Wilber

This from an organization that promotes suicide bombing? That's rich.

Thanks, this answers my question. The fact that it was 10 at night explains why he couldn't just go see his family doctor. I still think its important for him to be open and forthright with the media since he took a hardline against scandal in his campaign. He has to prove to the Canadian public that he can be trusted more so than his predecessors. There is no defense to that, he's the one that used those tactics so he's the one that has to be answerable, from day one. Where is the potential scandal in going to get treatment at a public hospital when you are sick? I really must be missing something here. I know, its seems most of your posts show you have no real insight to what is going on, as long as its socially RIGHT. The point is that Harper has to be honest and forthright and be very open to show he is not going down the same path as many others have before him. Do you remember a scandal-less government in your lifetime ??? Perhaps mine is too short. What is that supposed to mean? Where is the potential scandal in going to get treatment at a public hospital when you are sick? What path is it that you fear somenone could be going down by doing so?

Hamas will never be for peace. Their mission statement is to remove Israel fro the middle-East. There is no way we should support either Palestine or their government until the people there commit to peace and not to terrorism. I'm not so sure. Not too long ago you could have said exactly the same about the PLO and all its splinter groups. If like the PLO, Hamas comes to understand that they will never get the recognition and support they want and need to be successful, until they do renounce violence, maybe they will change. It's up to them.

I think students should be taught about religions but not taught religion. Religion has always been a major mover of world events, no more so than right now. To ignore religions and their effect on the world is just plain stupid.

....Secondly, the UI program as a social engineering program is ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a safety net for workers who lose their job. When a recession does hit Canada, and one will at some time or other, than it is a necessary program to ensure adequare living conditions. As an employer I'm relieved that the UI system exists. I certainly do not think it's perfect, but it is a necessity. Corporations have to ride the tide of economic ups and downs and not all of them are run by cut throat insensitive management that could layoff employees with complete disregard for their social well being. So as far as UI is concerned it has its roll in creating fluidity for corporations competing in capitalist market places. I have been fortunate that I have never had to collect UI but I don't have a problem with the principal. What I do have a problem with is government siphoning off revenue from an employment tax designed to help unemployed people who find themselves between jobs through no fault of their own, in order to finance other programs. This increases the cost of doing business and does not help employers at all.

Thanks, this answers my question. The fact that it was 10 at night explains why he couldn't just go see his family doctor. I still think its important for him to be open and forthright with the media since he took a hardline against scandal in his campaign. He has to prove to the Canadian public that he can be trusted more so than his predecessors. There is no defense to that, he's the one that used those tactics so he's the one that has to be answerable, from day one. Where is the potential scandal in going to get treatment at a public hospital when you are sick? I really must be missing something here.

Voters will be the judge of that question, and voters have their own definition of what is or is not their business. That's what it means to lead a public life in a democracy. In simple terms, if Harper tries to keep this confidential, he'll lose votes. Maybe so but it's still none of my business, or yours.

"So the Canadian public is looking for signs that Harper is an honest leader, and since he's in the spotlight now he will have to be honest and forthright about his activities, whether they be personal or not. Certainly a trip to the hospital is in the public's interest." Bull. Harpers personal medical records are none of my business, or yours.

Eloquently put Arif. Thank you for your comments. And for setting Wilbur straight. Exactly the comment that I was hoping for when I started this thread. Yes we know Concerned. You titled this thread "Harper's Foreign Policy" and then went on a rant about US foreign policy. It had nothing to do with Harper at all. Sure it did. Harper and his party and its ideologies are similar to Bush's neo-conservatives. Harper is very much a Bush supporter and Bush is happier than a pig in slop that Harper is now in power ( to the extent that he cares about Canada at all, but he's a pig in slop anyways). I'm sure that you were one of the supporters of the Iraq war and I'm sure you would have been pleased to have seen Harper back the Americans in their attack. When you actually have some Harper foreign policy to talk about, get back to us.

Eloquently put Arif. Thank you for your comments. And for setting Wilbur straight. Exactly the comment that I was hoping for when I started this thread. Yes we know Concerned. You titled this thread "Harper's Foreign Policy" and then went on a rant about US foreign policy. It had nothing to do with Harper at all.

The corporate sector does not generate wealth; it exploits resources and may control the distribution of wealth. C'mon, guys! This is economics 101. I didn't take economics 101 but it is not government that takes the risks involved with exploiting a resourse or acutally manufacturing something. Companies redistribute that wealth to their shareholders in return for taking the risk and government shares by taxing it. If governments do get involved, it is because no one else has figured out how to do it without losing money and the taxpayer gets stuck. The wealth of petro resources in Alberta were not created by the corporate sector. If we had the furthest left government you can imagine, those resources would still be there and would still be being exploited. The difference would be the mechanism for sharing the wealth generated from these resources among the population. I believe Trudeau tried that with the NEP. Alberta got to sell energy to the rest of Canada for less than world price and in return got to buy the rest of Canada's goods at world price . Such a deal. As to our being a "trading nation": a) there is a huge amount of analysis of Canada's economic origins as a mercantile economy dues to its colonial history. this is 2006. Every country is engaged in international trade ("nations" tend not to be). What's this got to do with anything? We are prosperous because we sell more than we buy and most of that we sell to the US.

Arif I'm not trying to defend, apologize for or justify anything. I do enjoy my standard of living, am thankful for the opportunities I have had and those my children now have. I'm just not hypocritical about where they came from or how I come to keep them. There is nothing that makes you or me more deserving than anyone else on this planet. You can't blame all that is rotten in the world on the US or any other country. People are largely responsible for their own actions. If we share the benefits that those "imperialist" countries past and present have brought us, we also share any responsibility and guilt that may come with them.

You DO understand that even in a traditional conservative viewpoint, the corporate sector is one institution within society not the sole reason for its existence? A number of economists see recent U.S. developments as an ultimately destructive path; that is, that giving primacy to corporate interests and particularly the multi-national expression of them is gradually impoverishing the domestic population and creating a security burden so immense that the economy will eventually collapse under it. Simply put, there are signs the U.S. economy has become so dependent on activity outside its borders that it can only avoid collapse by an ever increasing imperial policy which will eventually place a burden on the economy that it can't sustain. While this is not directly analogous to Canada, it is the logical expression of a purely corporate view of society. While the corporate/private sector is just one institution within society it is the only institution that generates wealth in our economy. It is in fact, the economy. The corporate/private sector doesn't need a society as much as society needs a corporate/private sector. We are a trading nation. Primarily an exporting nation. Our prosperity also has a great deal with what goes on outside our borders, primarily south of our immediate border.

Of course prosperity grows out of the people in the economy but you need a government that is smart enough and honest enough to admit it and act accordingly. Not a common thing IMO. In most of Canada we seem to think big government is good government even though all governments do is redistribute wealth. They produce nothing. Albeta has figured that out, that's why they keep electing Klein.

If you are a Tory, Hedy winning the leadership would be a gift from Heaven.

That is quite recent. I think if you look at Alberta's recent history it was in deficit when Klein took over and oil was selling at less than $15 a barrel when he posted his first surplus.

After the past eight weeks of campaigning I am surprised that all the leaders aren't all run down to the point of being sick, especially at this time of year. Now he has to form a new government. If someone can show how it is affecting his job they should say so, otherwise it's nobody's business.

OK, but it seems to me that around 12 was about the time I started going from being a hero to the dumbest thing on two legs for a few years. I believe that when the start to hit that in between age they would rather be treated with the same sort of respect adults would show each other when in public. Now that my son is in his late twenties a hug in public from his old man wouldn't faze him a bit but at that age I know he didn't appreciate it, particularly if front of his piers. Both he and his mother told me so.

That's not my quote.

“Several times in the past year, the Ethics Commissioner has unfortunately chosen to protect public officials from accountability instead of properly enforcing federal ethics rules, while the Registrar of Lobbyists has refused to ensure a fair and impartial review of several ethics complaints some of which are five years old,” said Conacher. “As a result, Democracy Watch has concluded that, incredibly, laws against parking illegally are enforced more strictly and effectively than the ethics rules for the most powerful people in Canada, namely federal Cabinet ministers, their staff and Cabinet appointees.” You mean this ethics commissioner?

Personally I'm going for Preston Manning. Now there's beauty. Oh, and that lovely Mr. Harper, there's another looker ! Somehow it doesn't make a difference to anybody what THEY look like .... On another note, you gotta love a dad who shakes hands with his kids when seeing them off to school. Oh he's all heart that Harper, Mr. Warm and Fuzzy. No feminine side to that guy !! Did he miss that whole "sensitive guys of the nineties" movement ???? I can tell you one thing, the last thing my son wanted from his dad at that age was a hug and a pat on the head in front of his school mates. Not cool at all. Perhaps he knows a little more about how to deal with adolescents than you give him credit for. It's one thing to refuse to say you love Canada. But to shake hands with your kids? Come on. They're 10 and 12 for God's sake. How many kids have you brought up Newbie?

Personally I'm going for Preston Manning. Now there's beauty. Oh, and that lovely Mr. Harper, there's another looker ! Somehow it doesn't make a difference to anybody what THEY look like .... On another note, you gotta love a dad who shakes hands with his kids when seeing them off to school. Oh he's all heart that Harper, Mr. Warm and Fuzzy. No feminine side to that guy !! Did he miss that whole "sensitive guys of the nineties" movement ???? I can tell you one thing, the last thing my son wanted from his dad at that age was a hug and a pat on the head in front of his school mates. Not cool at all. Perhaps he knows a little more about how to deal with adolescents than you give him credit for.

It might work but our politicians would have to change the way they operate. With our winner take all system and history of majority governments, accommodation and deal making in order to govern have not been major part of our system. As a consequence we are not very good at it. They would have to learn some new skills. I think setting aside a certain number of seats for proportional representation would be a good idea, even if it is just a few. That way a party like the Greens which gets a fair amount of support would at least have some voice in Parliament. I could deal with that except that to have it kick in the party should have to win at least one seat. I can deal with giving them a presence, but at some level they have to earn it. The whole idea of proportional representation is that it is based on the percentage of the popular vote, not outright winning a seat. The Greens have received up to 10% of the vote in some elections and but have never won a seat. That is 10% of the voting population that has had no representation in a legislature. Is the level of the entitlement mentality in Canada so high that Candians think that our political parties shouldn't have to win a riding to get a seat in parliament? I think that if there's so few people that support them then their message is so far from the mainstream that they don't deserve a place in the house. I don't think that winning one riding is too much to ask. A good example of where FPTP can go wrong is the 2001 BC election. The NDP got 22.56% of the vote and 2 seats. Green got 12.39% and no seats. That means 35% of the population elected a total of two members to the legislature out of a total of 79.

"Then I went on to say "you're probably still wondering why central Ontario and Toronto voters think big "C" Conservatives like you are social neanderthals". Now, in case you haven't been paying attention lately, there has been a fair amount of discussion on here as to the "stupidity" of Ontario (and Toronto in particular) voters because they refuse to vote for the conservatives. One of the main reasons for that is that these voters are social liberals. Comments attacking MP's as whores (even if not meant in a sexual way) make the perpetrators seem anti-women. This does not go over well with ontario voters. They see these people as social neanderthals..." Yes and if Ontarians were the only ones voting in this election we would have a Liberal majority. When some one robs my house, I change the locks and I don't give them another key. What do Ontarians do? See ya in a few days.

It might work but our politicians would have to change the way they operate. With our winner take all system and history of majority governments, accommodation and deal making in order to govern have not been major part of our system. As a consequence we are not very good at it. They would have to learn some new skills. I think setting aside a certain number of seats for proportional representation would be a good idea, even if it is just a few. That way a party like the Greens which gets a fair amount of support would at least have some voice in Parliament. I could deal with that except that to have it kick in the party should have to win at least one seat. I can deal with giving them a presence, but at some level they have to earn it. The whole idea of proportional representation is that it is based on the percentage of the popular vote, not outright winning a seat. The Greens have received up to 10% of the vote in some elections and but have never won a seat. That is 10% of the voting population that has had no representation in a legislature.