Wilber

The question is, why does X prevent one side from acting or cause them to act in a totaly opposite manner. Religion may not be the real reason for some but it is the excuse they use to justify their actions.

Yup, all those things but it's also about keeping doctors. Training them for countries which put fewer obstacles in their way is not a solution. Our family doctor had a rant in the local paper yesterday. Even he says funding is not the problem, its the screwed up bureaucratic system that runs the system. Among other things the authority is too fragmented resulting in too little accountability and a whole bunch of frustration for those who work in it. There was a feature on the news the other day. One of the two OBGYN's in Campbell River immigrated from SA a few years back. For personal reasons they had to return to SA for an extended period then they returned to Canada and reapplied. While he went right back into practice the Federal bureaucrats have told them they have to start all over and in the meantime the rest of his family can't work in Canada. Australia has made him an offer with no strings attached and while he doesn't want to go, thinks he might accept for his family's sake. The town is now up in arms because there is a good chance they are going to lose 50% of their obstetricians because of bureaucratic bone heads. This is very much a sellers market when it comes to labour and we have to stop shooting ourselves in the foot at every level.

And it never fails to amuse me how the left is categorized and generalized as though they had no differences of opinion. Hmmmmm is that how the far right works? As far as Putin is concerned, it is time that someone put a stop (or try at least) to Bush. The rhetoric is ramping up and there doesn't seem to be any opposition coming from anywhere in the west. Steve will go along with whatever Bush decides so that counts us out to stand up for peace and freedom in the world. Be honest, thats the way many on both sides work. Americans will put an end to Bush all by themselves in 20 months. That is guaranteed. Congress will make life difficult for him until then. Putin may be there for the next 20 years for all we know. One thing Putin is not standing up for is freedom. However, the Russians do have reason to be nervous about the lack of peace in this region. It is right on their back door.

Given the history of the place, I think I would want to be in an armoured bulldozer no matter which side of the border I was on.

If so, he would be just out Liberaling the Liberals for a change.

It's estimated that over 100,000 people in BC can't find a family doctor. I don't know what the solution is but we sure as hell need more GPs. I think hospitals being competitive is not a bad idea, competition means service as well as cost. They would also have to find out what their services actually cost to provide. There is no reason they couldn't compete under the public system, at least in metropolitan areas where there is more than one hospital. Their funding would depend on how well they can attract patients. I believe they have started doing this in the UK with good results so far.

If this is a Canuck board, why does it have such forums as US Politics and Canada/US Relations? This forum would benefit if more Americans were on it.

BayLee

I am suggesting that a higher wages would increase the cost of anything produced in Canada but would not effect the cost of imports, making their products even more competitive and ours less. The cost will be born by Canadians not the Chinese. It might be worth considering which Canadians will be effected most before jumping into something like this. Should all those on fixed incomes get a similar increase? If not they will be the ones who suffer most from increased costs, not the affluent. These companies where people run CNC machines for $10, who do they sell to? Would they still be competitive if they had to pay $24? I think it could make a rather large pile of beans to many companies. Would many even stay in Canada if they had to do that or move offshore?

You keep dragging this one out. It's hard to put something out for bid when only one company builds what you need.

Higher wages allow people to buy more goods made in China. They drive the cost of Canadian produced goods and services up so that they are more expensive for anyone who doesn't benefit from the increased wage. Someone always pays and someone always benefits but it isn't always those who were intended to.

That may be so but they are probably the only two Republicans who would stand any chance of being elected at this point.

More nukes to double our generating capacity so that we can then all convert to electric heat and drive electric cars using electricity generated without using fossil fuels. Use reactors instead of natural gas to heat the water needed to extract the oil from the tar sands which we can then sell to countries like China and India who don't have commitments to reduce CO2. Buy uranium stocks. We'll all get rich and reduce our CO2 emissions at the same time. For all those who still haven't got it, I will echo what so many have said. The Kyoto agreement has nothing to do with pollution, it has to do with reducing CO2 emissions, the natural byproduct of breathing among other things.

This is exactly what you are doing. Science presents opinions based on the knowledge they have at hand. The courts make decisions based on the evidence put in front of them. They are all just opinions. Informed opinions to be sure, but just opinions. After all, at one time according to science and the authorities, the world was flat and the sun orbited around it. All any of us are dealing with here are opinions. We just don't know enough to have answers. Is a fetus a living thing? I think most would say it is. Is it capable of conscious thought and if so when, or is it on the same plane as a plant? We don't know although recent tests with twins in the womb indicate that it might be so, we are probably a long way from being sure, one way or the other. I see many similarities between this and the debate over the causes and effects of global warming. There are a great many opinions, some well informed and many not, but no one really has the answers. The best we can do is proceed with the knowledge we have at hand and hope we are doing the right thing.

Anyone with one good eye could tell you if the police car had been rammed. An experienced investigator could tell you how many times. If there was an officer in the car at the time, he would know it. It would not be difficult to verify or dispute this claim. No one is a criminal until they are convicted. That is fundamental to our system. Even for you. Regarding the latest incident, it was investigated by another police department which recommended charges. Those charges have been laid and it is in the hands of the courts. Even cops are entitled to due process. I haven't heard the Chief's comments but if what you say is so, it would seem he will get his wish. In this case at least, the system is working. Not as quick as you would like perhaps but what in our legal system does.

Unlike you and all the sources you quote, I don't say I know more. That is why I am pro choice.

Numbers out today, BC unemployment 4.3%. 5% is considered full employment. Tim Horton's is advertising for employees on the radio offering among other things a pension plan and medical benefits. London Drugs is advertising for employees on their sales receipts and as far as retail outlets go, it has always been a good place to work with decent pay and good benefits. That's one reason I am a loyal customer. I can't see why any Canadian would be upset when a part of the country is doing really well. After receiving equalization payments for a few years, we will be back to making them. I think I would rather have it that way. Why would any Canadian want it otherwise?

It blows me away that someone could say there is no life until the first breath is drawn. I'm pro choice but I there is no way I could convince myself that is a certainty. It seems the height of arrogance to me to make that kind of assumption. Please follow along, I am not saying that Wilbur, I am reiterating what the LAW says in Canada. They made that decision, not I. Their deliberations were actually very dynamic and all encompassing. It is an interesting read actually. Their findings were based on science, the medical community input, human rights, and other Canadian laws in regards to Rights bestowed upon Canadians with; why, where, when and how taken into consideration. Not taken into consideration was; personal opinion, morality beliefs, or religious input. And correctly so. That is not what you said. The Supreme court expressed an opinion and the law is based on that opinion. It could rule that the sun rose in the west and that would be the law but it would still be just be a law based on an opinion. Again, you cannot seem to separate the two. Just because you wish to believe something does not make it a reality, it just makes it your reality because you wish to believe it. I guess I am just not conceited enough to think that what I believe is the absolute truth. That is why I am pro choice.

It blows me away that someone could say there is no life until the first breath is drawn. I'm pro choice but I there is no way I could convince myself that is a certainty. It seems the height of arrogance to me to make that kind of assumption.

Sadly then, you must realize that no political party in Canada has a completely democratic way of selecting candidates. We don't have a completely democratic form of government either, far from it but I have a problem with any system that advocates exclusion as a form of democracy.

The assault charge was made after a recommendation by different police force which had investigated the complaint. The "non moving stolen car" was a stolen SUV which was in the process of repeatedly ramming another police car that had blocked the SUV's way and had a police officer in it.

This is where we differ. I do assume that.

This such a hot button issue that it is a perfect example of how people will try and use their interpretation of science to justify their philosophy. The fact is, science and philosophy have nothing to do with each other. One is the reality of nature. The other is the invention of man. There are no rights in nature. Rights are the exclusive creation of man. A right comes about when enough people can exert enough pressure to make a philosophy a policy. Over time that policy becomes entrenched enough to be regarded as a right. A right is nothing more than that. It is not some sacred missive handed down by some superior intelligence. A case in point. In BC mammograms and abortion on demand have become regarded as a womans right and are paid for by the public system, yet if a man wants periodic PSA screening for prostate cancer (a simple blood test that indicates the possibilty of the cancer most responsible for deaths in men) he will have to pay for it himself. There is no philosophical or scientific reason for this discrepancy, just the degree of activism. So much so that even in a political system dominated by males, it is a glaring example of how men can get the short end of the stick when it comes to preventative medicine.

I see, the people who produce oil are the bad guys and the people who need, buy and consume it are the good guys. Now I've got it.

The political parties don't have to subscribe to a democratic system in the selection of their own candidates. Just what we need, more political parities which don't believe in democracy. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for these parties to look at why they can't attract more women rather than prohibiting people from running.