Wilber

Government debt is my pension - yours too. Many retired persons and pensions need to have a low risk stream of income that are traditionally provided by gov't bonds. Some pension funds are having problems as the supply of gov't bonds dries up and they are forced into riskier forms of investment.You could look at gov't debt as a social security plan for wealthy and/or unionized Canadians paid for by working taxpayers. Exactly, you are asking people who don't have private or company pension plans to subsidize those who do by paying more taxes to carry public debt. If pensions are your only concern it would be more equitable to pay off the debt and use the money saved on interest payments to bump up CPP so it benefits everyone who works and pay taxes.

Government debt is my mortgage, yours to.

Debt comes from spending money you don't have. Isn't that the definition of excess spending?

I was looking at the TDI... I love the efficiency but test driving it, it lacked performance over the 2.0T considerably, I didn't try the base model. Sure it's nice to cut back your emissions by a little, but if it's a major sacrifice in the fun you have driving your car, I'll pass. The time I spend on the highway I couldn't imagine dealing with the sluggish response in passing... when they develop a quicker, more responsive diesel, I'll give 'er a try. That's what it comes down to, me, and most people in society, aren't willing to sacrifice much in the name of greenhouse gases. I'd rather spend the money planting trees or buying blue-green algae for my backyard pond. I have not found that. Mine is a 2004 Sport TDI, the old body style with the latest 100HP engine. Recaro style seats, T steering wheel, suspension, wheels and tires. While it is way down on HP compared to the 1.8T it produces slightly more torque so it is very responsive in traffic and pulls strongly out of corners but won't win many drag races. I find it quite enjoyable to drive. Mine is also a 5 spd manual and that makes quite a difference in driveabilty and economy, IMO. I've drove a 2003 auto once and wasn't impressed. The new car is bigger and heavier and they have increased the size and power of the gas engines so maybe it is time to do the same for the diesel. Mind you for less than $800 you can buy a plug in module that will increase power and torque by 40%. That's one nice thing about diesels, it is very easy to increase their power output by reprogramming fuel delivery. A bonus is that most diesel programmers actually increase mileage during normal driving because they change the timing.

It is as much a moral issue as anything with me. Not paying off debt is handing future generations liability for money you have spent. Not trying to address that in your lifetime is immoral in my opinion.

I have a Jetta diesel. $1500 option over the standard gas model. Driving is mixed town and rural. Average mileage 50-53 MPG (imperial gallons). It gets better highway mileage than a Prius but not as good in the city. Still, it is very efficient and much less complicated than a hybrid. Diesels are far more civilzed than they used to be, produce 20% less CO2 than gas engines and with the latest emission controls and new ultra low sulphur fuel they are also a lot cleaner.

On the other hand, reducing debt will make a future surplus more likely. Not if it is used to pay off debt. Once that is done, I would agree with you.

Speaking of using, ever notice that NDP'ers are quick to run to the Middle East and "observe" when it comes to anything involving Israel, meeting with the PLO etc, so quick to point the finger when in comes to so called "disproportionate" responses to terrorist acts but when it comes to visiting Canadian troops who are fighting and dieing in a real war, in their country's name, they are nowhere to be seen. They don't have the guts to look them in the face and say the same things to them as they do to the media at home.

You got that right. Further more any single one of them could've gotten out of their mission to Afghanistan by simply claiming their family needed them right now or just about any other reasonable excuse. IOW, the soldiers in Afghanistan are members of a volunteer army who more-or-less volunteered to go to Afghanistan as well. Any one of them could've opted out and been replaced. . This is something I am not entirely clear about. I understand it is so with the reservists but don't know if it holds true for the regulars. Perhaps Army Guy could enlighten us.

They don't agree with you. Their comments are not in line with these Senlis guys you prefer. First of all, you don't speak for soldiers. Secondly, you have no idea what I believe. I've presented the findings of the Senlis Council. It's the only think tank that I know of with offices on the ground in Afghanistan. Your claim that I'm calling our soldiers liars is puzzling, as is your claim to know what I believe and what all Canadian soldiers believe. You're right I don't speak for the soldiers but I have never heard any of them say that what they are doing in Afghanistan is futile or that they shouldn't be there. I don't claim to know what you believe, I only know what you say on this forum.

But that is how the law is being set up right now. Three strikes. No parole. Life sentence. Which means life. The Conservatives have said that life is life in interviews. The way I understand it the legislation is for repeat violent offenders. I don't have a problem with that. They would still supposedly be able to apply for parole after seven years. I do have a problem with that. Globe

Or maybe the so-called nanny state has created the stability for prosperity to flourish. All emperical evidence would suggest that, given the economic dominance of North America since the New Deal. Don't think so myself. People flee welfarist Europe for more opportunity in Canada/US all the time. There needs to be a balance, I think the yanks are close, I think we are close on the other side of the line. The socialist Europeans are way off though. People go back and forth all the time. In a lot of fields the ability to get an EEC passport is not a bad thing to have if you want to expand your employment opportunities

My my. That many. Imagine how many they would have saved by dropping it out in the middle of the harbour where it would have killed few but given a good demonstration of their power. Easy to say from this point in history. You are talking about two generations who together went through the two most destructive wars in human history in a period of just 30 years. You are talking about ending a war that lasted six years and took 50 million lives with niceties. Do you really think the people who went through it gave a shit except for the fact that it was over and it was the other side that had to do the dieing in the end? I'll bet you didn't hear any complaints from any of the allies when those bombs were dropped and ended the war.

You've got that right, you will have to explain it to me. I am responding to a statement you made about a quote of mine. How can I interject myself into a conversation I am already having? They don't agree with you. Their comments are not in line with these Senlis guys you prefer.

Why would we have to level the country? How do you know Afghani women agree with you? Have you asked any? We have over 2000 of our own people on the ground in Afghanistan. You don't seem to have any problem calling them liars.

It's easy to be an isolationist if you see no threat to yourself.

I have no problem putting someone in prison for a crime they commit. I do have a problem with a prison full of 70 and 80 year olds who committed crimes in their 20s and who are probably a threat to no one anymore. I think anyone would have a problem with that and I don't believe anyone honestly thinks it will happen. It could easily be avoided by putting some time limit between the commission of crimes for it to take effect. Like points on your driving record you could shed them over time if you don't have any more convictions.

Think tanks, think tanks. Gerry, do you put the same faith in Fraser Institutes findings or do you just go with the ones who agree with you such as maybe the Center for Policy Alternatives? You accuse me of partisan bias, and like two other ignorant f@#ks you suggest I'm happy about the results of this think tanks study ("the ones who agree with you" you say). This think tank has four field offices in Afghanistan. If you're so bent on your mind set that you're not capable of objective consideration of ground reports then what good are you? 1. No. 2. No. 3. Layton - although he is an idiot through and through - has never indicated he believes that. You're making up BS about the man. I did not say you were happy about their conclusions but think tanks themselves tend to attract people who are of a like mind so I am skeptical of all of them when it comes to objectivity. Didn't Layton say that we were endangering Afghanis by being there, right after this incident? Regardless of what Layton may or may not have said, in view of your first two answers is it morally acceptable for Canada to abandon the country to those who have clearly demonstrated their barbaric nature and would turn the clock back to their concept of the middle ages? I don't like the idea of being in Afghanistan either and I don't know if we can ultimately be successful but these are the questions I struggle with.

That is not what Toews said. He said it was a deterrent to people committing crimes to begin with. A very different thing altogether. And three strikes means that like similar jurisdictions in the States, Canada will have to build a much larger prison capacity. How much is that going to cost to permanently imprison that many people? How many crimes does a person have go commit before it becomes more expensive not to put them in jail? All that is talked about is the cost of keeping people in jail. Nothing is said about the cost to victims or the increased costs we all pay for goods and insurance because of crime or how the fear of crime effects the way many Canadians have to conduct their daily lives. Property and violent crimes are lower in the US. Maybe it is a deterrent.

Not really however the makeup of Canada was much different than today and even though there was nothing compulsory about Canada declaring war, the majority of Canadians were still emotionally attached to a degree that it was the thing to do.

Will more criminals in prison keep gun crimes down? Harper is about to introduce the three strikes you're out law in Canada. He says it is about deterence but there has not been any evidence in the the U.S. that the law has deterred violent offenders. If you put criminals in jail, they cannot commit crimes while they are there. The concept is quite simple. The murder rate in the US is higher but other crime rates including violent crime rates are lower. The US three strikes you're out means you get life, Harper's three strikes means you get a jail sentence of some kind instead of the usual Canadian twenty strikes and you are still in.

Think tanks, think tanks. Gerry, do you put the same faith in Fraser Institutes findings or do you just go with the ones who agree with you such as maybe the Center for Policy Alternatives? Do you believe the Taliban represent the wishes of the Afghani people? Do you believe the majority of the Afghan people want them back in power? Do you believe the parents of the children who were blown up with those four Canadian soldiers agree with Layton that it was the soldiers fault for being there?

Will more laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Highly debatable considering the length of border we have with the US.

I'm a little suprised no one picked me up on the fact France doesn't belong to NATO. Just out of curiosity, was that a mistake or are you baiting yourself now?[/quote I knew they weren't, they bailed in the late fifties I think but it was a brain fart. Must be getting old.

More like six weeks. Like the British at the time, the French were prepared to fight the last war, not the one the Germans gave them. They had around 600,000 casualties in WW2 including over 200,000 dead. They had over 5.5 million casualties in WW1 including 1.3 million killed, over 400,000 more dead than the entire British Empire.