Hicksey

How about we just start making the environmentally friendly solutions the cheaper of all solutions? Instead of taxing everything, exempt environmentally friendly purchases (ie. vehicles of a minimum efficiency, high efficiency appliances/furnaces, etc ...) from taxation and tax the rest double to make up for it. Instead the solutions that are best are usually the more expensive and we are continually being "guilt tripped" into buying things we can't afford. Why not set society up to succeed at saving the environment instead? It just makes more sense. And it could be applied in many other ways. Can you imagine if we applied that to foods? How many less heart attack victims would be rushed into emergency rooms across the country? Why is it cheaper for me to eat fast food than to eat well? If, as a society, we were really concerned about changing our eating habits it should be the other way around. In reality our decisions are usually made based on our budgets. If we had to eat well to stay in budget, wouldn't we be encouraging a problem to fix itself? In a free society we can't just forbid everything. But we can make the choices that are good for the environment and our health the ones the average joe would make based on their budget -- the main decision maker for the average joe. If we couldn't afford to do things that were bad for the environment or our bodies a lot less people would be doing them in my estimation.

The CTF is a bad comedy show. The "teddie awards" are their yearly attempt at har har and they continuously fall flat on their faces. As a result, they can't be taken seriously. Gerryhatrick, You're being unreasonable here. Those awards, as cheesy as they are, do serve a purpose that even you should be able to see. If the government is spending on the things that are usually detailed in the "Teddie Awards", and they are neglecting the programs that I think need attention, and likely some of those you might think need attention too, we have a serious problem that needs correction. My point was that even though their conduct was less than desireable in this instance, their end goal is certainly justifiable. The biggest lie about supporters of the CTA is that we don't want to pay any taxes. That's simply not the truth. If we got all that was advertised we are getting for our tax dollars, if I hadn't watched my own family members die because of a poorly run government sponsored health care system, if I hadn't witnessed scandal after scandal by governments Liberal, NDP and Conservative wasting our tax dollars, if the federal government wasn't over taxing us by 11 billion a year only to leave the provinces collectively about 9-10 billion short every year and taxing us further when it isn't necessary I wouldn't see a reason for such an organization to exist let alone reason to support it.

The environment certainly should be considered a pressing concern, but the most important? Hardly. I agree that terrorism is a pressing concern, probably the most considering we've had 2 documented attempts at planning a major attack on our country in the last 3 years. Continued vigilance is essential to not letting the next happen either. Personally I'd like to see serious tax reform on the agenda. I want law that requires the governments (federal, provincial, municipal) to pool their deficits/surpluses at the end of the budget year and only allow tax increases if there is a collective deficit. The federal government should not be allowed to run a surplus while the provinces run deficits and continue to raise taxes and run up debt. The opposite should be law too. Should there ever come a time where the provinces were running surpluses and the federal government were running a deficit, deficits/surpluses should be pooled likewise and tax increases allowed if there was a collective deficit. In either case any surpluses would be required to be applied to our national debt. I'd also like to see wait times tackled with some meaningful solution. No patient should have to wait for any procedure for more than 6 months. People are dying line for life saving surgeries and that is just wrong.

Every such organization has an agenda which can be measured either Liberal or Conservative. Partisanship almost cannot be avoided. I think the government's record of mismanagement, half-assed execution of the programs we have now, and poor judgement on how to spend future tax dollars lends to legitimizing their end goal even if the conduct of the CTF in question says otherwise. The CTF is more Libertarian than Conservative. They operate on a complete distrust of government, rather than a selective distrust like conservatives.

Just dishonest people. Sure, take that stab. But you did understand my point I'm sure. How many people will make a point that goes against their position in debate? Don't they wait to see if their opponent brings it up first before dealing with it? Sure, the more noble position is to expand every point but most people do not want to run the risk of losing a debate. Listen to a debate. The only time a participant will bring up points that may hurt their argument is if they know it hurts them more for it to be heard first from their opponent and to put the onus of disproving your explanation on them.

If they promise that they will be better, then they should be held to a higher standard. It seems to me that there has been criticism from conservative quarters in the past about the Liberals' poor behavior in the house. But there doesn't seem to be the same level of concern for CPC members in the house. Perhaps my memory fails me. Don't get me wrong. I don't condone the behavior and I thought my characterization of it above would have gotten that point across. It just occurred to me that the Liberals are really in no position to decry such behavior. That being said, the conservatives DID promise to be better and it does disappoint me that such behavior still exists in the HOC. We have been getting at least one, and most years two, such occurrences as long as I can remember. As a result we have almost been immunized to the behavior and now we just don't get as outraged. These days only us partisans seem to care. These events are almost expected anymore, I think this is the real tragedy of the situation.

The gov't spends money on lots of things which I don't agree with. The gov't could not function if it required that every taxpayer approve every spending item. I don't think that we need to get rid of the CBC per se, but a taxpayer funded network should not just have to represent Canadian content, but content from all viewpoints. A taxpayer funded TV network should not be allowed to be partisan. Not just the conservative viewpoint, but also those the of NDP and Green Party should be considered equally in the news and programming schedule. If the CBC wants to continue to operate as an extension of the Liberal Party we should privatize it and the Liberal Party can fund it instead.

It was tounge in cheek. It looked to me to be a metaphor for the suggested immigration reforms aimed at Muslims. I wonder why race should play any part. Why can't we come up with security policies that apply as well against whites as blacks, or as well against catholics as against muslims? That such a policy is even being considered show just how broken our immigration system is.

I think its so plain that you would have to try to overlook it to not see it. Aside from that ... Don't most people ignore facts that do not serve their purpose when making an argument unless they are forced to face them? Its the nature of the game. Its also why we play the game instead of just declaring a winner.

There have been several Liberals guilty of the same parliamentary childishness to not just their fellow MPs but to other heads of state over the past 13 years. What, if any, punishment did the Liberal Party apply to them? Is it more or less than being demanded now? If less, then why less? If more, then why should a conservative be punished more severely for the same conduct? And lastly ... If this is the best reason the Liberals can come up with to try to sway public opinion of the CPC, why even bother? To me so much made of so little makes them look as childish as the MP who made the gesture in the first place.

Uh, first of all it is NEWS. And the CBC does report the NEWS. Imagine, an attack on font size FGS. What's next, subminal messages? Added: For the sake of argument, look at the lead stores here: Tories rule out new anti-terror powers http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/index.html Terror suspects subject to torture http://www.ctv.ca/ Whoa, check out those fonts. Warning: Major brainwashing on three main news sources. I wouldn't care about font sizes if they were at least trying to seem non-partisan and did one for each point of view. But instead they are unabashedly liberal and continue to operate as such. If the CBC wants to be partisan and biased like Fox News they should have to survive without government funding. I have no problems with a federally owned broadcasting company. But such a company should be required to be non-partisan. It shouldn't be offering more liberal or conservative viewpoints. If the CBC insists on being a liberal campaign machine it should be sold and funding discontinued.

Hicksey, the current immigration law is written exactly as you suggest. Then why is it not being enforced? I hate to even post on such an offensive and idiotic thread but to add to Hicksey's comments, I say we ask all immigrants: 1) Do you hate Jews? Do you believe Israel has the right to exist? 2) Do you feel women are equal to men? Do you feel women should be treated equally? 3) Do you agree with Canadian foreign policy? 4) Do you hate Americans? 5) Do you hate homosexuals? 6) Do you believe in Jihad or violence to solve problems? It is possible to take this too far. We all know that part of our culture is having the right to have our own opinions no matter how good or bad they may be. If we start excluding people on things like race, religion and idealogy we'd be hypocrites for ignoring our own constitution's guarantee of those rights. I think a clean criminal record and no terror links is a very reasonable place to start our immigration reform. But I think that 3 summary offenses or 1 indictable offense in their first 7 years should result in immediate deportation, forfeiture of citizenship and lifetime banishment from Canada.

Hicksey, the current immigration law is written exactly as you suggest. Then why is it not being enforced?

It's just like the CBC to find ways to show what side they agree with. A news organization that was at least trying to appear non-partisan would at least do that with a quote summarizing each sides' position. But the CBC is hardly non-partisan. About now, Leafs games are about the only thing worthy of watching on CBC. And I'd pay to see them all on the Leafs channel just to not have to tune in that channel.

The fault here can be laid with lawmakers and politicians both conservative and liberal. Our lackadaisical immigration laws and the almost non-enforcement of them is their fault. Between the liberals and their feel-good immigration policies and the conservative rhetoric sans results our immigration problems have been allowed to fester for decades without any real attempts at correction. We need real immigration reform. If we can't get confirmation you have no ties to terror organizations, that you have NO criminal record of any kind you shouldn't be allowed citizenship -- period. We shouldn't care about their religion or race, just about what security risk they pose. If a muslim has neither a criminal record nor terror ties, why should they not be granted a spot in line to immigrate here? The focus should be on security regardless of country of origin, race or religion. But we certainly need to take a hard line on immigration.

My plan would cover that. Lack of certifiable information would be considered the same as bad information. But certainly a good idea.

I got an email about this sheriff and I remembered him from the numerous times his jails have been covered in the news. I wonder if this guy will come up here and teach our people how to run a jail? I can't think of a better way to run one. It should be up to criminals not to behave in a manner that would land them there in the first place. If they don't like it there, then don't do anything that would land you back there.

How about this? No matter what race, country of origin or religion you are, if your criminal record isn't completely clean, or if you are in any way associated with a terrorist organization you are banned from coming to our country. Even though I somewhat believe what the other poster said, it sells the situation short. We have plenty of criminals here. We don't need to be importing neither thieves nor murderers -- regardless of their race or religious beliefs. We need to continue limiting immigration, but to lower levels so we can better screen them. And instead of races/diplomats/people willing to pay getting preference they should be processed in the chronological order they are received no matter how priviledged or unpriviledged the applicant may be. And when we find illegals here they should be deported immediately and banned from getting citizenship. I have all the compassion in the world for those that come here and respect our society by first repsecting our immigration laws. All others be damned. How can we trust them to function as law abiding citizens when they can't even obey immigration laws on the way in? I don't think we can.

I wonder if this guy will come up here and teach our people how to run a jail ... I can't think of a better way to run one. It should be up to criminals not to behave in a manner that would land them there in the first place. If they don't like it there, then don't do anything that would land you back there.

I used to work with a guy that had been in and out of the Kingston Penitentiary for years in his life and he thinks they are. He's scared to death of going to jail in the US, but he wouldn't be worried about doing a nickel in Canada. He basically told me that KP was like his home with bars. He used to sit and watch TV for hours each day, his wife came once a week and they were allowed a conjugal visit, he got his grade 12 diploma, a college level accounting diploma, and he worked out like mad. He told me that if someone messed with his family and he felt retribution was needed he had no problem going back. His nickname for it you ask? Club Fed Its no wonder nobody's afraid of going to jail, its hardly punishment anymore.

Elected judges? That just completely politicizes the system, more so than it already is. Bad idea. And what does the average person know about the competency of judges with the complexity of the legal system? Veerrry dangerous. First term by appointment, next term with consent from the electorate. No campaigns. Elections Canada just sends out a summary of the judge's decisions and people vote based on their opinions of them. A judge not confirmed by the electorate would be replaced by appointing a new judge.

I'm skeptical of all polls. I don't care who they benefit.

We voted them all in. Politics is one of the few jobs whereby you can apply and be hired with NO RELEVANT experience. I can't argue with that. My MP is a car dealer in the area with no experience other than running and losing in the 2004 election.

Something's not right, that's for sure. Since when does the opposition not take the opportunity to stab at the spending they don't agree with in a budget? I think it speaks to incomptence of everyone. How can people that spend their lives playing the game that is politics NOT know when a bill has been passed? Most useful idiots watching CPAC can discern that from what they are watching.

I said Liberals on purpose. And I didn't say it just because Liberal is usually the opposite of what I see as right. I said Liberals because they were the ones that put the judges that are guilty of the type of judicial obscenity being discussed here. I said Liberals because they are the ones usually out there with the NDP arguing for more lenient sentences. And as you so eloquently pointed out because the laws we are a odds with here were drafted during a period of Liberal majority. If it walks, talks and looks like a duck ... that's what it is. Except, it isn't a duck at all. Who in their right mind would condone this sentence? I cannot think of an example, other than the judge, who clearly lives in her own, small bubble - and should face judicial review immediately. Further, why not review the section of the code covering child rape and raise the minimum sentence to life? That being said, I can certainly dredge up examples of ridiculous sentences handed out by 'conservative' judges (appointed by the Tories) and equate that to the entire conservative faction. Is that ludicrous? Of course, but it is exactly what is being done here. I guess if you want to paint me into a pigeonhole, I am 'left-leaning', but this action does not represent my thinking on criminal penalties. In fact, you go so far as to ascribe 'weakened sentences' generally as being part of 'liberal' ideology. This is a simplistic and unfair assessment. Regardless of who's in power, flakes and morons are going to end up on the bench. It's that principle you see in large organizations - the (hmm) effluent rises to the top. By all means, prove me wrong - that Conservative judge-elects and Conservative-crafted laws have never, in hindsight, proved stupid, ridiculous or unenforceable. Then why not make appointments to the court last no more than 8 years, and require that to be reappointed they gain approval from the electorate? Such an important position cannot be one in which the appointed cannot be held accountable for less than honorable conduct. Surely this abomination applies.