speaker

But that's a completely separate issue from discussing whether this is a plot to erase borders and merge sovereign nations into a single entity. It's not a completely separate issue. At some point in the regulation and harmonizing of economic, environmental, labour, and social standards, the differences have been legislated away. The points of Canadian worries about this are that we are different from other nations in the western hemisphere, and that the standards are not being harmonized upward. QUOTE(GostHacked @ Dec 21 2008, 12:31 PM) It's on the radar for sure. If the Europeaon Union and the African Union can exist, why is it such a stretch for people when it comes to the NAU? A mentality of 'not in my backyard'? Or that it is simply not possible? Stuff could happen in the future. Obviously. The EU... how many countries are there in Europe? they still have borders, right? They have their own laws and courts and law enforcement agencies, yes? Some of them didn't even adopt the Euro, kept their British pound for example. Even if things did eventually get to that state, it's a lot less scary than the fruitcakes are making it out to be. Was it done in secret? Did the people have no say? Research that as well... if the EU is supposed to be the example of how scary things could be, what exactly is the big panic anyway? In the European Union there is enough equality, and difference between, enough nations that there must be less fear of domination by a single entity. The other point that gets dropped from the discussion from time to time is that this is less a harmonizing for national benefits than a harmonizing for corporate benefits. This is why we see corporate bag boys directing the regulation, without public input. It isn't so much a fight about the Americanization of Canada, or Mexico, as it is a fight over the corporate manhandling of the societies.

It's true that there are no guarantees.... of success, I think it's true too that a lot of Canadians question a committment to a war that is of questionable purpose, stands to do more harm than good to world relations, and where victory can't be got without causing more of the same terrorism that was the excuse for the war in the first place. What Canadians have had in peacekeeping missions in the past was a guarantee that we were trying to keep the peace rather than punish an entire population for the crimes of a few.

I want to point out that shock and awe have not continued for the years of the afghan war, just as Blitzkreig was not the only strategy used by the Nazis. Try and stay with the discussion.

I don't know about that. Shock and Awe may have been in Iraq but it's precursor would have been shock and awe in Afghanistan, shokanaw in Viet Nam, and blitzkreig in Poland, I wonder what comes next... SHOCK! AND! AWE! probably. The results just get worse and worse. I don't think our support for that kind of mentality is a big win for our name internationally.

I expect it's safe to say that blitzkreig was a pale shadow compared to the expense and armament thrown into shock and awe. I expect that the social infrastructure damage and civilian casualties were also minor in comparison. I suport the soldiers, and wish them all the luck in the world. But enough is enough and too much is too much. Let's bring them home and concentrate on rebuilding our good name, provide for the rebuilding of Afghanistan, and work at defending ourselves from home, where we should be. I think it has been proven in trial that giving unqualified support to this kind of war is the same as giving orders for it''s conduct.

August1991, I wonder what Ghandi, Einstein, or Pearson would say to you. That said, I don't know that we disagree that much. My comments about the afghani cities was a response to Mr. Canadas wierd reference to the cowardice by which the Afghani militants are fighting. It's a matter of perspective. From their point of view the allies shock and awe campaign, blitzkreig, was a cowardly way to fight. I expect the Polish Army felt the same at the start of the second world war. I'm also saying enough is enough. The destruction of the Afghani cities and lives should work if you believe in the concept of deterrance. What other countries might allow militants to operate with sanction knowing how much overkill the Allies are going to respond with? At worst fanatics will have to operate from hiding, and that isn't anything new. Guerilla warfare has existed since the first organization forced it. Some hazards we have to deal with.

The families of all our soldiers, wounded, killed, or just in that situation have all my empathy and sympathy. But doing more of the same still isn't a solution. Just wondering Mr., whether you noticed the condition of Afghani cities before the Allies even went into the country. Rubble is an understatement. I remember seeing a shot of an Afghani man standing in that rubble and saying that we were the cowards. Fighting a war from two miles up in the sky against a country that was already broke and busted by fighting the old USSR for so many years. If someone bombed our cities into oblivion, what would you do when they finally decided it was relatively safe to send in their troops?

From here it looks like the conservative fascists are the ones trying to take away our rights. Destroying entire nations and economies for political face and financial gain might be widening the entitlement of a handful of the really greedy, but not the rest of us. None of this has anything to do with religion. Some people have always grafted themselves to the power source in whatever society or sector they find themselves, political, financial, religious, and media power. These are the people who are the enemies of freedom.

Base every decision whether political, economic, financial, social, or environmental, on sustainability. I don't mean municipal sustainability, everyone knows that cities can't sustain themselves. Or health system sustainability, it doesn't work that way. Canada is just this patch of ground. Those of us fortunate enough to live on this part of the Earth and can afford all these petty power struggles and squabbles need to be more concerned with keeping our resource base, the forests, farmland, fisheries, water, and energy capabilities in condition that Canadians can be successful. Priorities are always the determining tools. Do we want that new 72" flat screen so that we can watch more commercials about what we really should be buying next? Phasing ourselves out of the consumer society and into a sustsainable one would be a success in itself. We have spent so much of the last 60 years trying to not be a resource based economy that we have a hard time recognizing that it is our resources that make us rich. True it is the consumerism that has allowed many of us to spend ourselves into national recession, but is that what is really important?

One would hope that the corporate backers and designers of the SPP are as forward thinking as you seem to think. Personally I doubt it. I think they are harassed, panicky, not particularily intelligent, and very short sighted. They don't even look at four years like politicians for their future. They look at three months and get blown away by the potential ups and downs. They aren't evil except perhaps in Hindsight, and probably believe that if they are rich enough they'll be able to stand even when it is only a mudball and scream " I have enough money to get on the next flight to somewhere better." I don't even wish them good luck.

For institutions that aren't interested in Money the Canadian banks have been pretty successful at reporting massive and record profits every quarter for as long as I can remember. That's why they are strong. That's why taxpayers shouldn't be giving their tax dollars to the money lenders. It's like the comment made recently about capitalism in general, It relies on the privatization of profits and the socialization of losses.

and Capricorn wrote, " Rae wants the leader of the Liberals to be selected democratically. How come the same respect for the vote is not extended to Canadians so that they may have a say on a coalition government? If democracy is good for the Liberal Party I suggest it's good for Canadians." When the Liberals are in power I'm almost as opposed to them as I am to the New Conservatives. But I don't understand your reasoning Here. The Bloc, and the Liberals and the New Democrats were elected to be part of the government. In fact more of them were elected to be a part of the government than the Conservatives. If the party with the most seats can't govern then any other party can try to prove that it can. If the Independants could get enough MPs behind them then they could form the government. They too were elected to help in the government of Canada. The Conservatives simply decided that they didn't want to help do that and met disapproval because of that. Which is more democratic?

It is interesting though now we have 62-63% for the coalition, that probably isn't coincidence. Even with the leadership of Mr. Dions liberals, people are still choosing the coalition over the leadership of Mr. Harper. That speaks volumes, doesn't it.

That's for sure, and the very strong canadian banking system wouldn't be getting billions of taxpayer dollars, and the conservatives wouldn't have tried to stifle the opposition, And all the talk about co-operation wouldn't have disappeared in one fell swoop. The coalition members are trying to get themselves elected, just like the conservatives. At that point they don't need to even think about the necessity of a coalition. It's only afterwards when the Conservatives decide they can afford to tick off 62% of the voters that the coalition looks like a good idea.

Bushcheney wrote " See.....that's what I mean....shifting "blame" to somebody or something else. We are what we "eat"." Well, Blame is one of those things that gets set. The current situation in Canada is a prime example. Harper has such a distorted view of reality that you have to wonder where it comes from. Did he get beat up at recess when they were talking about right wing economic theory? Did he decide that's how he's going to get even with the world? So many important questions. But how will history judge him if we don't get to the bottom of this?

I don't like to think that it's willful, but ignorant I have to agree with, but to be honest with you we are subject to many of the same kind of idealogical bs that Americans are and I blame it on that.

Ah the ultimate put down, conversation stopper, whatever. "You ain't no better than the Americans" Man that's cruel. Don't you know that all Canadians are mature beyond that kind of behaviour? Surely every Canadian knows. EH?

I think it is possible that the corporations that control the vast majority of media in the country are quite capable of designing their programming to satisfy their advertisers, and as an after thought making it cater to the lowest common denominator for the greatest audience benefit of the advertisers.

Those in power are individuals. Whether they are state funded or private corporations the same applies. The individuals who feel it is necessary for their well-being to corner the market on resources or capital are, I think, very worried people. People who can't be content husbanding their share of the planet but must control more, more, and more are really dangerous people.

Restructuring the economy has been a constant theme over the centuries, pretty much consistently failing over time, as the generations become complacent and allow the insecure people of the world to satisfy their cravings for power. I think you're right though, restructuring is the next goal we'll have to take on,,,, again,,, but the big question as I see it is how to minimize the pressure on the Harpers of the world so that they don't feel so compelled to control everything.

This elections Canada site gives the results by the various, and I mean various, parties and individuals running. http://enr.elections.ca/National_e.aspx The two parties that have the most to lose are the New Conservatives and the Bloc. I guess that means any chance of the coalition bringing electoral reform doesn't stand a chance. I expect that the Liberals make a lot of capital in other elections from the splits in votes giving them more seats than they deserve. I think we'll have to elect independants and the greens and the christian heritage party, for any real progress. The last thing we need is a two party state, which translates into a one party state. I prefer a system where everyone can have their own voice to one in which everyone has the same voice.

Does the Calgary Sun ever have any biased reporting/editorials on behalf of the Right wing agenda? ahh say it ain't so. You don't suppose the New Conservatives have an ally that would be trying to help Canadians come to the "right" opinions? Are there other examples out there? Edmonton Sun? Vancouver Sun or Province? National Post? Globe and Mail? CTV? any others?

The coalition is done? or maybe the coalition is just getting started. If the Liberals vote in a new leader, and the NDP and the Bloc can get along with the New Liberals I don't see why the decision to use their majority to improve our economy and our democracy shouldn't gain strength over the next six weeks. We know that the economy is not the priority for the Conservatives, whereas the total corruption derived from total power is, I think it should be a walk for the coalition to come up with a more complete and coherent set of policies.

There's interesting anomalies around, The idea that only 30% of Quebec is interested in sovereignty stands beside this wierd belief that Quebecers want to separate. The same sort of thing comes out in this belief that the only thing quebec is interested is in getting financial concessions from the rest of Canada. I wonder if there isn't some self projection involved in these theories. If that is where the Conservatives are getting their policy development from you can understand why we keep getting into the soup.

The coalition of conservatives that have made up the NEW Conservatives should be a serious caution to this new coalition. Any group of people that can focus on an overt, arrogant, and cynical attempt to hobble democracy like they did, when the economy is in such bad shape that their power base in the oil patch is even slowing down, has evidently got mind siezure. And then to turn around a week later and say oh Hey , , , we didn't really mean it, We were just foolin around, should pay more attention to Babe Bennetts. I'm hoping this coalition has a better frame of mind. I think that is the benefit of having options. At least before each election the parties have to think about what people out here want.