betsy

Don't get me started. Suppose I'm a parent and suppose I want to put my kid in, say, piano lessons: where's my money? Why are some activities more important than others? We have problems with children getting obese. At least Harper is trying to give incentives for physical fitness...for in the end, Healthcare willl be shouldering expenses for obesity-related problems. We already see a rise in diabetics among children.

What about welfare cheques? What about child allowance? There's no way we can determine if it goes on food, booze or drugs! No one's keeping tabs.

Feminism. The single-income family is no longer the norm. Two-income families have more money, so they're willing to pay more to get that dream house, etc. It's supply and demand, the market has reacted, and single-income families just can't compete. Ahhh. So it's wanting to have it both ways. Some couples postpone having children in lieu of getting their dream house first and getting established.

But who says he's going to be a criminal just because he's been born to that kind of circumstances? A good number of success stories actually started on those dire backgrounds. Are you saying that all children born to a single mom, into poverty, with no father around, no social net, will end up criminals...therefore we ought to slaughter them before they're even born?

Don't forget too that aside from this $1200 help from the government, there's still that Fitness sschool/sports assistance to be doled out.

If parents would still pay for childcare, how much are they going to pay? Right now, parents who are not qualified for any subsidies....meaning, those who have to pay the whole amount...have to pay DOUBLE the rate of what is normally charged by their competitors. Parents who used to be subsidized...and had suddenly found themselves no longer qualified (meaning, they had improved their financial situation and are no longer dependent on the system) find that they either have to pay the ridiculous padded amount or remove their child from his familiar environment, friends and caregiver. This system is crippling and counter-productive! Instead of encouraging and supporting parents to become independent...they are penalized for it! It encourages people to become dependent.

I'm definitely there with you! As a taxpayer, why should I shoulder the PADDED expenses of a National Childcare when they charge double the amount of regular childcare among competitors? That is why parents who don't qualify for subsidies shun away from the public-funded daycares now, because of the ridiculous rate they charge. Of course, parents wanting a home environment is another story. And I don't even have any children of my own. And running a daycare as a home-based business, I have to help (I pay my taxes), financially support my competition which already have the full endoresment/support by the government AND enjoys the monopoly of a segment (subsidised parents) to boot! Why do people have children if they cannot afford to raise them? Some like to have it both ways...mothers want to have a career at the same time wanting to have children, which they end up demanding taxpayers to support! I never had anything to do with their decision to have children. No one consulted me. Why do I have to pay for their decision?

I'd like to see a very tough law on youth crimes....including first time offenders. I say giving them a realistic experience of how real jail time will be like will be a better deterrent for repeat-offenders, and may really help the youth to turn his life around. Harsh, (no kiddie-gloves) boot camp should be it! Include intense trade learning so they can have jobs when they come out.

There is nothing wrong about a better language training to shed accents. As long as it is not mandatory! That is a practical suggestion. I suffer from a strong accent. Sometimes people just pretend to understand me....for they are too polite or afraid to offend me. But the fact remains that they did not understand what I was saying...thus it was like talking to the wall for me. I feel self-conscious of my accent at times. It knocks down confidence. If one needs to do more than just work as a dishwasher...then one ought to try various means to tackle one's weaknesses and "flaws". What Emmerson had just suggested above was to make it easy for immigrants to get some assistance in improving their language skills. So they can really compete out there...for better jobs and high-level positions! I don't see anything wrong in that. Illegal drug trade being linked to ethnic communities is a reality he only verbalized. We all know there is this problem so why can't one say it outright? How can we deal with this problem if we just skirt around the issue and beat around the bush? This problem is hurting the ethnic communities too.

You won't have to worry, America has the strength to invade Iran and this is what concerns me. If it were back in the WWII days, no problem, we win. But these days, we have to bring along our imbeded television crews to feed the media their life energy and if we so much as give a splinter to an enemy soldier dressed as a civilian, our asses are grass. I see it going something like this: Iran purchases enriched uranium from the Soviets. They make some power plants and wouldn't you guess this stuff makes great bombs too! Knowing they can have that kind of power, even if only to protect themselves from an assault, they make the bombs quietly while the U.N. take 12 years to come to a decision ( again ) and now we have another nuclear threat to deal with. So America invades, with smaller forces from the U.K., Canada, Japan, etc. backing them up. We cant bomb, that kills people. Wer cant assassinate, that's illegal. We can't wipe our asses with toilet paper containing arabic print because thats racist. We're screwed. After a few thousand deaths to our brave marines and a few more terrorists hit the U.S., we withdraw, leaving the Iranian people to govern Iran, and now we have one more country determined they can beat us and far fewer soldiers to defend us. Noone wants my suggestion at this pint but I'll slip one in here anyways. Leave them alone. Theyre not hurting anyone. Ifg they launch their one nuke, they can't hit anyone but maybe Israel that's of alliance to us. If they hit Israel theyre gone, like they never existed. Otherwise, we can introduce different, efficient ways to produce electricity that wouldn't counter as bombs. I really fear a war with Iran, they are a capable society, much more structured than Iraq, and if we attack them we might have to fend off Syria at the same time, as well as dealing with the current forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. If any of you have access to a map of the middle east, note the nice straight line these countries create, include pakistan whom we've had words with over the travel of terrorists and you'll see what we may be dealing with soon here. It is really scary, not to mention dealing with the terrorists already imbedded in various countries all over the world. At a drop of a hat, we could all be facing hostilities, incoming and from within. But then again...when you're talking of a fundamental fanaticism fueled by fervent, burning religious belief that seek to annihilate all those who do not share the same conviction, it's also damned if we don't act. Maybe it's for the good that all these tensions (including cartoon-related violence) boil over....if that's what it takes to show a glimpse...of what we could really be dealing with here in the not so distant future. As a woman, I surely don't wish to be under any rule that will reduce me to a chattel or any sharia law....if I am allowed to live at all.

We've got all sorts of contraceptives to prevent pregnancies. That is the answer to all of the above. How about this scenario? A single mom who has a child is offered a job. There's only one problem: No one can stay at home to babysit the child. What will she do? Get rid of the child? And if she already has two kids...or four....well, there's such a thing as "tightening your belt...or living within your means." I know, for some it means living hand-to-mouth....but that's reality. It boils down to priorities. Which is more important?

They say it has something to do with the softwood lumber.

I'm not sure if I heard it right on the radio just now. Harper will be sending out the daycare cheques in March. So the other parties won't be able to block it?

Well, I was wrong with my earlier post. Harper said Emmerson had been very loyal to Martin and he saw that he will fit right in with consevative views that's why he (Harper) called him. He also said that he's thinking of what will be good for BC. I guess with no leader in the party, can it still be said that this is unethical? This is not exactly like Belinda Stronach's case.

If it's any consolation, they said Emmerson was the one who approached the Conservatives.

From Vancouver? Apparently a star candidate of Martin, and a potential Liberal leader.

Another excerpt: Iran got tough – Blair just crumpled By Mark Steyn (Filed: 06/07/2004) “Likewise, Jack Straw. The Foreign Secretary goes to Teheran the way other Labour grandees go to Tuscany. He's got a Rolodex full of A-list imams. When in the Islamic Republic, he does that "peace and blessings be upon his name" parenthesis whenever he mentions the Prophet Mohammed, just to show he's cool with Islam, not like certain arrogant redneck cowboys we could mention. And where did all the ayatollah outreach get him? "We have diplomatic relations with Iran, we work hard on those relationships and sometimes the relationships are complicated," he twittered, "but I'm in no doubt that our policy of engagement with the Government of Iran… is the best approach." The only tough talk came from an unnamed official, briefing correspondents on the Iranian ambassador's summons to the Foreign Office for a diplomatic dressing down: "It was very much a one-way conversation," the FCO wallah assured the gentlemen of the press. Do you think that's true? Or do you think it more likely that it was, in fact, a two-way conversation with lots of cajoling and pleading on the British part and reminders that London and Teheran are supposed to be friends? Washington's position is clear: Iran is a charter member of the axis of evil. (Well, it's clear-ish: State Department types are prone to Jack Straw moments.) But London opted for "engagement" on the usual grounds that if you pretend these fellows are respectable they're more likely to behave respectably. In return, Britain's boys got hijacked and taken on a classic Rogue State bender. And the version being broadcast throughout the Muslim world is that Teheran swatted the infidel and got away with it. We Bush warmongers have grown fond of Mr Blair: often, he's a better salesman for American policy than the President. But in the Shatt al-Arab incident for once he was on his own, and Britain's Number One seed was unable to return a single volley. Iran is emboldened, and that's bad news for everyone else.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...7/06/do0602.xml

I mean, Iran.

Bush is pre-occupied with Iraq right now, and with the heavy grumbling from Americans, had to tippy-toe around this. I seriusly think that we'll wake up one morning and find out that Israel finally did Iraq in.

Excerpts from an article by Mark Steyn. "But, if I were President Ahmadinejad or the wackier ayatollahs, I'd be mulling over the kid glove treatment from the EU and figuring: Wow, if this is the respect we get before the nukes are fully operational, imagine how they'll be treating us this time next year. Incidentally, the assumption in the European press that the nuclear payload won't be ready to fly for three or four years is laughably optimistic. So any Western strategy that takes time is in the regime's favor. After all, President Ahmaggedonouttahere's formative experience was his participation in the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979. I believe it was Andrei Gromyko who remarked that, if the students had pulled the same stunt at the Soviet embassy, Tehran would be a crater by lunchtime. Does he mean it? Well, every risk has to be weighed against the certainty that Iran would use its nuclear capacity in the same way it already uses its other assets: by supporting terror groups that operate against its enemies. In that sense, whether or not America's at war with Iran, Iran's already at war with America." http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn22.html

Finding out how thats actually performed was the worst thing that the pro-choice movement could allow me to do. If you're going to tell the story, tell it all. First they induce delivery and deliver in breach with the baby's head still inside the mother. The baby's head is held in forceps, pierced with a scalpel and a vacuum inserted to suck the baby's brain from its head. Once the doctor completes that he crushes the baby's skull and finishes the delivery with the baby obviously stillborn. Tell me that's not the most inhumane thing one human has done to another. And from what I heard, they sometimes do this to a close to full-term baby. The doctor who would participate in this heinous murder ought to be hanged. This is a classic example of the twisted views of the liberal-thinkers.

I am not in favor of abortion, but that is because of my religious belief. Religion-aside, I still would like a very strict restriction on abortion. With all the sex education and tools of prevention from getting pregnant, there should not be so many unwanted pregnancies. We must take responsibilities for our actions. Parental responsibilities should not be dumped on the shoulders of taxpayers.

Have you got some indication that they are developing nukes? And you do know that homosexuals are put to death in Iran, don't you? So what's homosexuals got to do with this topic?

I definitely agree to all of the above! And it better be soon...don't give them the chance to hit first. I'm all for pre-emptive strike on this one!

For once I agree with you! Yes, it's not acceptable nowadays to send someone who will face the death penalty....or who would be likely to rot in jail that ain't as posh as Canada's Club Med. You'll never hear the end of all the whining from the bleeding hearts.