betsy

That there will be no more political party-appointed judges.

Yes, the word "marriage is not exclusive to one particular religion....however, practically MOST religions, if not all, define marriage as a union between a man and woman. Even though some religions practice bigamy, or polygamy...I've yet to find a bigamous or polygamous religion that recognizes SSM or partly SSM. That was why there was an uproar among different religious groups opposing the ruling. SSM is one classic example of a minority imposing its will...callously....upon the majority.

Right after Martin went public threatening to ban hand-guns (which I think there's really no need to), sales of handguns went sky-high that suppliers are out-of-stocked. A gun shop owner interviewed on tv said his sales right after Martin announced the ban was five times more than he sold in 5 years. He said he plans to send Martin a thank-you note. A crook said after Martin's announcement: "Oh good, then we're the only ones with guns! " Kidding aside, I think Martin is steadily being reckless.

You really think standard will go higher if a business....especially a taxpayers-funded business...has no competition? Hah! You are lulled into false security by the myth that these facilities are "inspected" and "monitored" every hour of each day, by conscientious "inspectors" who obviously reassure you that they ALL do a good job and are consistent and not slacking off. Hey, some parents will blindly buy that just to take away the "guilt" of having to work and leave their child in a daycare. As I've said before, the best inspectors would be the parents themselves. That's the only way you can have peace of mind as a parent. What monopoly have to do better? Where is the incentive? With National Child Care, you'll see the standard of care going downhill. It is inevitable. How can you place all children and accomodate care at all hours (including nights), without going over the adult-children ratio? Full-time, Part-time, Casual part-time, casual full-time, drop-ins, and of course there is the same needs for evenings and nights....these are not the employees I'm talking about. These are actual various needs of parents and children. How can they keep up with the ratio? How about week-end care? Holidays? How much will it cost to hire more careproviders without going over the budget and meeting all the needs at the same time? Right now for heaven's sake someone who works for an instituion said sometime they even include the COOK to count as an adult when they have over the ratio children. The expenses will be astronomical, especially you're talking unionized employees. What happens if there is a walk out? You know how the Liberals forecast their expenses...they always go way, way, way beyond! And end up as flops usually. So, will the number of children per adult rise? Of course. They'll cut corners! It will end up like our classrooms now. The faster you'll see care providers burnt out. So who monitors the abuses that will be more likely to occur from burnt-out employees? Harper's got the sensible plan. To ensure the standard, they should: * Treat the daycare industry as they treat the Food Industry. Everyone get a license directly from the Ministry, whether yoiu're small-time home daycare operator or a Day Nursery (meaning more than the allotted numbers of children in a regular home daycare) * The Ministry can randomly inspect, as would health inspectors randomly inspect food establishments. *Government should offer free periodical workshops/seminars free to everyone.

So maybe employees should wear gas masks as part of their uniform.

Of course it hurts! It does not have to hurt physically for one to know that his rights had been trampled. It is a religious belief to a lot of us...and/or an institution to most of us. Why don't the gay coin their own word in place of the word "marriage"? I don't think there is any objection from us that they should enjoy legal rights and protection. What we just want is to preserve the true meaning of the word "marriage". Why do they insist on wrecking what is considered sacred to most of us? I used to feel for gays...but now, it is clouded by a very deep resentment for I feel that they callously disregarded the religious meaning, callously trampling on my rights to religious beliefs....just to prove a point. And this government unceremoniously did the same, in the name of Martin's so-called "human rights". Taxpayers are funding for both. Why can't both enjoy the same rights? We are fighting for EVERYONE'S rights! Some points may have touched on religion....but it is still all about rights and freedom. Rights and freedom that are being toyed with. Right now some of you may be opposed to some particular case-by-case scenarios laid out. But my point is that once you open a can, anything can come marching out.

Thanks for the tip. Okay, it may not be minority imposition on the majority....but my point is, property rights had been tampered with. It may yet be taken to the Supreme Court as a challenge, and it may even be struck down....but don't you see what the poor property owner had to go through to protect his rights? The needless expenses of battling a powerful government, who has appointed court judges that give biased or questionable ruling anyway. Even if no restaurants exercise the option to be non-smoking, as a private owner of a private property....that is and it should remain an option. It is up to the private owner to decide which market he is trying to target since this is a business after all. It is bad enough for these private owners to compete with big corporations who can afford easily to satisfy the whims of a fickle government. A lot of these are small businesses. The government had them going through various loops (a separate smoking room, proper ventilation, etc..)...to which they all tried to comply....and after going through all the expenses of renovations and compliance to regulations, the government finally decided to scrap the whole thing and just imposed the non-smoking law! As for the existing employees, they can exercise their freedom of choice. When they took on the job, they knew what was involved. Now if they considered themselves finally informed as to the dangers of second-hand smoke...the option is still there. Stay and inhale...or find another job.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't know how. Above the reply box are a set of smaller boxes with font, size, color, http://, IMG, @, Quote, code What I've been doing was highlight the phrase or paragraph then clicked on "quote". It's not coming out right. Help!

What about giving rights to one group by taking away rights from another? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Give one good example of either. I won't hold my breath. Property rights: Smoke ban Though I understand the concern for health, nevertheless the simplest solution should have been the property owner, which is the owner of the establishment, should maintain his rights to choose which clientele he wants to cater to. After all, this business is his own investment. It is not funded by the tax payers money....therefore, although he caters to the public, it is not a public property. If he decides he want to cater to people who smoke, he must put a sign outside warning that this is a smoking bar/restaurant. People can and must exercise their freedom to choose whether to go in or avoid that place. The same goes for employees. When hiring, applicants must be forewarned that it is a smoking establishment. I am a non-smoker, btw. It would be different if cigarettes are illegal. But they are legal. Smoking is not a crime. So what the government had done was to take a drastic measure that took away from the owner of the property (tampering on his rights and freedom) to butter up to those who want to impose their will on others. No one is forcing the clientele to go to this owner's property in the first place. If the restaurants and bars will realize that there is a market for non-smoking, let them then choose if they want to cater to that market. This is just one of the new laws or regulations that I can think of right now.

What about the minority imposing its will on the majority? What about giving rights to one group by taking away rights from another? I understand that there is no easy solution to make Canada the perfect place for everyone.....but by just changing things around hastily just so to gain support and votes, and opening cans of worms, without really studying the consequences it will entail....the government is just muddying up the situation. This will really screw up everyone later on. If rules by majority is not acceptable, then we should not have democracy?

Yes, it may seem to be a tool. That the cops would know who has a gun in their name before going to a household. But actually, that is one deadly mistake. It offers FALSE SECURITY. The cops will tend to put their guard down. Just look what happened to the cop who died recently. And she was even wearing a vest. As a deterrent? No way! The crooks are already well-armed...and of course they won't register. A crook is more likely to think thrice before hitting your home if he is not sure as to how you will react....if you've got a gun in there. The cops already said it is a waste of money. That it is better to spend that money to equip and increase our police force. You know, this is a fatalistic point of view that I'm going to say, but the registry is a one of the surest way of knowing and keeping track of who among the citizenry are armed. Some banana republics systematically remove arms from its citizenry before plunging into dictatorship.

If we are concerned about losing our rights and freedom, and altogether lose the Canada as our parents know it, you are right. There is a big cause for concern. No, this cause for concern does not come from the "what-if" scenario that the Liberals are saying if Harper becomes the Prime Minister. He is not the "boogeyman", The boogeyman is already in our midst, sitting in power....and changing the face of our country. You think we have not lost anything yet? No, I'm not harping about the money now....for money is nothing when it is compared to what we are gradually and systematically losing. The Liberals are relentlessly chipping away at our rights and freedom.....in exchange for votes and support from the minority groups. Freedom of Choice Freedom of Expression Freedom of Religious Beliefs Property Rights All these have already been tampered with. And the Liberals are not through yet. The people do not even get to decide. Judges that are appointed by the government gets to decide for us. Decisions are imposed on us. True democracy is gone. The younger generation do not even know the true meaning of democracy. How will they? They think this is democracy....it is all they've been exposed to and used to. I don't know about you, but I surely would want to bring back true democracy before it is gone forever. If we are concerned about the kind of environment we will bequeath to our children and grandchildren, we should start by tackling this immediate concern and preserve democracy in its true form.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes,because some moronic judge gave him the permission to carry the rifle...a high-powered rifle at that...even though they already know this man had been making threats and harrassing police women! Another Liberal appointee, I bet! Just shows you, gun registry does not do anything at all!

It may seem to some that his smile is forced. Who knows, maybe he is just one of those who are painfully uncomfortable in front of the cameras. Any normal person will definitely have a tougher time "posing" if he is aware that the very media that is now photo-shooting him, and the people who blindly believe the media demonizing him might be actively nitpicking for every physical flaws. OR maybe that is just the way he is naturally! I have seen some people borne with smiles that could use some help with a crowbar to make those teeth show....and some who have perpetual smiles even when they are not actually intending to smilel...well, their "smile" just plastered there without them realizing it at all. Somehow I'm reminded of an awful yet sickeningly sad yet powerful scene in a movie. Have you seen the old movie PLATOON btw? You know the part when this GI soldier found a mentally retarded man in a village who sported that "retarded grin" on his face? The soldier proceeded to beat the daylights out of him...and throughout the beating, the retarded man was still "grinning". Finally the soldier just shot him in the face to wipe out that grin. What I am saying is that sometimes, mannerisms (such as nervous ticks, etc..,) and other physical impediments, which we cruelly make fun of, are actually considered handicaps by those who actually suffer them. For a supposedly TOLERANT society that we have become, thanks to the achievements of the Liberal-minded media and society, why the obsessive focus in a person's inability to reach the "SET STANDARD" by these very people as far as a smile goes? Who are these people who rate a smile? What are their qualifications to make them credible experts? A "smile" is in the eyes of a beholder. You may see Harper's smile as "forced"....I don't. I see a "nervous smile" on Martin that somehow convey to me that he is panicked or desperate, and I know that others don't. Layton has a charming mischievous smile. BTW, what does smiling have to do with running a country? With all the sleaziness and corruptions that's been happening left and right in the past several years, I say maybe it is time for less shallow posing and preening, and get down to the nitty-gritty of cleaning up the mess! Give me a scowling guy anytime, as long as he will do his job right as my Prime Minister! Smiles mean nada to me! That was not a debate. That was some sort of a panel discussion. Like you, I was not impress with the format for I want a real debate....arguments and rebuttals! I found that format went well for Harper since this time, he was able to lay out the party's policy. I was able to understand what the CP have to offer. In the past election, being a gentleman I guess he could hardly explain his policies for his opponents were trying to drown him out with their endless banshee screeching....which actually is the special tactical weapons of those who are either losing in the logical point or sensible arguments, drown out the other's voice so he could not be heard. Mike Duffy had media guests commenting after the debate and most of them said that Harper was at least able to bring out his real alternative policy. I found Martin struggling. His warrior-speech about his passion for Canada...well, the same media said that it was obviously rehearsed. Oh my God! I can't believe you said that about wanting to whack the smirk! Just like Platoon? Actually his policies are sensible. He stressed being "realistic" in expenditures. Unlike the scary spendings of Martin policies (a few weeks before the elections suddenly he's doling out funding left and right like as if there's no tomorrow. And who do you think will pay for all these? I'm tired of taxes, taxes, taxes..and more taxes hidden in words such as "registration fees") Anyway, there's a good chance that Martin's promises will be broken again ( Liberals had become adept at promising you the moon while looking at you straight in the eye)...or almost definitely they will be another hastily ill-planned schemes and programs....another waste of tax-payers money. Years from now we'll most probabaly be having another inquiry, and Sheila Fraser will be bringing down her wrath asking where did the money go? Childcare - what is wrong about letting the parents decide where they want to take their children? Why does the government need to control and take away that parenting decisions from parents? I am in the childcare business. Some parents do not want to "institutionalize" their children at an early age. Media and so-called childcare experts had demonized homecare providers like me steadily....just so to sell the idea of National Child Care. Parents want stability for their children. There's a big turn-over of staff from bureaucratic institutions and agencies...and it's not purely because of the pay. It is because of the bureacracy involved....and they're getting burnt out at a fast rate. I had children who went through the pains of divorce and during those turbulent times when their world suddenly shifted, coming to me seem to be the only thing stable at the time. Harper's policy is more advantageous for everyone....no monopoly by bureaucracy on this, meaning careproviders like me will still have a chance to earn our income. Harper's policy will foster a healthy competition...careproviders (institution and private) will be competeing, therefore standards of care will improve and keep everyone on their toes if they want to be in the ball game. But the main thing is that parents will have a range of choices....they don't have to do what the government dictates as to how they should raise their children. Every parent will benefit! Call it a tax-cut or whatever....labelling is moot as long as it offers a break. As for "unmonitored situations", let me ask you....who will monitor the ones who are supposed to monitor just so we know that they're doing their job, and doing it right? The best ones to act as monitors will be the parents themselves! If they want a real peace of mind, drop by un-announced to your daycare at different hours of the day until you are confident that your child is in good hands. When I was with a licensing agency funded by the government, I only got "monitored" once a month, and the kind of "monitoring" depends on the individual. One "monitor-er" just reads a questionaire from a sheet of paper to which I answer yes or no. Finally I said, "you know that I'm only saying what I know you want to hear." What a joke! One "monitor-er" treated it like a social visit...boy did we ever sat down for a good gossip! Guess what too! They do go over the ratio sometimes....when a careprovider suddenly gets sick, they have to place those children elsewhere...I ended up with more than 5 on few occasions. Oh yes, the Ministry "monitors" these agencies too...once a year. The directress will warn us when the season for Ministry inspection will come up so we will be "on our toes". The agency is actually nothing more than an 'employment agency". A "middle-man" that is driving the cost of daycare (which is no problem since the taxpayers are the ones paying for this) sky-high. And the bureacracy is pathetic! The petty power trips. One "monitor-er" obviuosly was not warm towards me and looked under my sink. She did not find any hazardous cleaning products....but guess what, she just want to assert her "power". She told me I should remove the big container of cider vinegar because the children might drink it. Oh well, if she looked at it that way, what can I say....but the ridiculous part is she did not say about the big container of cooking oil and the garbage container! See how stupid some of these "monitor-ers" are? And you think parents will feel safe with these kind of mentality going around? Military defense - well, I don't know much about the technicalities of defense but I sure hope so that our military will not have to go through the humiliating process of "hitching a ride" with our neighbor just to get to a destination. Especially now, after Martin called the kettle black, who do we call when we need a ride? I'm all for improving our military! I want the best for our boys! And girls. GST - realistic target! Attainable and believable! Did the Liberals promise anything about the GST again? ,Oh my God! Review all the so-called achievements and wasteful boondagles! The word "LIBERAL" actually means, control, control, control. In that order. It also is defined as "you will live your life the way I think you ought to live your life because I say it is good for you." Also known by the moniker, "BIG BROTHER". See the word "MONITOR." Another definition is, "forget about your freedom to choose. Just do as I say!" Followed by, "Rights? Of course you have the rights! You have the right to remain silent because anything you say will be interpreted to mean you are intolerant and a bigot. Hah!" And this definition, "having the knack for word-play and word-twisting, and the genius mind for making long, passionate speeches that spellbinds but upon closer and sober reflection, did not say much at all." , Is it banned? The group who feels entitled to help themselves with taxpayers money! OOOOO, scary! Got that from the new Liberal ad? So what else is new? You forgot the one that says, "women will have to go back to the kitchen, barefooted to boot!" You know, I say the Liberals are doing a great job in one thing: SCARE-MONGERING. Ciao.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> You've got a point that it was the courts who sentenced Sven, but still....when we talk of integrity...and integrity is one of the biggest issue here, since Layton was really laying it on Martin about the Liberals acts of theft, his outraged accusation somewhat rings hollow. I think we cannot really compare being "right-wing" or religious to theft. There is a big difference between beliefs/opinion and a criminal act. Well, if we base our opinion on what we want to believe or what we want to be true, it only follows I therefore can safely assume that it's only natural for all the other candidates to put a spin on what they say.

Well, we know that when a member of your party stomps on a George Bush doll with their boot, then stabs it in the eye like a psychotic meth addict on the state-run taxpayer-funded CBC, that is not a fireable offence... The pic is here and if you want to read what Klander wrote before he killed his blog, the cache is here. This was not some "Joe Blow" who started up a blog, it is a senior executive in the Liberal Party. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, that racist bigot!

CTV broadcasted it on the early morning of 24th (?), about this new Liberal ad showing Harper and Duceppe leaning close together, allegedly plotting their evil scheme. Apparently that photo was taken from a memorial service for the Holocaust ceremony, and both Layton and Martin were also in the same event. The Jewish community was outraged that the Liberals would use such an occasion for their wicked, evil purpose. The president of B'nai Brith was demanding an apology from the Liberals. Anyone heard about this news? Any update on it?

Oh no, He mentioned hand-gun control!!! Another registry???

It is a waste of money. And we've seen the amount of money wasted and stolen by this party over the years. Arrogance? Delusion? Plain stubborness? Why won't Martin just scrap it?

Actually it has been verified Sven suffers from bipolar disorder. While that does not exclude him from responsibility of criminal activity, it can partly explain his actions. And if you weigh this one mistake against all the good this man has done for human rights in this country, it would be a unfair judgement. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But you see, where do we draw the line if we weigh criminal acts against what a man had done? If he is indeed suffering from this dis-order, then he should opt not to run for office. If he has bipolar dis-order and therefore he could not help himself, how can I trust him with tax-payers' money? After all, this is all about trust. We had seen the Liberal justifying acts of de-frauding the nation (all the way from Chretien)...that is why the polls indicate people want a change of government. With NDP accepting Sven to run under NDP, it's blatant acceptance that justifying a wrong is okay. So...I guess there's a good chance that with the NDP, it's going to be the same-old, same-old!

I work with children. Children, especially the boys at a certain age don't want parents hugging them. Oh, that is just too "un-cool", especiallyand definitely not in public! I have a four year old boy who shrieks and squirm away from his mommy whenever she attempts to kiss him. At least Harper's kids were not shrieking and running away. Imagine the ribbing those kids will get from their peers in school.

What is it about Harper that the media and other people are complaining about? I look at the guy on tv and I don't get why they're endlessly "harping" about his looks. Okay, let's get shallow and focus on the "looks". They say he doesn't reach across, and he lacks warmth. I see a dignified young man. During the debate, he certainly reached across to me revealing his policies. When Mike Duffy commented on this criticism of him, to me Harper's reply was just so right. "I don't do the song and dance routine". C'mon, we all know politicians all get down to take advantage of phot-ops during election time....most of them going overboard with their theatrics, so saccharinely sweet and charming. You see them cuddling children, embracing single moms, group-hugging with pandas at the zoo, blatantly buttering up to women, singing Doris Day songs at Nursing Homes, leading gay-pride parades. Everything is just so "rehearsed" and "staged" and phony. So, are the people saying they want to be taken for fools, practically treated with contempt by these politicians who obviously think majority of the people are dumb enough to fall for these gimmicks? Well, I want my Prime Minister not to behave like the usual sleazy used-car salesman they always portray in the movies. I want my Prime Minister to have class...after all, he is representing my country.

We tuned in to the CBC for its classical music and the hourly report and let me tell you that we actually saw the big difference when that lock-out happened. We prefer the CBC during the lock-out, for it was just straight news reporting with no obvious slant. Same with the Ottawa Citizen. National Post tries to be center, but ocassionaly slips to the left. Hey, propaganda worked for dictators and oppressive regimes. They come in different forms....all aiming to brain-wash!

I'm referring to the two-tiered justice system, which apparently NDP is condoning. Sven Robinson confessed to theft ($35,000.? worth), and his way of justifying that? Stress. Tremendous stress! Tell that to practically everyone, especially those living in poverty, juggling children and a low-paying or non-existent job, single parents, etc.., And here is this "charmed" guy (from the perspective of practically everyone suffering from the conditions above), who had the nerve to run again. It's easy to get cynical about the justice system when all he got was a slap in the wrist, with no criminal conviction (to keep the coast clear for him to get back into politics, no doubt). If this were just about any man on the street who suffers from stress that he decided to rob a corner store, you think he will come off easily with not even a criminal record? For all Layton's talk about the so-called two-tiered system in the healthcare policy (which actually does not interpret that way when I listened to what Harper said), NDP just showed clearly that a two-tiered system of justice is perfectly alright, and downright supports it so. Of course, only the "privileged" gets that silky glove treatment. Now, that is scary!