normanchateau

Our politicians did push the Bush agenda...at least one of them did. Harper even went on US television to let Americans know where he stood. Furthermore, Harper claimed that most Canadians outside of Quebec supported the invasion of Iraq. Here's the story: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads= What a quagmire we'd be in if this so-con had been Prime Minister then. We would be just where the Americans are. We are still with them in Afghanistan. My point was that Canadians are not a whole lot smarter than the Americans and if our politicians choose to brainwash us into believing something, they can do it. Some politicians are clearly better at brainwashing us than others. Currently a majority of Canadians do not support the mission in Afghanistan. But at the beginning, the majority did support it, no? Yes but the mission differed then or at least that's the perception. Yep, perception is all that matters Precisely! And in the next election, how Dion is ultimately perceived will be the main determinant of the outcome. Canada's perception of Duceppe, Layton and Harper isn't likely to change one iota...whatever an iota is.

Our politicians did push the Bush agenda...at least one of them did. Harper even went on US television to let Americans know where he stood. Furthermore, Harper claimed that most Canadians outside of Quebec supported the invasion of Iraq. Here's the story: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads= What a quagmire we'd be in if this so-con had been Prime Minister then. We would be just where the Americans are. We are still with them in Afghanistan. My point was that Canadians are not a whole lot smarter than the Americans and if our politicians choose to brainwash us into believing something, they can do it. Some politicians are clearly better at brainwashing us than others. Currently a majority of Canadians do not support the mission in Afghanistan. But at the beginning, the majority did support it, no? Yes but the mission differed then or at least that's the perception.

Yeah the Americans have no clue what they are doing. Canadians got it right. We know how to function.. Vive le Canada Yeah, let's steal ideas from the US. Let's see, 8.7 trillion dollars, the largest national debt in this history of the world. More people in jail per capita for drug possession than any other country in the world. But then again, perhaps you view their successful invasion of Iraq as a model of how to function...

Who cares what socialists think? Socialists are voters two. If half of the NDP vote goes to the LIberals, we will have a Liberal majority govenment. For this to happen, Dion will have to move the Liberals to the left on a number of positions. In doing so, he runs the risk of losing former PC voters who supported Martin. On the other hand, putting a wealthy, tax-cutting, pro-business industrialist like Martin in the leader's chair didn't buy the Liberals very much. Martin seemed to get many of his economic ideas from Preston Manning. So maybe appealing to the more moderate NDP supporters would be more productive than appealing to CPC voters. I suspect most CPC voters wouldn't vote Liberal even if Stephen Harper lead the Liberals.

Our politicians did push the Bush agenda...at least one of them did. Harper even went on US television to let Americans know where he stood. Furthermore, Harper claimed that most Canadians outside of Quebec supported the invasion of Iraq. Here's the story: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads= What a quagmire we'd be in if this so-con had been Prime Minister then. We would be just where the Americans are. We are still with them in Afghanistan. My point was that Canadians are not a whole lot smarter than the Americans and if our politicians choose to brainwash us into believing something, they can do it. Some politicians are clearly better at brainwashing us than others. Currently a majority of Canadians do not support the mission in Afghanistan.

What if at some time in the past we had a referendum on race equality. The question could have been: "Now that slavery has been abolished and blacks are free to exist in society we believe that blacks should have the same protections and benefits enjoyed by everyone. Do you think.... Choice #1 We should allow blacks into 'our' schools, restaurants, etc. Choice #2 Blacks can have their own schools, restaurants, etc which will be the counterparts of the traditional white establisments." I think choice #2 would have won overwhelmingly in the past as well...good thing we don't hold referendum on human rights issues. Seggregation isn't the answer Betsy. Canada has chosen equality and tolerance...good on us. Unfortunately there will always be Canadians who look to the US as a model of how to function.

That might work. However, decriminalizing pot would make more sense. Yes, finding alleged victims of those who possess a gram of marijuana while not completely impossible, could be a challenge. Perhaps one could even argue that the taxpayer-funded courts and police forces have more pressing issues than arresting and convicting people for simple possession. Maybe there are better ways to spend our money. However an economic argument could be made for keeping the legislation as is. Those with a criminal record for simple possession of ANY quantity of marijuana are now permanently barred from entering the US. This is true whether they do jail time or not. They'll spend more of their hard-earned $CAD in Canada. Maybe that's why so-con Harper favours criminalization for possession of any quantity of marijuana.

Our politicians did push the Bush agenda...at least one of them did. Harper even went on US television to let Americans know where he stood. Furthermore, Harper claimed that most Canadians outside of Quebec supported the invasion of Iraq. Here's the story: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads= What a quagmire we'd be in if this so-con had been Prime Minister then.

Really, Norm. By "most Liberal MPs," do you mean "somewhere less than half of them"? Because if not, then the vote should have been defeated easily. Kimmy, you have a unique mathematical ability or a short memory. 149 MPs voted to extend the mission in Afghanistan. Of those 149, 30 were Liberal MPs. I know it's incredibly hard to believe but there are more than 120 CPC MPs. The majority of Liberals did NOT vote to extend the mission. Source: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0518?hub=Canada Harper should have allowed more time on this debate. If he had, the outcome might have been different.

Only one problem; what productive work that wouild benefit the Canadian people could he do for the government? He could be Canada's next ambassador to Syria. Correction. Make that Canadian Consul to Syria.

A bisexual man cannot marry a man BEFORE the same sex legislation was passed. He can only marry the woman! That's right. Before the legislation, half the bisexual population lived in sin!

Only one problem; what productive work that wouild benefit the Canadian people could he do for the government? He could be Canada's next ambassador to Syria.

Your worried your car insurance will go up because of same sex marriage? If it comes to the States (as it has partially in VT, MA and NJ) quite worried about that. That answers post before yours as well. What if there were evidence that married gays and lesbians had lower accident rates than single gays and lesbians. Would you view that as an argument in favour of legalizing same sex marriage in the US? Or do economic arguments only apply when they favour the same sort of discrimination that you favour? Suppose there was evidence that people of a particular race, religion or ethnicity had higher accident rates. What do you think are the chances that any North American automobile insurance company would charge that group higher rates?

He did some reforms in the senate by appointing an unelected friend a senator and a minister responible for over $10 BILLION of our tax dollars. That was just 2 weeks after he got elected on a promise of an elected senate. You're so cynical Saturn. It's not as though this was just any old unelected friend. Fortier was also his unpaid campaign manager for the leadership of the Conservative Party. It was payback time. And when Quebecers get payback, it's big time. Plus, as Harper pointed out at the time, he "needed" a Montreal MP. Good thing Fortier didn't live in Chibougamou, Quebec. Even Harper supporters wouldn't have bought the bs that he needed a Chibougamou MP. And Harper's claim when he bribed Emerson with a cabinet position that he "needed" a Vancouver MP will yield him as many votes in BC as Fortier will win for him in Quebec.

Really, Norm. By "most Liberal MPs," do you mean "somewhere less than half of them"? Because if not, then the vote should have been defeated easily. Kimmy, you have a unique mathematical ability or a short memory. 149 MPs voted to extend the mission in Afghanistan. Of those 149, 30 were Liberal MPs. I know it's incredibly hard to believe but there are more than 120 CPC MPs. The majority of Liberals did NOT vote to extend the mission. Source: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0518?hub=Canada

Deja vu. Exactly the same arguments were made when alcohol was illegal in the US but legal in Canada. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_i...e_United_States A quote from the above link: " * While the manufacture, sale, and transport of alcohol was illegal in the U.S., it was not illegal in surrounding countries. Distilleries and breweries in Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean flourished as their products were either consumed by visiting Americans or illegally imported to the U.S. * The Ku Klux Klan strongly supported Prohibition and its strict enforcement [1]. * Carrie Nation of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union fought for prohibition by walking into saloons, scolding customers, and using her hatchet to destroy bottles of liquor. Other activists enforced the cause by entering saloons, singing, praying, and urging saloon keepers to stop selling alcohol [2]. * Joseph Kennedy, father of John F. Kennedy, smuggled alcohol from Canada to the US and built a sizable fortune both during and after Prohibition. " Carrie Nation and the Ku Klux Klan ultimately lost the battle. So will Stephen Harper. Except for so-cons, Canadians are not inherently prohibitionist.

The market. The market should decide whether people go to jail?

Great idea Betsy. I think Harper should propose this question as part of his platform in the next election. I'll bet Harper's strategists haven't even considered it. What I especially like about your referendum question is that you've left out the lesbians. I guess even Harper agrees that lesbians should marry, just not those gay perverts. Maybe he views lesbian sexual acts as less perverted. It's difficult to know how some religious extremists think. You failed to mention the bisexuals and transgenders! In your views they're not allowed to marry? Bisexuals and transgendered people could marry BEFORE the same sex legislation was passed. Homosexuals (gays and lesbians) could not.

This is the perfect example of why gov't by referendum is a bad idea. True enough. Let the politicians decide. Stephane Dion and most Liberal MPs favour the Liberal decriminalization bill which would have been passed had the Liberals not lost the January election. The BQ and NDP favour decriminalization. The Green Party favours outright legalization but will support decriminalization as an interim position. Stephen Harper favours criminalization for even simple possession, i.e., any quantity of marijuana below 30 grams. I'm not sure where other CPC MPs stand but I'd be surprised if socially liberal BC MPs like David Emerson and James Moore opposed decriminalization. Even BC MP Stockwell Day once mused he'd likely favour decriminalization. So if you don't want the people to decide because you think they're just not smart enough to make the prohibitionist decision you want, you should at least let the politicians decide. And if you think neither the people nor the politicians should decide, who should?

Great idea Betsy. I think Harper should propose this question as part of his platform in the next election. I'll bet Harper's strategists haven't even considered it. What I especially like about your referendum question is that you've left out the lesbians. I guess even Harper agrees that lesbians should marry, just not those gay perverts. Maybe he views lesbian sexual acts as less perverted. It's difficult to know how some religious extremists think.

I think the fact that you can't really even figure out his history is telling of your idea the he's a Socon simply because of his position of weed and thats about it. Harper never fought against Manning in the 2002 leadership race, it was against Stockwell Day, who Harper routinely attacked for being supported by religious elements. OK, it was Stockwell Day, not Preston Manning who so-con Harper fought for the leadership. How does that make Stephen Harper an outsider?

True enough. "A poll by Zogby International found that 41% of Americans agree that “the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol: it should regulate it, control it, tax it and only make it illegal for children.” http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/pressroom/p...se/pr062403.cfm In the same year, 2003, that Zogby Internation released their US data, SES Research released Canadian data. The Canadian data indicate that 69% of Canadians favour decriminalization of marijuana. Only 25% oppose it: http://www.queensu.ca/cora/polls/2003/Febr...inalization.pdf So I agree with you. Let the American people decide on US drug policies. That's democracy. And let the Canadian people decide on Canada's drug policies. But don't let the US government decide on Canada's drug policies. That's not democracy.

Harper an outsider? He was leader of the Canadian Alliance Party when it merged with MacKay's Progressive Conservatives. He fought against Preston Manning for leadership of the Canadian Alliance in 2002. He was a Reform MP under Preston Manning from 1993 to 1997. Being a Reform MP then Alliance MP then Conservative MP in Ottawa is not most people's idea of an outsider. But perhaps you have a different definition of outsider. For example, his so-con, anti-libertarian positions on some issues make him an outsider relative to most Canadians.

I think you meant to put that the other way around: $1000 publicly, $500 privately. No, I meant what I said. Collective purchasing of services can provide substantial cost reductions. I am asking him if he'd rather pay more privately if there was an option to pay less publicly. Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. I pay less for public car insurance in Vancouver via ICBC than motorists in Edmonton or Calgary do for equivalent (same vehicle, same driving record) insurance. Alberta rates were cheaper a few years ago but now they've overtaken BC rates. Alberta insurance salesmen and their companies must be raking in nice profits.

Do they have data supporting those differentiated rates? What are the statistics? Do the they also have date for single and for "married" gays? Shoudn't married gays enjoy discount insurance rates compared to that of single gays? Could it simply not be that people in a stable marital situation have less accidents, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. If so, SSM could lead to greater stability of the couple and hence greater road security. Then, everyone should be for SSM just for its value in increasing road security and making a few less casualties each year. Some insurance companies have lower rates for smokers but do we want society to operate on the principles of insurance companies? \No, but I'm worried that my rate discounts may well go away as a result of SSM, since the characteristics that made married couples a better casualty risk no longer exist (and no, Jdobbin, I wasn't referring to life insurance). Why would ssm in Canada affect US insurance rates?