speaker

I think Harper worked for the wrong people before he decided to go into politics . I have to assume he did this work because his heart was in it. Now that he is leading Canada's Conservative element he either still believes in that work, and is simply hiding from the people who he wants to vote for his party, or has changed pretty radically. Either way he doesn't get my vote.

I think that before any westerner considers voting for independance we will have a real good look at ways to improve a system that has worked as well as any in history, admittedly not all that well, but we are all in the same boat as Alberta, we are so wealthy that we can have any system and there is enough to go around. We could have flat out Communism and still be content. I'd suggest an anger management session to allow the brain to gain some perspective.

This is a tough one, obviously. I'd be interested in peoples views on this one too. It's my impression that we are pretty damn lucky to live in as good a state as we do. We are incredibly wealthy, even our poor, in their share of ownership in this country are wealthy beyond our ambitious dreams. Our health despite our constant concern for more and improved care, is as good as any one has ever had it, if not better. Hopefully our democracy will evolve away from, instead of the typical downslide into more, corruption and patronage of the last thirty years. People who really don't want to be in politics should be elected anyway. It would be better if Canadians were a little more interested in our resources. This is by way of an understatement. and a little less interested in our egocentric little worlds. Naturally there wouldn't be any lawyers. All the red tape could disappear in a heartbeat if people weren't bent......... on abusing each other, the environment, and therefore in the long run themselves. but that gets back to egocentricity, so I'm already repeating myself. In a few bullets then Canadas pretty close to the ideal, we just like to complain a lot.

Our government would sooner ally us with the likes of the U.N., China, Russia, France, and that is supposed to make us feel all warm and fuzzy?? The U.N. up to their ears in corruption through the oil-for-food scam? China shoots their own people for protesting, yet Paul Martin still wants to trade with them. Initially our government said that if we traded with them they would be forced to change, instead our government has developed the same tactics when dealing with protestors. (G-8 Summit in BC), we just haven't resorted to shooting them YET, but give our government time. Both Russia and France were involved up to their necks in the oil for food scandal between Iraq and the U.N.'s Maurice Strong, Martin's mentor from Power Corporation. Russia is now selling long-range missle systems to Iran even after the Iranian President made the statement that Iran's goal is to wipe Israel off the face of the map. I would much rather hitch my wagon to the United States than I would with any of the above countries or organizations. The United States is right when they state that the U.N. has become irrelevant. They have become irrelevant because of their own corruption and biases. Let's not forget, it was the U.N. who funded a bumper sticker camapign, just as Israel was in the process of pulling settlers and troops out of Gaza. These products consisted of banners, pins, mugs, and bumper-stickers handed out to Palestinian youth, and carried the slogan; TODAY-GAZA-TOMORROW-THE-WEST-BANK-AND-JERUSALEM. This from an organization that is supposed to be promoting peace and harmony throughout the world, while remaing completely unbiased. This is not the first time that the U.N. represented by Koffi Annan has taken sides in this dispute. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have to differ about hitching my wagon to the USA, for all the reasons you have given for not trading with the others and for not respecting the UN. The USA gave most favoured trading status to the Chinese a long time ago. It is largely a result of this that the Chinese government has taken the country in the direction they are going, ie brutal suppression of human rights. Canada has every reason to doubt the motives of the Russians, the French, and the UN. In exactly the same way we should be looking at the US. Maybe we don't need to worry about those countries greed, corruption, and ambition as much as we do our neighbour to the south. To put down the UN for it's corruption is fair comment, but compared to our own government or just about any other in the world, they aren't all that bad. Plus we have the right to check on their budgets and find out how things are going. The UN should be unbiased and will undoubtably be taken to task for stepping over the bounds, but for the US to call them irrelevant is a little like the NHL saying the referees aren't doing a good job. As I understand it Annan was the American choice for the head of the UN. I'll bet there are Americans selling weapons to a variety of countries, and as we learned from Iraq, all those weapons are not under our control again except at great cost. Let's hope for all the arms traders that they are having their next convention in a likely spot the next time the control slips.

If Harper wins a minority he should immediately ask his natural allies the Liberals to support him in his effort to turn us into Americans, that accomplished he should then proceed to do that. black cat, white cat, buwahahaha no but seriously folks if Harper and the conservative liberals form the next government they really should consider the state of our nations nature. our economic/financial debt is pretty serious, but what percent of our viable agricultural land can you see even on a clear day from the CN tower? How healthy are the great lakes compared to 50 years ago, and what are they likely to be like 50 years from now. We just gotta get away from this idea that we stand a chance of fooling the public until we can get a majority. The only ones who are being fooled are the me firsters that expect to gain directly from one party or another. Sink us further into debt either financially or ecologically to support all those lazy corporate, criminal, or communist citizens who can't see their way clear to do honest work that respects the planet and you increase the likelihood of worse dieback.

People who think separation is a solution are fundamentally lazy. It is hard to try an get a long with people you disagree with. It takes effort and compromise. Separatists like to create the illusion that if they can carve out a convenient piece of geography that only contains people they agree with then they will be happier. The trouble with that logic is carving peices of geography out of an existing country would require: 1) painful compromise that seperatists are incapable of 2) a war. If you believe that 1) is possible then it must also be possible to reform the federation without a breaking it up. If you believe that reform of the federation is impossible then you are advocating civil war. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The other question with separation is that once you start where do you stop? If for example 50% plus 1 of Albertans wanted to leave Canada I'm willing to wager that there would be locales where more than 50% would want to separate from the new Alberta. This would end up being similar to Balkanization and perhaps we will remember where that leads.

I chuckled when I first read that, unfortunately I think the reason the conservative alliance didn't want it in there is that they definitely didn't want to be associated with anything progressive. but the first thing that hit me is that if progressive conservative = oxymoron, and you remove progressive do you also remove oxy?

have you heard the expression, "render unto Ceasar" ? so if our August leader needs a little helpful advice I would expect all churches and religions to be as forthcoming as they can. It can't be a really stupid idea to pull an invasion force out of a country, even if it does leave it in chaos. Primarily because it was wrong to invade in the first place, second because people are dying who are trying to change the chaos into a society who have nothing to do with the invasionary force, and third the invasion forces have got chaos. I say congratulations to the church for being honest with people and expressing their priorities.

I think it depends on whether the party understands that ecology, (the study of the house,) is relevant to economics, (the management of the house.) If we don't act as though we have our feet on the ground we're liable to have our heads in the clouds and misread some of the economic indicators. Economics/ecologics is the single most important issue we face. All the others are important but if we don't get this one right it may not make a difference which province gets the best deal from the feds for healthcare

No , actually we need someone who isn't willing to whore themselves, the only way to do that is to vote in individuals who will be responsible for their own riding and to Canada. vote for the best person , have done with all the money squandering, vote buying schmucks. Canada can't be viable with a loose federation of provinces or regions. Our country needs a strong Federation and that requires a strong federal government. Weakening that national unity will only leave us divided. Having a strong federal government requires a strong public choice at election time. Don't vote for the Hacks, vote for the most decent candidate available.

That's true August. Montreal has had its fair share of controversy regarding these sexual issues and, frankly, this will put that to rest. What is my opinion on this issue? Well, as long as you are old enough to understand what sex is and what STDs are, then, go for it. Just don't sue the club if you get screwed (pardon the pun). we won't "hear from Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim Canada coimmunities ....." You poor, poor person <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well exactly, or for that matter any Canadian has the right to defend his or her country. If the long term goal is to have a long term we better start listening to what is said and respond with actions that respect our planet. Protecting American corporate, for example lumber, interests at the expense of their forests, or Canadian corporate, read American corporate lumber interests at the expense of our forests isn't any sort of long term mentality. Selling reources at below their cost of sustainable production isn't making many of us rich, and it is making all of us poorer.

you mean as in like at the point of a gun? I don't have a gun, I'm waiting for the federal government to seize on this initiative and get the ball rolling.

sharkman " I think the U.S. should instead start getting serious about reducing our trading status with them if the liberals get in again, since it seems that Canadians in general hate the U.S. and only want to take their money. The U.S. doesn't need 'friends' like that." Lord, do you think there is a possibility? Naaah American corporations and to a lesser extent Americans are getting an incredible deal by having a neighbour and trading partner that is so rich it can afford to give the Americans cheap natural resources. what we will have to watch out for is American agression when our resources get to the point where we are going to keep them home. we should be instituting mandatory service in an armed auxilliary, guerrilla classes in our schools, and dispersed combat readiness from Dawson City to Truro.

The point is that this does not constitute a debate, the politicians, the media, and we the people seem to have accepted the world wrestling federations rules of procedural debate. In order to get away from the embarrassing aspects of this we've gone to a simple question and response format that allows carefully scripted responses and attacks. I only prefer the old format because it shows the gaping holes in our politicians ability to have an intelligent debate. Why don't we try a debate in which the rules of debate are adhered to and points are deducted for breaches of the rules. Perhaps then the politicians would respect the format if not each other.

This is really good, maybe once again we've hit on something that could work. If we keep electing Liberals and they keep the Americans really, well, whatever it is that America is feeling towards Canada, that prevents them from taking more of our undervalued products, the more our kids will have in the future. Canadians who want to feed the war machine should be reined in as gently as possible, and sent to re-education camps where perhaps basket weaving would be a good introductory course to get the minds relaxed and organized.

We don't want to force people to vote. exercizing a vote is a democratic right, it is also a democratic right to not vote. I can see our current batch of politicians trying to discourage voters in order to get more money for porkbarreling buddies. I think it would be reasonable for all of us to assume that neglected ballots are as much of a protest as spoiled ballots.

I think that the only necessary response to the threads question is that we ARE helping to promote democracy, by militarily oppressing as few people as we can.

America 1, it's true, 46% of us consider the USA to be the evil empire, populated by people driven to hate anybody else at the drop of a hat, or in this case at the drop of some criticism. unfortunately enough of the other 54% are like you, Canadians who wanna be Americans, who can't wait to send the other twenty percent of our exports to the States, because of course the subsidies we are already providing in the form of undervalued forest products, fossil fuels, beef, electricity, and maple syrup don't constitute enough help towards the Americans efforts to bring justice, democracy, free enterprise, and ruination to the rest of the world at the point of a gun. I think there may be something phallic in this. You almost had me convinced that you were actually American in more than just desire but when you said that I could believe what I wanted, well that just was too much to believe coming from a real Yank.

See now this is what I'm saying, here is a Canadian trying to stir up anti -Canadian sentiment by assuming the stereotypical ignorant American redneck reaction to everything. Well you went overboard buddy. Nobody believes even rednecks are that sensitive to positive suggestions from our esteemed Prime Minister, let alone a large number of Americans unless a large number for you is , say, 5 or 6. That was a good try though, but not something that a shrewd bunch of political hacks like those of us on here are going to think twice about.

I agree with Eureka we seriously need to explain to whoever holds any power after the election that the reason it's such a popular vote getter is that we Canadians really do care about the mess we're making, and it's for that reason that we voted for whatever party makes it. You are sadly confused. People are mocking Martin for getting on a pedestal and self-righteously attacking the Americans for not combating global warming. When he has done NOTHING, and has no plans to do ANYTHING himself. So he insults our greastest trading partner - again, in hopes of scoring a few cheap political points with the brainless, braying, anti-American types. Perhaps, unlike the Liberals, the Americans simply don't choose to sign an agreement when they have no intention of living up to it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Perhaps I am confused. Far be it for me to deride anyone for mocking our great leader. It's not realistic to say that the Canadian government has done nothing, there has been a great deal of talk. If the Americans can't handle an insult, one has to wonder where and when they grew up. With the level of anger floating around the world over issues like economic disparity, global warming, resource misuse, and outright military aggression something like what Martin said should be taken as being pretty minor. In fact anything that Martin said should be

No. Americans value their sovereignty. Plus these enviromental scaremongers can't make up their damn mind if there is global warming or a mini ice age. The only reason why these people want to force Kyoto on the US is that they seek to cripple their economy, because every day they look at the US and are reminded that capitalism whips socialist ass. Why would anyone listen to a bunch of kooks who say things like this: Good grief! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It would be a lot better if we also valued our sovereignty, but I don't see that accepting something like Kyoto needs to compromise sovereignty. No more than accepting war crimes tribunals that are capable of judging Americans. Oh yea, they didn't want to accept that either. I'm not sure that you've heard this before but global warming can mean a variety of weathers depending on how local topography affects winds etc. I know this is confusing, but if you look into it you might be surprised how serious it could be.

This is great, look at all these fine people putting down Martin for not doing enough to combat Global Heating. Praising the Americans for not increasing their percentage of gwgs as high as Canada. It does my heart good to know that the extremist right will do a better job when, if, lol, they gain power again. The mouthpieces of the corporate conservatives, the ones whose livelihood depends on ever increasing volumes of green house gas production, have a lot of room to criticize here. Martin may be a fool, he may be corrupt, he may even be God forbid, misleading us, but to suggest the correct vote leans even further towards the reactionaries in the crowd is obtuse. The reason the American government hasn't agreed to Kyoto is that it would require some measure of sacrifice on behalf of the American people. American culture couldn't stand that kind of a shock, and won't until it's probably too late. Canadian governments haven't done anything for much the same reason. It's a question of pressure. The do nothing crowd has been able to exert enough pressure on the Liberals, who are a very sensitive bunch, that they can't overcome the inertia. Even though there are some good people trying to accomplish serious initiatives. We keep running into these economic collapse arguments that are groundless. We are responsible for the messes we create in the world. (Learned often at an early age.) Certainly China, Russia, India, and almost any country including the Americans would be quite happy to accept money if we want to send it to them to help them develop clean efficient energy systems and industry. I think though I would want to see some reason why we can't first do that kind of thing for ourselves.

My reference to environmental awareness being a result more of democracy, than a particular style of democracy ie capitalist, socialiat, communist, was in response to your earlier suggestion that capitalist democracy gave birth to the environmental movement. one that blackdog also responded to . So this may be redundant. I think it's safe to say that there has always been environmentalists, it's just that we in north America have heard more from them because it took so much effort on their part to overcome the downplaying of environmental concerns by the people who have been abusing our natural systems. So that by the time they were able to be heard at all they had to be yelling at the top of their lungs, and had to do that for quite some time to make any progress. The wealth that builds in a Capitalist spciety does become focused in a small group who have the ability to use that wealth to influence governance. This of itself does not generally favour the environmental awareness level of anybody. Wealth does not need to be used. If you are sitting sitarving on a mountain of gold you are indeed wealthy, not too bright but very rich. The object is to use as little of the mountain as possible so that your kids can be rich as well. If Eureka is correct that only growing forests or trees are eligible then trees could have started growing long before 1990 and still be sucking back the co2. I'll stick to the expression reverse the threat, because some of the damage that is occuring now may or may not be a result of global warming. that the damage may get much worse than it is now is a threat that we may not stop in it's tracks but eventually reverse if we start taking care of the place. I'm not sure how a noble class of environmentally sensitive elites is Marxism, if it is then I suppose that the capitalist noble familes are Maoist, and with much more power than the environmentalists and therefore much more dangerous to society.

I don't know what the constitution actually says, but I'm pretty confident that the resources within Canadas borders, or our ocean limits are Canadas resources. In short Canada may grant authority to the provinces to manage and tax resources but that does not limit Canadas ability to do the same if it is in Canadas interest to do the same. To grant ownership to the provinces would be like giving individuals exemption from government expropriation..... Lord, a province could sell itself to the highest bidder rather than simply selling off it's resources, Canadas resources, the people of Canadas resources to whomever shows up with a bit of coin in his pockets. The provinces are undoubtably grateful that our Federal politicians are so wrapped up in themselves that they don't seem to notice that our kids heritage is doing a disappearing act..