I know most socialist forgive and forget. In any case I wouldn't be the only one requiring dental work if in fact I would be requiring any at all.

KrustyKidd You wrote- " I was beginning to think my point was beginning to fall on deaf ears." Be aware KrustyKidd loud stereo neighbours music has resulted in homicide. So what do we do in this ONE case. Start a registry to protect the lives of loud stereo users so they can all live in the same neighbourhood with no one else to disturb but themselves?? The simple fact is 'the world is not a perfect place' and you must accept that or society should have a right to discriminate and split into groups excluding all others according to that groups personal preferences. What kind of functional society would you then have as this is what you are advocating....special preference for certain segments of society?

Hicksey You wrote- " I don't revere the U.S. or even like Bush at all." You should say of course if you don't like Bush you don't like the Republicans. I don't know why you think like that though because our very own Canadian culture emluates the American one and in all the years with our close association with the U.S our sovereignty has never been threatened by any other country in the world and our lifestyles has only been enhanced by our U.S -Canada relationship but soured somewhat by the previous federal Liberals political actions. I mean even in Quebec as elsewhere in Canada, the last time I checked they still drive Ford's and Chev's eat American style based foods and wear American style clothing and watch U.S. sports and U.S. movies and enjoy Bill Gates inventions. I think we should remember the unique historical ties concerning our origins as countries are rooted from the same source as well as you say as being our most important economic and trading ally. I guess after you look at all the facts maybe you should be saying yes, the U.S. is our best friend and ally and no other country in this world could replace that reality.

KrustyKidd You wrote- " Much more. Now, what are the odds if their are a hundred freed molestors and a hundred average people who have never commited a sexual crime. Which group do you think will commit a sexual crime first." You are areal card KrustyKidd! Fact is there are 32-million people in Canada not 100. How many of the 32-million who are some sort of sexual pervert or sexual predator who might molest your children have never been caught and punished by law? LOTS I think new and ones keep cropping up! Nobody has accurate statistics on that one concerning the population as a whole regarding personal sexual thoughts and motivations that could lead to illegal sexual acts with other people. Fact is the world isn't a perfect place. Get over your witch hunt with people who have paid their debt to society and just supervise your own children properly while their young and you shouldn't have any problem period.

Renegade You wrote- " If the government spent less time catering to this sense of entitlement to land claims and special treatment then at some point the Natives would get over it and get on with their lives." What are you talking about! The federal government did a lot more that Cater to this sense of entitlement they wrote it into the Constitution primarily for Quebec as well as Aboriginals under the Charter of Rights and Fredoms. Until this Charter is reworked Canadians will be held hostage to many undemocratic dicriminatory demands at the expense of Canadian tax payers including the exclusion of normal rights associated with law and order. Sheesh, I never voted Liberal ...did YOU??

Nocrap You wrote- " I've read Harper's biography and researched his politcal career and have come to the conclusion that he is a Republican at heart. Many of his followers like that about him. Just don't expect to win favours of with mainstrem Canadians." Well, Ive researched PET's political ideologies and other Liberal PM's who have followed in his footsteps and can't believe mainstream Canadians posses and advocate communist political aspirations but some Canadians could be a sucker for Liberal political manipulation. I'am just wondering Nocrap if you have any kind of proof what the world would be like at this time in history if The U.S. and it's allies had not pursued the War on Terrorism as it is evident even at this time Muslim terrorist are a detirmined lot to continue to cause world havoc, yes?

KrustyKidd You wrote- " Yes so eight percent of peds will recommit. Basically every tenth name on the registry will attempt to molest a child again." Your stats are deceiving. The fact is 11.3% of all federal offenders are sexual offenders. That means every 11out of 100 federal inmates are sexual offenders. Out of those 11 offenders 21% are peds. So approx. 2 out of 100 federal inmates reoffend as peds and you are advocating a registry with the capability to virtually destroy totally that person's life who has paid his or her debt to society. Also as we already know the registry also has the potential to induce vigilante type justice. I think you are being unreasonable and overeacting and biased. For instance, what are the chances percent wise for a child anywhere in Canada to be molested by a new sexual offender one that is not on the registry compared to one who's name is on the registry? I believe it would be a lot higher. Now, I do support a public criminal registry for all convicted criminals ( which you will probably never see anyways for many reasons ) and incidently I do support the death penaltly for certain crimes so I don't think Iam being unreasonable nor biased.

KrustyKidd What is your primary concern with the eight percent? All sexual offenders or pedophiles? Are you claiming all sexual offenders of any nature be on the registry or pedophiles only? Your own stats indicate out of all sexual offenders 21% are pedophiles. Eight percent of that is a re-offending rate of 1.6 is low in my estimation.

I think it's quite refreshing to hear a Conservative PM Stephen Harper with something in common with the U.S. and it's president George W. Bush concerning shared common political ideologies which no doubt will improve our current U.S.-Canada relationship for the betterment of both countries. This is in deep contrast to our previous Liberal government who were unable to form a friendly U.S- Canada alliance and who could only focus on Quebec and some type of loose comparison with distant Europe.

August1991 You wrote- " The U.S. imposed a "counterveiling duty" ( a tariff ) on imports of Canadian softwood lumber. This had for effect to reduce the supply of Canadian lumber in the U.S. market, and raise the price of lumber in the U.S." The SLA (softwood lumber industry) sets a QUOTA of 14.7 billion board feet for exports from four Canadian provinces. The rebuttal states that only about 5% of Canadian lumber imports were subject to any fee, a volume that equals only about 1.67% of total U.S. lumber consumption ( since Canadian lumber supplies about one third of total U.S. demand. According to their (U.S.) SLA numbers house prices were only raised by $100-$300. You also wrote- " Bush Jnr. ( and the U.S. Congress) aceeded to this request because they wanted votes in Oregon, Montana and other lunber producing states." Well August the U.S. lumber industry is a powerful organization. Just to give you an example of numbers alone, in Canada there are approx. 425,000 small private owners. In the U.S. there are 10,000,000 small private owners.

Riverwind You wrote- " Canada does not subsidize it's industry." Of course this is not entirely true. Canada's provincial mangement 88%, 2% federal and 10% private concerning stumpage fees vs. the U.S. State management 14%, federal 13% and private 73% constitutes an unfairly balanced tenure system. How can you possibly compare the method of tenure social vs. private not a method of initial subsidization?