Concerned

This is the most ridiculous argument I have heard on this website yet. For one, how would you have an ethnic gang type problem in an 80% white area ? For two, ethnic gang problems are not ethnic vs. white. They are usually ethnic vs. ethnic. For three, ethnic gang problems quite often are drug related and these people don't even vote. So what is it you are really saying here Leafless ? For most of my adult life I have lived in areas where white people are the minority. I have never been afraid to vote or had any type of fear or intimidation at a polling station. Another red-neck poster no doubt, Leafless.....

There are many elements to democracy reform. Senate reform Set election dates. Funding rules are some that I can see Harper implementing. I never saw PR as part of their platform so why would you think they would adopt it ? Couple things... NDP and Liberals already can form a coalition government. They can't because the Liberal party is in such disarray they can't even get themselves together (plus they have a $34 million dollar bill to pay, plus whatever they owe us from all they stole). The NDP are too good for a corrupt criminal organization, however much I disagree with them. PR wouldn't change this, you'd just add the right-left-up-down-wing greens to the mix which would confuse everyone. No taxes, but we should pay for everything. Excellent plan Jim. First past the post makes the most sense in a country like ours. PR just simply cannot work. We've discussed it here many times and I think a sound majority of us PR'ed it right outta town. What point would it be to form a coalition government if it didn't form a majority government ? A Liberal NDP coalition would still have meant a minority government.

Personally I'm going for Preston Manning. Now there's beauty. Oh, and that lovely Mr. Harper, there's another looker ! Somehow it doesn't make a difference to anybody what THEY look like .... On another note, you gotta love a dad who shakes hands with his kids when seeing them off to school. Oh he's all heart that Harper, Mr. Warm and Fuzzy. No feminine side to that guy !! Did he miss that whole "sensitive guys of the nineties" movement ???? http://static.flickr.com/23/25496120_b72663e1d8_m.jpg He can serve ice cream and not make you feel guilty about eating it... Ok, then, well that changes EVERYTHING

Since when did women ever have an easier road than men ? She said "if we begin to..." she never said woman did have one. They never did and they never will. Particularly with guys like you around.

Personally I'm going for Preston Manning. Now there's beauty. Oh, and that lovely Mr. Harper, there's another looker ! Somehow it doesn't make a difference to anybody what THEY look like .... On another note, you gotta love a dad who shakes hands with his kids when seeing them off to school. Oh he's all heart that Harper, Mr. Warm and Fuzzy. No feminine side to that guy !! Did he miss that whole "sensitive guys of the nineties" movement ????

Since when did women ever have an easier road than men ?

"....Fair Vote Canada says: Canda's antiquated first-past-the-post system wasted millions of votes, distorted results, severely punished large blocks of voters, exaggerated regional differences, created an unrepresentative Parliament and may possibly have even given us the wrong government.... Had the vote been cast under a PR system, the NDP Liberals and Greens could have formed a coalition government...." So what will Harper do with that election promise?

A "whore" is someone who sells themselves out for money...it is not exclusively an anti-women term, but I don't see men whoring around Montreal's red-light district And I don't see many women running for conservative ridings. What's Harper possibly going to do to acheive anything remotely close to gender equality in his cabinet ??? I'm so happy this country is about to be run by a bunch of red-neck men.

May I ask whether she is good looking or beautiful has to do with anything ?

And therein lies the crux of the problem. And you're probably still wondering why central Ontario and Toronto voters think big "C" Conservatives like you are social neanderthals. good on you chimera ... nuff said ... maybe he just needs to dig a little deeper into facts and not listen to what the media says as the TRUTH and try to find an opinion... but of course a party that changes it's right wing platform to a more moderate platform in a year is kind of strange as well, maybe it was just to entice votes like him... have no disbelief that the real platform will arise hicksey Yes, talk about whoring, I can't remember a party who so blatently designed its platform to "buy" votes. And stifle all of its members during election time that might express the true ideologies of the party, so as to win over the average Canadian voter with handouts. Has anybody noticed that comments on this string concerning women politicians are just a little on the sexist side ? Are you guys all sure that Belinda had no real foundation for jumping ship on Harper and his band of idiots? She happens to be a very successful business person from a highly respected family, she would not have made this decision frivolously. As far as winning her riding is concerned, that riding was always liberal until she ran in it for the conservatives, and won. It was no surprise to anyone that the constituency did not mind her crossing over to the liberals where they prefer to rest their votes.

Sure, that's stupid and adds up to anti-Americanism. But the vast majority of Canadians wouldn't say something like that. The worst they would do in that regard is laugh at Rick Mercer's Talking to Americans skits, and that's pretty good natured. If anybody took offence to that, they have overly thin skin and a humour deficiency. Well its a true fact, sorry I was out by 8 points..... ."...There recently appeared a chart that indicated an average intelligence quote per state that claims the states with people of lower average IQ chose Bush. The states with higher average IQs leaned toward Kerry. It claimed that the average IQ in America is 98, far lower than I realized... Was the data on the chart accurate?... From IQ data taken from a book by university professors Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen called “IQ and the Wealth of Nations” and a website that showed IQ data calculated from state SAT and ACT scores, there is an indication that this, indeed, is the average level of intellect in the US... see chart at: http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id1048.html

Which has to do what - with Canadian politics, good governance and the CPC ? Bush's great grandfather might have had some financial dealing with the Hitler regime, but it hardly has anything to do with Canadian politics or the Bush family today. Well at least somebody else out there has read that about the Bush family.

In a true democracy everybody has the right to debate. I noticed a number of you right wing enthusiasts here on this website have told me to shut up. That doesn't surprise me. My views are not left. They are centered and prop-peace. If I am center, what are you ? Sorry, but there is a small, unwritten rule around here (or so I've noticed) that basically says that when you make a comparison between any current person and Hitler, it's time for you to go. So go. Bye. Bu-bye. Bye now. I did not compare Bush with Hitler. I simply stated that throughout history the US has supported many a fascist regime, both through military aid and economic aid. Including Bush's great grandfather supporting the Hitler regime financially. I do not know the facts surrounding that statement but I have seen it quoted through numerous different sources. There have been many atrocities of war supported by US foreign aid. These are well documented for anybody that cares to read about them.... Columbia, Turkey, Cuba, Korea, Indonesia, Haiti, Guatemala, and Nicaragua to name a few.

Thank you, and I agree. Fear based politics combined with consumerism...sufficient to pull the wool over most American eyes. And yes, we aren't so pressured here to be patriotic, or to lock or doors, or to build walls around our communities, or to further fill up our prisons, to increase our military, or to go off to war to protect ourselves against so called terrorists... Apparently Alberta (or at least one of them here ) disagrees....and wishes to shut up anybody who doesn't !!

Well by the sounds of things I am probably younger than you, and no I don't remember all of it. But I respect your opinion and appreciate the opportunity to dialogue with you, since that is what it is all about is it not ?

In a true democracy everybody has the right to debate. I noticed a number of you right wing enthusiasts here on this website have told me to shut up. That doesn't surprise me. My views are not left. They are centered and prop-peace. If I am center, what are you ?

Fuel this debate: our energy security GORDON LAXER Friday, January 6, 2006 The spike in world oil prices after hurricane Katrina and the latest spike that saw prices surge above $60 (U.S.) a barrel this week have highlighted the need to plan for oil and natural gas shortages. The Americans are discussing how to ensure security of supply. So are many other countries. But not Canada. We now have only 8.7 years of proven supply of natural gas. Conventional oil production is falling. Alberta's tar sands have plenty of oil, but it comes with horrific environmental damage. In an election campaign, Canada's political leaders seem oblivious to our energy security needs. The United States has a bold national energy policy that stresses the idea that the greater its dependence on foreign energy, the greater the threat to its national security, and the urgency to move toward energy independence and self-sufficiency. Oil Shockwave, a recent U.S. scenario exercise developed by (among others) the National Commission on Energy Policy, warns that oil disruptions could lead to a world shortfall of three million barrels, or 4 per cent of global supply, a day. The world price would rise 177 per cent to $161 (U.S.) a barrel. Gasoline would cost $5.74 (U.S.) a gallon ($1.78 Canadian a litre). Mexico could weather such a shock. Its independent policy ensures public ownership and first access for domestic needs. Of the three NAFTA countries, only Canada has no plans for oil shortages, even though Canada imports 1.3 million barrels a day, about half of current use. The question is this: If there are energy shortages, in which of the three NAFTA countries are citizens most likely to freeze in the dark? The Liberals are committed to the Kyoto accord, public transit and wind power, but they don't mention supply security. Neither do the Conservatives, who offer tax credits for transit users, funds for environmental cleanup, and review of Kyoto. The Bloc Québécois favours Kyoto, making polluters pay, supporting wind, and taxing oil profits. The NDP emphasizes job creation, renewables, protecting low-income families, and using oil to bargain with the United States on softwood lumber. But even the best environmental policies will not help much as long as Canada is locked into exporting 70 per cent of its oil and 56 per cent of its natural gas to the United States. Under NAFTA's proportionality rules, we must continue exporting at least the same proportion of energy to the U.S., even if we face shortages. If Canada conserves energy, as it must, we will export more of our dwindling supplies, so that Americans can maintain their SUV fix. Canada -- Alberta in particular -- is the continent's environmental sacrifice zone. To conserve energy, Canada must first regain control over energy supply and usage. Our NAFTA partners already have this: Mexico got an exemption from proportionality. Only Canada must export a majority of its energy in perpetuity. Canada should either demand a Mexican exemption or abandon NAFTA on the grounds that the U.S. ignores its rulings anyway. If one party ignores an agreement, other parties aren't bound by them. Giving six months notice to exit NAFTA would get Canada out of this energy encumbrance. What might an energy security strategy for Canada look like? In contrast to the 1980 national energy program that Ottawa imposed, a security strategy must be a provincial-federal partnership. What could it include? First, the Dinning principle: R. J. Dinning headed a 1949 Alberta commission that recommended the province retain 50 years supply of natural gas before exporting to other provinces. The Dinning principle (only after Canadians are taken care of should energy be sent abroad) could be extended to oil and to all producing provinces and territories. Second, slow the frenetic pace of Alberta tar sands development. More can be gained by reducing energy use than through more production. Using less will prolong energy supplies. Leaving the resource in the ground would increase its value when it's removed in 15 years. Third, raise royalties to Norway levels to capture the full value of nature's non-renewable capital, for the owners -- the citizens of the producing provinces. Fourth, reverse the Sarnia-Montreal pipeline and bring western oil to Quebec again. An energy security strategy should follow public opinion and include Canadian ownership and Crown corporations. Since 9/11, security has trumped trade in the United States. For Canada, this means our energy security comes ahead of NAFTA. What better time than during this election to debate how the parties plan to secure our energy future? Gordon Laxer is director and co-founder of Parkland Institute, a public policy research centre based at the University of Alberta.

How has the government managed to stifle anyone who speaks out against American policy? I see, and hear, and read all kinds of people every day that speak out against American policy. How the hell has Michael Moore been allowed to make his movies? Shouldn't he be locked up in some prison somewhere? Why does this forum attract such retards? Thank god for Micheal Moore. How many Americans do you think actually watched those movies? The media is controlled by sponsorship, which is controlled by big business and the extreme right. American right wing governments and particularly the Bush administration, controls the media through its play on consumerism, and succeeds because of the basic premise that the average american citizen is more concerned about his/her standard of living then anything else, and fairly ignorant to the ways of the world outside of his/her country's borders.

Why does one country need to excercise global dominance and why do we need to pick one at all ? Why doesn't the US just stay at home and take care of their own problems? Why do we need their military forces to protect us? They are more often the perpetrators than the defenders, they just know how to hide it well, particularly given the average IQ of the American Population is approximately 90. Terrorist forces attack those that have created the problems within their countries. That is why they attacked the United States. If Canada can keep true to its foreign policy of contributing to world peace we shouldn't have to worry about being under attack by terrorists. Sticking to the ideals set forth by the United Nations should be our primary goal, something that the US has always had trouble with. With respect to communism, Russia's main intention was to preserve it, not to expand it. It is the US that paints it own picture at home to justify its global positioning strategies. And no, I'm not a leftist, particularly when it comes to economic principals. However I do believe in Human Rights and that means moderate, and that is the Canada that I want to see somebody "stand up for".

“…actual perpetrators come from the radical Islamic, here called, fundamentalist networks of which the bin Laden network is undoubtedly a significant part….They were brought together in the 1980’s actually by the CIA and its associates elsewhere: Pakistan, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China was involved…. The idea was to try to harass the Russians, the common enemy. According to President Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the US got involved in mid 1979. Do you remember, just to put the dates right, that Russia invaded Afghanistan in December 1979. Ok. According to Brzezinski, the US support for the mojahedin fighting against the government began 6 months earlier. He is very proud of that. He says we drew the Russians into, in his words, an Afghan trap, by supporting the mojahedin, getting them to invade, getting them into the trap. Now then we could develop this terrific mercenary army. Not a small one, maybe 100,000 men or so bringing together the best killers they could find, who were radical Islamist fanatics from around North Africa, Saudi Arabia….anywhere they could find them. They were often called the Afghanis but many of them, like bin Laden, were not Afghans. They were brought by the CIA and its friends from elsewhere. …By January 1980 it is not even in doubt that the US was organizing the Afghanis and this massive military force to try to cause the Russians maximal trouble. It was a legitimate thing for the Afghans to fight the Russian invasion. But the US intervention was not helping the Afghans…”

"...Clearly, in order to fool all the people all the time and to set US up for that most profitable of all political rackets, namely war, control and domination of the press, as well as all elements of the American media, is absolutely vital in a nation that once was characterized as being so abundantly wealthy in individual freedom. Such a nation would quickly recognize tyranny and be readily critical of any and all threats to its freedoms. Just as the first Nazi regime initially launched itself by securing a vital propaganda tool, think of the smashing advantage and experience the current Nazi regime has over the first via the total power of the Zionist media.... ...the Hitler regime was just a dry run for the real thing: the unending Nazi regime headed by members of the Bush and Clinton crime families. Grandpa Bush, Prescott, was Hitler's chief financier. He siphoned off the remaining Nazi Union Banking funds to launch the Bush family wealth. And yet more Nazi funding and assets were used and transferred to create the "American" CIA. Nazi intelligence agency operatives transferred under Grandpa Bush to the CIA launched many covert operations in South America with the intent of giving the Reich a new start in this hemisphere..."

“Just as the United States dropped all sort of bombs over the geography and on the people of Iraq, including the use of specialized nuclear weapons, such as "bunker busters" so they dropped a diplomatic bomb when they called on Iraq to convert immediately to democracy... the expectation was laden with both arrogance and ignorance…strange angles and deep ironies of (American) engagement in Iraq: the purpose and the waste, the discipline and the recklessness, the idealism and the opportunism, the nobility and the venality… In the meantime, the threat of more war against terrorism and for democracy is looming in the Middle East. George W. Bush has consistently twisted his tongue in attempts to disengage from Iraq, but in clear terms he has now announced the strongest American menace against both Syria and Iran. The tactic is typical of all empires: when confronted with internal problems (in this case, the massive response of natural disasters and the growing opposition to the occupation of Iraq), the state wages another war to divert public attention…as a direct result of American financial ambitions and military actions in the Middle East, the word (democracy) is now generally understood to mean hypocrisy”

I posted this on another website http://www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca/index.html in response to an American's posting who praised Harper and his support of American Right Wing Idealisms including US invasion of Iraq: And what an intelligent defense of American hegemony we have here from our American friend. Of course Americans think that the war in Iraq freed 25 million people from an evil government, how else could they justify such atrocities against the Iraqi people? And what of the sanctions that they have imposed and are enforcing against this country now? How are those sanctions helping displaced and homeless Iraqi people whose standard of living has dropped to .... what ??? Through the years, the American government has gained control of the American media and has managed to stifle anyone who speaks out against American policy. True democracy allows for freedom of speech. Something that does not exist in the US of A, and something that we still manage to enjoy here in Canada at least to some extent. Will we if Harper gets into power? We as Canadians have been able to piece together the motives of Bush and his administration in terms of its war crimes against Iraq. Oil that is, black gold. Neo-conservative Americans like our friend posting on this website seek justification of those war crimes to fuel his big business beliefs. They also support a Harper government as a way to further control our resources, just as it did through the NAFTA agreement carved out by the Mulroney government. And why not give away our power and resources in perpetuity? The Canadian public was not stupid enough to believe at the time that we were getting the fair end of the NAFTA agreement. The agreement while in being structured was extremely controversial. Looking back at it, do any Canadians out there think that we are getting the fair end of this agreement now? Through the ages America has supported fascist governments (both militarily and economically) in favour of quick and easy implementation of US economic development that favours the elite rich of the target country and the American developers that rape the lands and the people of its natural resources. Take many of the countries of Latin America for example, where resources are rich and the general population is deathly poor, while American multi-nationals reap the profits. America has a specific agenda for military and economic dominance. It has consistently supported corrupt governments including supporting Saddam Hussein with economic and military aid before he "disobeyed" American orders. It as only when Saddam decided not to go with the US wishes that he was portrayed to the American public as "evil". Millions of dollars of military aid had already been spent in Iraq in support of Hussein. Just as it had in Columbia, East Timor, and Turkey where the atrocities of war resulted in mass suffering of the general populations there. Using self-defense as the motive to strike in Iraq, the American public was fed constant crap by its media. Including the accusations that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction and that the Iraq regime was connected with Osama Bin Laden in his attacks against the US. I have some very intelligent friends there that had the wool pulled over their eyes quite nicely by American media. But no evidence to support those accusations against Iraq was found before, during, or after the Iraq war. In short, it is very clear to me why this American friend is posting on this website in support of Harper. The right wing here in Canada would be in favour with the agenda of the US administration for economic dominance, which inevitably includes control of Canadian resources. And with Harper in power, Bush will get it. At the expense of most ordinary Canadians and at the economic gain of a few elite Albertans, including Mr. Harper himself.

IF you are a parent wondering what to do with your children during the strike and are concerned about the educational significance of a continued break, please read on. Go to www.parentsspeakout.citymax.com This website will enable parents to find tutors, search available resources, and get a refund for private services required during the illegal strike. There are also discussion forums and factual articles informing parents of the real numbers and issues surrounding the strike. The website is privately run by individuals that work in the private sector, have children in the school system, and who pay ample and enough taxes. The information posted is as well researched as possible (although we cannot account for all the discussion postings). We are very much of the opinion that the media has blown up the issues in favour of the people with the loudest voices, and the most dramatic stories to tell, particularly organized labour. Unfortunately working parents are not organized, and not nearly as vocal, but this website allows us to come together. The website allows you to get down to the barebones of the issues and allows you to sort through much of the media hype. The site is underdevelopment and will increase in content and useful resource links as the strike goes on. We ask for the contributions of any parents looking for the same resources. Please participate early, contribute, and visit often.

A great website for information and discussion forums on the BC Teachers Strike can be found at : www.parentsspeakout.citymax.com