betsy

Martin's action have shown that he cares more about KEEPING his party into power than the best interest of Canada. A few days before the election was called, he started his shopping spree for votes using taxpayers' money to fund his party's campaign....at a time when Canada was still reeling from the exposure of the Ad scandal, taxpayers money used to buy votes and suppport for the Liberal Party in Quebec! Since the Liberals came into power, Ethics and Integrity got swept out the door! I still remember a time when a politician, tainted with scandal or being investigated for some allegations would voluntarily step down until his name was cleared....for the sake of keeping the people's trust in our government. Now, they're already caught and exposed...but they still won't let go of their position. They just simply say "So what!" With all the BRAZEN corruptions and downright cronyism and shameful patronages, we already look like a Banana Republic....a rich Banana Republic. He defiantly imposed the will of a minority over the majority...on a moral issue. We have tax-funded biased media that work like Propaganda machines. Freedoms had been tampered with. And now he is intruding into Parents' rights. Getting all these young children to be raised in a government-monitored and government-funded facility. All these don't paint a very good future for our country. Things like these I used to read about the old Soviet Union! Yes, like when Martin suddenly openly criticized the US regarding environment issues, trying to use anti-US and anti-Bush sentiments to score point for his campaign. It was not for him to criticize since apparently, Canada had not met its own obligations regarding the environment! Whether we hate US or not....we have to acknowledge that we do trade with them! What was he trying to do? Why foster animosity? What was the point of his criticism against the US, if not for opportunistic political ploy to score points for the coming election. Yes you are right. The Liberals under Martin are no better than the Liberals under Chretien! Chretien had the Human Resources and the Hotel Scandal. Martin have the AdScam and Income Trust Leak....and he's just halfway the first half of his tenure as PM. What else might come out of the woodworks? Chretien had Ducross. Martin had Carolyn Parrish.....Scott Reid.....and Klander.

Martin had just recently forced me ....and the majority...to accept the new definition of marriage. :angry:

Excuse me, but please....don't blame others for your own decision. This reminds me of another key factor why we need a change of government. "Accountability." The lack of it. It is contagious. The young generation are now seriously afflicted with it. And who's spreading it????

No-fault divorce had really diminished marriage, that is why I referred to this latest blow to marriage as the final nail. Crusading against divorce is not the issue. This discussion stemmed from the SSM as an example of a minority group imposing its will on the majority. Some Liberal MPs were opposed to SSM. A couple of NDP MPs were also opposed to SSM, if I'm not mistaken, but were pressured to support the party's stance on the issue....or had voluntarily left the party(?). Liberals did not abdicate from their responsibility by giving the task to decide to the court....not because of wanting to avoid deciding on an unpopular issue. Martin simply wanted to make sure the law will pass, and knowing some of their MPs are opposed to it, they decided to ensure it by letting the court decide instead. Layton supported Martin in ignoring the majority. MPs were inundated by calls and protests from their constituents....the people! Some did not stop from there. They had taken out ads in various papers, demanding a referendum on the issue. You may not see how your heterosexual marriage is in any way affected by the SSM, that's your business. But there are other people besides you....a majority, in fact...who see differently from you. Some of them are homosexuals too. You know what, I wouldn't be surprised at all if a referendum was conducted among gays and lesbians...and find out that majority of them actually supports preserving the true definition of marriage. I can...and I was minding my own business enough to let anyone live the way they want to live. But I do mind when they turn to me and demand, "Okay, now let's change the way you believe."

Oh yes. I forgot about that plan of Harper regarding crime. Tis true, tougher sentences is a practical solution. And I would even suggest that they get the youths...especially the youths... on their FIRST crimes, and give them a good jolt. I bet a good dose of reality in jail will deter them to re-offend. Most heinous crimes on the headlines are perpetrated by the young. And by the looks of it, the situation is only getting worse. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh yes. I forgot about that plan of Harper regarding crime. Tis true, tougher sentences is a practical solution. And I would even support that they get those youths...especially the youths... on their FIRST crimes, and give them a good jolt. Most crimes on the headlines are perpetrated by the young. And by the looks of it, the situation is only getting worse.

I have not had the chance to really go in each and every official party sites and check out their stance on various issues. My knowledge and understanding of polices was derived from watching the first debate and listening to Mike Duffy Count Down discussions. From what I heard, I find that the policies of Liberals and NDP are practically similar. Only Harper had something different to offer as an alternative. Jack Layton was somehow trying to say that his policy is different, but different in what exactly? He tried to take credit for the NDP in pushing for the National Childcare....so that means with NDP, National Childcare it is. We know what Conservatives will do. His healthcare plans promises to cut the waiting list, so does the Liberals....but how exactly? He was busy pointing out how Harper is trying to put a two-tiered plan, instead of explaining how NDP will actually improve the situation. I, as a viewer, understood perfectly what Harper laid out was nothing like the two-tiered interpretation of Layton. I wanted to hear a laid out plan...not just a sweeping statement. If he did actually spelled out how he'll imrpove Healthcare, I must've missed it somehow. BTW, one of them mentioned about getting the doctors (immigrants) to be able to do their practice in Canada without going through all the bureacracy and red tape. Anyone remember who said this? It's either Harper (which I think it is) or Layton. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Harper laid out a plan that medicare will still pay for those essential treatments that are taken to private facilities. I like the practicality of that! A person in pain have a way to get treatment right away. A person who gets treated faster can go back to the workforce asap! Then there is the GST. Harper's plan is attainable and believable. I don't recall NDP's plan for GST. So when it comes to actual change, the choice is actually Conservatives or NDP/Liberal. But of course, this is not taking into consideration the track of records of the Liberals when it comes to corruptions and all the billions wasted on non-effective "Band-aid" approach on fixing problems. For a lot of voters out there, the choice now is between Conservatives and NDP.

"Allegation", isn't that the politically-correct word meaning Liberals' corruptions? If I'm mistaken, it must be because so many Libarals alleged-allegations have in the end been proven as corruptions indeed, that I tend to confuse the two together as meaning one and the same thing.

Ipsos Reid released a poll after the 2nd debate and one of the questions was: Which leader do you think was the most visually attractive? 36% - Stephen Harper 29% - Jack Layton 14% - Paul Martin 12% - Gilles Duceppe 9% - Don't know I don't put much stock in stuff like this, but thought I would post it for your interest (amusement?) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wow, I missed this! Thanks. I do find him attractive.

My knowledge of national and political affairs are not as much as some of you guys who post here. I am so skeptical right now, and I do have a lot of questions. 1. Are we really this rich? I mean, with all the incredible extravagance that had been done, all the billions gone...and all the staggering billions about to be spent.....can we really afford all that? If it is true that we are this rich, then why is our Healthcare system suffering like this? Is it possible that in reality, contrary to what the people in power claims, is it possible that we are actually not in that great shape, financially? 2. They say the economy is booming....but how come I see a lot of "going-out-of-business" signs here and there....a lot of empty "for lease" spaces in commercial places? News of big businesses reducing their staff, lay-offs, or permanently closing down? 3. If we are this rich, why can't the governemnt give us a break by at least reducing the taxes we pay? 4. I heard we even pay a gas tax on top of the GST we pay, is that true? They were talking about double-taxing.

Oh I do hope so. For the sake of the country I pray we have a change of government. If after all these strings of corruptions, scandals and incredible waste of taxpayers' money (which could've been better spent in much needed areas such as Healthcare), the Liberals still win....my God!. It will be hopeless!

As for that mom who forgot about her child... A public daycare forgot a child inside and left her overnight. And apparently it was not the first incident. Now why did that happen? How could they have missed a child in there? Could it be lack of communications? Inadequate procedures? Union-mentality workers who would not dare do a little bit more than what was required of them? "Oh, it's not in my job description." "Oh, It's 6.00 on the dot. If I go round to check will I get over-time pay?" For mistakes of a few rotten parents, why should we go to extremes in finding a so-called solution that will not eliminate the problem? It seems that all parents are being lumped as irresponsible and do not have the ability to make sensible judgements or decisions, regarding the quality of the daycare they want to put their child in....so the government will decide for them! So typically Liberal. Control and manipulations in everything. All I hear is "Who will monitor this? Who will REPORT this?"....gee, Canada is really sounding like the old Soviet Union. In places like the old Russia, children are taken to government-funded facilities at an early age to get brain-washed or "re-programmed". They're molded to think the way the government wants them to think, to believe what the government wants them to believe. If you want to really know what's going on in every household, then why don't we get just a tad bit more extreme and just put surveillance camera in every room of every household? FYI child molestations/abuse do happen in public daycares too. For some reasons, schools, daycares, orphanages or anywhere there are groups of children about....somehow, these places seem to be like magnets for pedophiles.

Tolerance....should swing both ways. Couldn't the gay community show tolerance to those who feel so strongly about the definition of marriage? Man and woman living for more than a year, isn't that called "Common-law marriage?" Anyway, the deed was done. I really did not intend to dig it up...it just came up as an example. However, I'll never forget it was the Liberals who put the final nail on the institution of marriage as we knew it, along with the support of the NDP.

The parents play a part in ensuring their choice of daycare (whether gov't-funded or private) comply to the Day Care Act. It is the responsibility of any responsible, caring parent. If they're happy with the quality and willing to play the price, I don't see anything wrong with that. Not necessarily. Check your local ad and see how many ECE grads and teachers have now opened up their own home daycares. Careproviders....for various reasons had chosen this as a small business and a lot of them offer quality care....at competitive prices in their community. A myth! Just because a place offers cheaper daycare does not necessarily mean they offer poor childcare service. It will not be impossible to inspect. So do a lot of these home daycares. They even go through fire inspection, CPR?First Aid, Health/Sanitation, take out their own Criminal Checks. Some of us even have our own Food Handler's Certificate, and have gone through various parenting programs. I'm telling you, there are a lot of quality home daycares out there who are into competition as far as quality is concerned. You've got a point there. Even if it is just randomly done, just like Food Inspectors would randomly inspect a food establish....just the knowledge that an inspector may come knocking will somehow help. Of course, nothing beats a parent who suddenly shows up unexpectedly on your doorstep in the middle of the day to see his son. Actually, that is the advice I would give to wary, nervous parents...especially the first-timers...who are so worried about leaving their children. As a parent, I will not just leave it to strangers...inspectors or not, to reassure me. I just can't be reassured that way. I will need to know for myself. Not necessarily true. Just because you have two or more adults in a room is not a guarantee. Sometimes, it is detrimental, especially if they both don't take their jobs seriously.....knowing no serious repercussions since they are well-protected by the Union....so there's more chances that gossiping or chatting away will happen. The possibility is there that the staff will be like a clique. Unfortunately, in some cases, yes. But that doesn't mean private home daycares do not feel any concern if they suspect any type of abuse. It depends on the individual actually, whether government-funded or not. There is no such thing as a private "monopoly". Privately operated business do not have the monopoly. Besides I do not mean that institutional daycares should be abolished. They are welcome as competition. But I do want to see a fair playing field for everybody. And with Harper's policy, we will have a fair playing field...a healthy competition that will no doubt include, pricing as well. It's a win-win situation for everyone, especially the parents, now that they can decide for themselves where to send their children. They might just even let grandma or Aunt Suzy take care of them. A monopoly has no competition. No competition will offer no incentives to maintain or do better....especially when staff are protected by the Union. There's no way they can accomodate all the various needs by the parents in terms of hours of operations, maintain standards and ratio and at the same time, staying within the budget. They will change the ratio of children per adult...and it will end up like our bulging classrooms now. This is another white elephant like the gun registry that we'll get stuck with. Yes. Or, administration will try to twist the standards around, behind Big Brother's back. Especially when the pressure is on to cut corners because they're going way over the budget? May happen. That's why as a parent you shop around. Once you see the standard lowering or not satisfiable, there is nothing to stop you from deciding, "Hey, I'm going to move my kid and give my subsidy to someone else who's offering better." Now if you're not happy with your daycare under the National Childcare, to whom will you complain? You think you won't go through various red tapes? You're going to bash heads with the Union for one. How long will it take? In the meantime, all parents of all these children are affected. In turn, all workplaces of all these parents are affected. They'll all most probably belong to one Union...so you're talking nation-wide. I'd say when you are held hostage like that by the Union, it will be cheaper to give in to whatever they demand. Usually an alternative plan had already been mapped out between parents and careprovider during the interview...just in case an emergency comes up. This has got nothing to do whether you work for the government or not. Working for an institution does not guarantee against such. I don't think any likely abusers will abuse any children in the presence of any observers. Children still get abused in public daycares. Pedophiles are more likely to seek work at places , where they can be and have access with children. Schools, daycares, orphanges seem to be magnets for pedophiles. Parents will know if the children are happy in someone's care. A mother at home may deal with 3 or 4 more difficult children. Same as a careprovider in an institution. But there is one thing the government worker deals with that the mother doesn't have to. Beaureacracy. Besides, people who usually decides to operate a daycare at home as a small business chose that profession for a reason. For some, just having your home-based business with no boss to deal with is rewarding enough....for some, it is the opportunity to be with their own children, while others, the chance to enjoy children. Reasons abound....but most careproviders like children that is why they chose that option. Right now, workshops and seminars are already provided to licensed agencies. So it is just a matter of extending the invitation to other careproviders....anyway, it is already there. It does not have to be monthly. It can be a yearly thing, just so careproviders can upgrade or reinforced their skills.

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.