Hicksey

I don't feel guilty for having tons of crap and a big house to put it in; I feel guilty for others, through no fault of their own, who don't have a chance for anything other than a bleak day-to-day struggle in a gang-infested neighbourhood. I'm talking specifically about mentally and physically disabled people who don't have the chance to make a decent living for themselves--not 22-year-old guys who don't want to work at Burger King because it's beneath them. That's why I don't mind paying the taxes I do, so long as they're directed efficiently enough to take care of those who really need it. I guess my heart doesn't bleed as easily as others do. I don't have a college education. I'm not a skilled tradesman. I don't have any special skills that anyone else can't learn. I don't live in a gang infested ghetto. Mind you I don't have a lot of splendor in my life. My kids don't wear popular name brand clothing and shoes. I may have to work hard to achieve this, but I don't think that its more than the average joe can handle. As for the disabled and those unable to work. While I think supporting them is a great show of compassion by the rest of society, I don't think we owe them a house in the suburbs with a picket fence, 2.5 kids, a dog and a car.

I really don't understand why we have to feel guilty about achieving and being rewarded for it.

But what about people who can't stand up--say, oh, people with broken backs who simply can't work or walk or whatever. You may sit in your suburban splendour and pretend they're doing just fine, but even with the great taxation sacrifices you're making, they're still barely getting by. I would agree the problem isn't the rate of taxation--I don't think taxes need to be raised to take better care of the most vulnerable; resources just need to be shifted. But talk of a "nanny" state implies that the people who need help are babies, which is horribly condescending. It almost makes me want to see you in that situation so you can better understand what it's like to need help. Don't make assumptions BM. Your assumption that I am in suburban splendor couldn't be further from the truth. I fight hard for everything I own. And that's not much. I don't drive an SUV, rather a 13 year old minivan with 410,000 kilometers on it. I don't own a home or even live in a great neighborhood and the only extra I have is this computer which I built myself part by part because to put out the money it takes to buy one all at the same time is just too much. But you know what? I'm nobody special. I make it work. It doesn't require a bachelor of sciences in rocket propulsion to do. As Canadians, I believe that it is our duty to tow our fair share, or at least whatever we can of it. If that means working at 7-11 just to lessen your burden on the rest of us--if you're able--it is your duty as a Canadian. I understand that there are those of us that cannot. But I don't think that these people should do much more than get by. I refuse to pay others and have them be better off than someone that works. Those who do work should get some sort of reward for their efforts. And I have been there. I have been on welfare 3 times in my life so far. And I used it as it should be used--as a crutch. I was off the system within three months all three times I was on. Instead there are many that think welfare is an acceptable vocation, which IMO is wrong. People that truly cannot work should be on disability anyway. And I know a couple of people that are on disability and while they aren't by any means rich, they're not eating dog food either. They get by. And for someone that isn't working, that's all they should get. I keep my head above water. It is possible. I see jobs out there all the time. The real problem with people these days is that a lot of them think that they're entitled not just to equal opportunity, but also equal outcome and expect to start near the top of the job ladder making $50,000 a year or more. There is such a thing as a job ladder and I've been fighting my way up it for 15 years now. You take the first job until you can find a better one and that one until you can upgrade on it. And so on. It takes hard work. But anyone that wants to make it work can.

Harper's no Mulroney. I like him for different reasons than Mulroney, but he's still a long ways from proving he's worth a majority. And I don't see this parliament functioning well as it is made up right now. The other 3 are too well poised to be formidable obstructionists. And if they succeed, what's to say that the voters who can be swayed aren't going to look back after 12-18 months and think that there's no point in electing a conservative minority because the other 3 won't work with them. So in essense, my belief is that unless he really impresses, he's gone next time around. It will be a majority or nothing in my opinion. About your points on the Liberal leadership ... You make a good point. Maybe its not that the position is undesirable, its that they may have so far to come back that by the time comes that the party is sufficiently rebuilt, that they'll not be around to enjoy the fruits of their labour. Of course, these arguments all depend on assumptions we have no way of knowing whether or not will come true.

Speaking of election promises, the thing I am most disappointed with is the pandering of Harper and the rest of the candidates. They keep proposing more and more social programs. It drives me nuts. Fix the ones you have before moving forward and committing yourself to more. At this rate all we'll end up with is a broken country nobody can afford to fix.

You're assuming Harper is going to be effective in his current minority. Unless he tows the line on his promise to Quebecers to fix the imbalance and involve them where their interests are involved, those 10 seats disappear. He's got most of rural Canada so the only place for him to make real gains are in the 416, 905, 604 and 514/819 which have been Liberal strong holds the likes of Ralph Klein's. I think that barring a heroic effort by Harper in this parliament, that the chances of the Liberal leader are better/sooner than you suggest.

I know I am entering a discussion halfway through here so ... I fail to see how allowing provinces into the discussion where interests are at stake is such a bad thing. This doesn't mean that the PMO has to bow to their every wish, but still makes them feel that their concerns and interests are taken to heart when the PMO acts. As far as the fiscal imbalance, if Harper doesn't at least narrow that gap, the 10 seats he won in Quebec disappear. If he doesn't keep that promise, his chances of re-election are pretty well zero if the Liberals put forward a candidate that Canadians can put even one ioda more trust than Martin's name evokes.

The leadership of the Liberal party has been a highly contested position in times past, mostly because to many the position is basically first stop down the yellow brick road to becoming PM. Am I reading too far into this? I just keep wondering why people are running from the position instead of gravitating to it and fighting over it. It doesn't make sense to me.

And to say you're not going to run now and then waffle and change your mind is supposed to be a better way of going about it?

I have a question or two. Why do you think that all the elites within the Liberal Party, those that even the pundits listed as the tops in the leadership race, are running from the position? What do they know that we do not?

Just so you know, I edited my last post to clarify my question's intent. I do believe he knows the difference between the three. What you perceive as a nanny government; I perceive as a government that truly believes in equality by helping people in need. It's a matter of opinions where nobody can be proven right or wrong. It's either you believe in liberty then equality or equality then liberty. It's the level of individualism you adhere to. Look, I don't dislike nanny government. I don't think a government that champions social programs, etc. is bad, I just don't think it is realistic. Our public healthcare system sucks...let's face that fact. We can argue for the longest time whether or not it is the fault of bureacracy and government funding, etc. The fact is that universiality is not a good tool...it is not something that can survive in modern democracy. In an ideal world, I would be a socialist. But human nature works differently. We are all looking to get ahead of our fellow citizen. We don't care about each other. I am not talking for you, lost&outofcontrol, or myself, tml12. I am talking about our nation. We want what is best for us and at the expense of others. I don't think Layton understands the concept of a strong military. And he supports drug laws that are way too leniant... TML12: I don't think that that narrow view is true. I don't think that in a growing economy that we get what we want at the expense of others. I don't see where one has to be at the expense of the other to happen. I think that 'zero-sum' economy outlook is overly pessimistic. I don't think that one person has to take form another to get what they want. I think that people get back what they put into things. We are only guaranteed equal opportunity, not equal outcome. To achieve the end that is being spoke of, capitalism has to end altogether. And I am telling you that the wealthy will remain wealthy. Their wealth will not be the wealth that is redistributed, it will be ours. I don't have a lot but I am proud of what I do work hard to earn and I don't care that people will see it as selfish, but if people come wanting to take much more than is taken now, it'll only be taken from my cold, dead hands. Hicksey, I don't think that I have said anything different from what you have said. Granted, you say that we don't get what we want at the expense of others. That may or may not be true. I do agree that people shyould get what they put into things...that hard work should pay off...but I think most people agree that this is not always true. Sometimes you have to hinder the efforts of others...whether you want to or not...for your benefit. I don't like it Hicksey, but as I see the world today, everyone wants a dime and not everyone wants to put in the social capital to earn that dime. Charity begins at home and the minut we start telling ourselves otherwise...the minute we feel guilty about not giving that homeless guy 25 cents...that is the minute we become vulnerable. No stray cats...I will help out as many people as I can and I will work as hard as I can but at the end of the day my success will be based on doing whatever I have to do... Charity is about having a giving spirit. Charity cannot be forced or it is not truly charity. I give to charity whenever I can, but its my choice. And it should be that way. Considering all the social programs/safety nets we have in Canada, we put in our fair share already. If you're Canadian, you're homeless and hungry, you've got to trying to be. We've got so many social safety nets that anyone that wants help can get it. The level of compassion we have for others right now I think is good. But, at some point people have to stand up and take responsibility for themselves. The taxation levels required to go any farther than we are is punitive to those who take the initiative and achieve.

Just so you know, I edited my last post to clarify my question's intent. I do believe he knows the difference between the three. What you perceive as a nanny government; I perceive as a government that truly believes in equality by helping people in need. It's a matter of opinions where nobody can be proven right or wrong. It's either you believe in liberty then equality or equality then liberty. It's the level of individualism you adhere to. Look, I don't dislike nanny government. I don't think a government that champions social programs, etc. is bad, I just don't think it is realistic. Our public healthcare system sucks...let's face that fact. We can argue for the longest time whether or not it is the fault of bureacracy and government funding, etc. The fact is that universiality is not a good tool...it is not something that can survive in modern democracy. In an ideal world, I would be a socialist. But human nature works differently. We are all looking to get ahead of our fellow citizen. We don't care about each other. I am not talking for you, lost&outofcontrol, or myself, tml12. I am talking about our nation. We want what is best for us and at the expense of others. I don't think Layton understands the concept of a strong military. And he supports drug laws that are way too leniant... TML12: I don't think that that narrow view is true. I don't think that in a growing economy that we get what we want at the expense of others. I don't see where one has to be at the expense of the other to happen. I think that 'zero-sum' economy outlook is overly pessimistic. I don't think that one person has to take form another to get what they want. I think that people get back what they put into things. We are only guaranteed equal opportunity, not equal outcome. To achieve the end that is being spoke of, capitalism has to end altogether. And I am telling you that the wealthy will remain wealthy. Their wealth will not be the wealth that is redistributed, it will be ours. I don't have a lot but I am proud of what I do work hard to earn and I don't care that people will see it as selfish, but if people come wanting to take much more than is taken now, it'll only be taken from my cold, dead hands.

Your response is very understandable. No doubt such a change would cause a massive recession. What if the long term benifits outwieght the sacrifice? What if our economy could bounce back on our new system thats more conducive to nature and democracy, thus being more dependable and sustainable? Currently we are in a nose dive toward extinction. Is this what our soldiers of World War II died for? So we can bow our heads and serve corporations in fear of losing our jobs while the market takes over, destroying our lives and those yet born? Maybe the heroes of the 21rst century will be the ones that our willing to give up their livelyhood and endure the hardships of change for the betterment of humanity. The defense(and infringment) of ones rights and freedoms can take many forms. Certainly our shiny new cars, our super-thin super-big TVs and such will be much less prevailent. Are these things really worth the amount we invest in them? Us powerless? If we have a nation of people willing to make sacrifices for change it will be the ultra-rich who are powerless. What sacrificies?! I don't have those things now. I have 2 TVs, both hand-me-downs. I drive a 13 year old minivan with 410,000km on it. The only extra I have is this computer, and I built it myself one piece at a time because I couldn't afford to put out all the money at the same time. What makes me reject the idea of socialism to begin with is that we give so much already and get nothing but substandard health care while we watch politicians, the campaign contributors and their friends get rich off of us. I think the only difference between your proposition and reality today is who we're going to be in servitude to. I don't trust these people at all. Just because I voted for Harper doesn't mean I trust him to take the country where I believe it needs to go, rather because I think that he's less untrustworthy than the rest. I really like his average joe lifestyle. I like that he's not an elitist and that he's struggled as most of us have. I don't trust pointy-headed elites like Paul Martin to lead us.

I can't believe you're actually admitting that you watch the trailer park boys! The cartoons my kids watch are more substantive than that show. And CBC news is like watching an advertisement for the Liberal party. Makes me sick to watch it. There's one thing decent on CBC is HNIC and its the only thing you've criticized. Well believe it! I certianly dont expect everyone to relate to 'trailer park boys'. Just because you've written it off does not mean its a bad show. Its actually quite inteligent in its portrayal of its characters dealing with real life issues. But I can certainly understand how someone would take one look at Ricky and Bubbles and write the show off as juvenile humor. Although, even without the substance, its funny as a cow-dung fight... and thats pretty funny. CBC news is bias just as is every form of news. Its up to the viewer to take in as many sources as possible and deduct the truth as best you can. I would say you are a bias viewer. I did not at all criticize HNIC. What gave you that idea? Maybe I misunderstood the comment about Cherry. Even though he's wrong a lot, I respect him because he says what's on his mind and doesn't sugar coat it. And he's not afraid to speak his mind. In the age of PC its a quality I admire, even if he says some genuinely dumb things now and then. That show would have been funny to me 15 years ago. But today, I just don't see the humor.

I can't believe you're actually admitting that you watch the trailer park boys! The cartoons my kids watch are more substantive than that show. And CBC news is like watching an advertisement for the Liberal party. Makes me sick to watch it. There's one thing decent on CBC is HNIC and its the only thing you've criticized.

Im definatley willing to look at the sacrifices we need to make, both as a nation and as an individual. Thats very close to the point of this thread. Maybe the things we have to give up wont necessarily lower our standard of living. "Ecosystems are -- or can be -- the wealth of the poor. For many of the 1.1 billion people living in severe poverty, nature is a daily lifeline -- an asset for those with few other material means. This is especially true for the rural poor, who comprise three-quarters of all poor households worldwide. Harvests from forests, fisheries, and farm fields are a primary source of rural income, and a fall-back when other sources of employment falter. But programs to reduce poverty often fail to account for the important link between environment and the livelihoods of the rural poor. As a consequence, the full potential of ecosystems as a wealth-creating asset for the poor -- not just a survival mechanism -- has yet to be effectively tapped." "But for the poor to tap that income, they must be able to reap the benefits of their good stewardship. Unfortunately, the poor are rarely in such a position of power over natural resources." World Resources 2005 -- The Wealth of the Poor: Managing ecosystems to fight poverty Maybe all we need is a new system that will distribute wealth rather than consolidate it. I dont see the need for an individual to be excessively rich like those that our society holds up in such high regard. Money is power. To change to a system like that I highly doubt that the ultra rich will be the ones paying the price. We're the only ones powerless to such a move and I have no doubt in my mind that we will be the ones paying that price. I work way too hard to have what little I have now and if they took that much more I'd move out of Canada.

Even if this were the case (which I don't think it is: obviously inefficiency and some degree of corruption are going to be present in any herierarchal, bureaucratic system, but to dismiss the potential good is throwing th baby out with the bathwater), at the end of the day, which system is more destructive? Or, put it another way: your money or your life? We watched my mother in law die because our health care system refused to recognize she was sick. We fought with her doctor for over a year only to find out when a friend of mine called in a favor and got her into London, ON that it was too late and her cancer was inoperable. As a direct result, we watched her die a very painful death. And that's not to mention that the lack of spaces in the cancer program there cost my mother a half of her liver because they couldn't get her into chemo fast enough. I think that 'your money and your life' would be more accurate. What we need is some sort of transparency laws that make politicians accountable for making sure as much of the money they allocate to certain areas gets there as possible. Random independent audits should be performed on an unannouced, but fairly regular basis and the results should be released to the public. I would not complain about taxation so badly if we got anything close to what they advertise they're giving us. But its just not close. And its so far it costs people their lives. If you're not going to give me what you promise, the be more responsible and only promise what you can do. If not, then give it back to me. I work too damned hard for that money for them to piss it away the way they do.

First. I hear about a guy who got fired for doing drugs at work or a guy fired for absenteeism that after being off for 6 weeks ends up getting hired back because unions forced the company to--and get paid a paid holiday even though he was fired with cause. That's not about worker rights. Unions are getting way too greedy these days. Maybe its just me, but I don't think unskilled labour is worth more than about $25 an hour. These unions that force wages up or threaten to bring business to a standstill, or engage in illegal labour practices like work slow downs to get near $40 an hour shouldn't be surprised their jobs get exported. Unions used to be about health and safety and getting the worker a fair share, now they've gone so far that a day doesn't go by that I don't hear about these high paying jobs being exported. They're doing themselves and the rest of us great disservice by driving high paying jobs out of the country. Blame the companies all you want. But if I own the company, and like the Big Three you're not making any profit in North America, I do what I have to get back to profitability. Where unions have done their membership wrong is to put these companies in the position that it is worth sacrificing the flexibility of having plants located near where the product is sold thereby making their jobs here expendable. Second. My job isn't doomed. I don't work there. I was saying that as an example. The point was that even trophy plants that the automakers brag about aren't immune to this. It is a complete miss conception that the outsourcing of our factories and jobs is the fault of unions. And your definition of unskilled labour is also missleading, as it refers to anyone without credentials from a educational institution. So everyone in the oilpacth making these wages that dont have a trade or degree(like oil rig crews) are no different. I dont want to start debating the validity of unions in our current economical climate, which is why Ive treid to address the broader topic industry relations in a thread titled:Sailing a sinking ship. There is one good example of successful union/industry relations in the Mosiac mine fire last week. Leaves me to wonder if similar operations were in-place, maybe that tragic mine accident in West Verginia would have faired better. Whats good for {insert corporate name} is not necessarily good for Canadians. I never said unions were all bad. When they stick to health and safety and responsible wage increases (ie COLA + IRate) and stop doing stupid things like getting people their jobs back that obviously don't deserve them -- unions are a good thing. But I can tell you from working as a student in a several union environments, that it sucks to work there. Every day you wake up and have to go to work you know it will be the longest day of your life without fail. If you get bored and pick up a broom to sweep and pass some time, you get screamed at because the union workers get paid overtime to do that on weekends. Pick up a pallet and move it instead of waiting 15 min for a lift truck and you get screamed at because "if you do that, they'll expect us to." Without fail, this is what I encountered--over and over and over. The general attitude around the places was pure apathy. I hated working in those places. I have avoided union shops ever since.

I've been through this before and I'm not gonna get into it again. Sufice it to say, I think patriotism is a scam designed to give people a reason to die, even as their sacrifice benefits the very people who sent them. to their deaths "Die so that others can profit" just doesn't make for good recruitment slogans. OK, you don't subscribe to patriotism. But don't you think socialist policies aren't the same scam? Its all done in the name of social justice for all, but all that ends up happening is that it gets filtered through a bunch of profiteering politicians that give some to their friends and supporters, and several different bureacracies before nowhere near what was taken from me gets to people in amounts that aren't enough to do what was intended. In the end, everyone but you and the people that these taxes are being taken to help get what they need from your paycheck. You're being scammed under the guise of social justice as badly as you say we are under the guise of patriotism. I don't subscribe to socialism because I just don't trust government.

If you think he's bad, go rent The Aristocrats. Its a documentary about a long running joke in the comedy world that gets dirtier than anything you could have ever imagined. The greatest genius of the joke is that the journey is so great the punchline just doesn't matter.

Just the opposite. This is another thread in the right web of deceit and fear monger. That's all you're doing, fear mongering, to justify military buildup. Rather pathetic. They haven't hit us. If they wanted to, they could have easily done so. That is evdence enough that is is peopel like YOU who are lying, not me. left lie? Please. The evidence is on our side, while yours looks, as is always the case with you, like compelte and total fiction. Fear-mongering? It has been argued that they have already tried and been thwarted. See post 29 of this thread.

I don't understand this sudden need for people of the left to show how willing they are to stand up for conervative values like nationalism to show hopw tough they are. Nationalism is anotehr form of chauvanism, an ideology used to conince people to put their lives at risk in the service of a "cause" that only benefits those who stay behind and out of danger. I wouldn't "defend my country" because I believe the very concept is bullcrap. It that's not an insult to our troops, what is? If you don't want to defend your country for whatever reason, that's fine. I couldn't even if I wanted to because I know I don't have the discipline to do it and as a result would likely put others in further danger. They may not defend our country today in the sense they did in World Wars past. But that would be hard to do anyway considering how the institution has been neglected and its funding looted since those times. Most of their equipment is so outdated and flimsy that they'd have a hard time defending their way out of a wet paper bag. That's not an insult, rather to get across the general abuse of their institution but politicians with opinions like yours. There's nothing wrong with patroitism, and respecting what the people before you have done for their country. That they put themselves in harm's way knowing that they very well may not be able to enjoy the benefits of their work is what makes these people true heroes.

Don't worry, there was a report late last week that even Satellite radio told Stern to clean up his act. Howard used to be funny to me too though. But then I grew up.

First. I hear about a guy who got fired for doing drugs at work or a guy fired for absenteeism that after being off for 6 weeks ends up getting hired back because unions forced the company to--and get paid a paid holiday even though he was fired with cause. That's not about worker rights. Unions are getting way too greedy these days. Maybe its just me, but I don't think unskilled labour is worth more than about $25 an hour. These unions that force wages up or threaten to bring business to a standstill, or engage in illegal labour practices like work slow downs to get near $40 an hour shouldn't be surprised their jobs get exported. Unions used to be about health and safety and getting the worker a fair share, now they've gone so far that a day doesn't go by that I don't hear about these high paying jobs being exported. They're doing themselves and the rest of us great disservice by driving high paying jobs out of the country. Blame the companies all you want. But if I own the company, and like the Big Three you're not making any profit in North America, I do what I have to get back to profitability. Where unions have done their membership wrong is to put these companies in the position that it is worth sacrificing the flexibility of having plants located near where the product is sold thereby making their jobs here expendable. Second. My job isn't doomed. I don't work there. I was saying that as an example. The point was that even trophy plants that the automakers brag about aren't immune to this.

I'll second that. Strawman seems so Aristocrat. EDIT: Etymology: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched So what they're saying is though he's attacked "their" ways, they see no real damage inflicted by his blows because those weren't really their ways? If that's the case, and the NDP isn't about class warfare, then please explain to us ignorant folk how attacking tax cuts for the rich/corporate and making it sound as if he's defending his supporters from the next coming of the Nazis, not class warfare.