Hicksey

My whole point is, if its become that dangerous - and I never said it wasn't. I said armed security was not defined as part of a customs officer's job - we are not doing innocent citizens of whichever countries are going through the crossing or customs offficers any favour by arming them. Armed security should be left to the professionals. And I actually know something about this. A close friend of mine was a customs officer and yeah, hassles with U.S. citizens over their weapons is a daily occurrence, but ask yourself, what do we accomplish by arming the customs officers? If we're talking about regular U.S. citizens - non-criminals - who are unwilling to surrender their guns or go back to the U.S - the standard policy - do we want our customs officer's drawing weapons on them? If we're talking about the kind of organized smuggling of weapons by criminal gangs that all parties talked about during the election, do we expect customs officers to engage in fire fights with groups of better armed gangsters? The US customs agents rarely pull their weapon. But they are taught not to hesitate if there is any suggestion their life is in danger. I'm through customs as often as most customs officers are. I see what happens. I've had a gun pulled on me because they thought I had a weapon in my vehicle upon xraying it. It turned out to be my umbrella. But all this makes me feel all the more safer. I'd rather they err on the side of their safety, and in my opinion it shows in how well they do their jobs.

What corrupt MPs ran again? Well, the 7 unnamed Quebec MPs who got the kickback money added to their election campaigns. The Liberals still ahven't named them, right? Tony Valeri lost in Hamilton. That means the Ng family paid him $250,000 and got nothing in return - unless, of course, the payment was for services already rendered. And the Liberals still can't figure out why after Gomery they're still called corrupt ...

I think we agree but interesting that communist is the first example that leaps to mind for you. Past few years in the U.S they had government produced "fake news features" for proposed programs released to all media outlets as if they were news reports, immense levels of funding to pro-Republican groups and that's not even mentioning less easy to define propaganda. An old adage is that no matter what they say when out of power, once in power the main concern of all political parties is to stay in power. That opens the door to a whole world of thought control. The only difference between all out communism and the type of indoctrination we're talking about here is that we have free speech rights so that we can speak out against it without fear of being persecuted by our government. I agree with the part about staying in power. That's why I want to see Harper eliminate these programs to prevent future governments from using them.

And religions exclusively define marriage as between a man and a woman. It's the government that's taken the word marriage for itself and bastardized it. Traditionalists like me believe that it is an insult to 2000 years of tradition and that should the government want to enter into the marriage business they should respect its traditions. However, I am not of the mind that government can't offer unions unsanctioned by the church and define them as they please and even bequeath upon the participants the same rights within the relationship as those of the participants in a marriage.

Giving them guns doesn't negate the need for a real border force. But considering the number of guns they encounter I think we owe them at least that much. Their job is much more dangerous than you make it out to be.

Remember Hicksey, 10 minutes response time is actually pretty good. Imagine the remote crossing in Southern Alberta (and other places I'm sure)... I've heard that one of the crossings is nearly an hour for police to arrive. Still, it takes much less than 10 min to pull a trigger. At least with a sidearm, and others close by with the same, she stands a real chance. She told me her husband offered to take on a second job if she'd just quit. But she's about 50 or so and isn't far from a full pension and is hoping they'll come through.

The whole program is pork. But your comments are well taken. However, this kind of manipulation of public opinion is disgusting. It should be outlawed and life imprisonment be the penalty for any attempt. That's flagrant indoctrination. Is this a communist country? I didn't think it was but now I am starting to wonder.

I've talked to many in my travels as a truck driver and most have set a deadline and, for their own safety, most are ready to leave the job permanently should they not be armed. One female guard from Sarnia, ON I caught on a smoke break says she hates the idea of carry a gun, but insists it is necessary. She told me police had to be called in 25 times last year for unruly gun toting travellers. And they have to stand there at the mercy of a gun toting, usually either angry or emotionally unstable traveller for up to 10 minutes while the police arrive. I'd quit too.

If you actually believe being straight was a choice you made, I would question whether you really are. People are raised to be straight. They don't know any better until they're of age. Most try hetero first and decide they don't like it and then try homo and decide they like it. A choice is a choice is a choice. To this day it baffles me as to why people would deny this. They made a choice. It's not one I would or could make, but so what?! I don't care what 5% of the population does in their bedrooms as long as I don't have to watch them parading down my main street or if they force the choice of 5% on the whole. I expect them to be proud of who they are, and I even think that even though I don't agree with their choice, there are certain inalienable rights. But to walk in and disrespect 2000 years of tradition, that's a different story. I'm perfectly willing to respect their beliefs/rights, so why then can't they respect mine?

I think the accountability statute needs to extend to make the efficiency of the government available for public viewing. They need to set up a website for every government agency with an efficiency meter for how much of the gross money allocated for each project made it to its intended target. If my idea won't work then some other way of measuring the weight of the pork being served up by our government has to be worked out and then eliminated.

And therein lies the crux of the problem. And you're probably still wondering why central Ontario and Toronto voters think big "C" Conservatives like you are social neanderthals. Hey, I'm not the one who whored myself for political gain. I call a spade a spade. I don't care if Toronto doesn't like it either. Whichever way she goes, Liberal->Conservative or as she did Conservative->Liberal, the net result is the same. That's not being a social neanderthal at all. But apparently thinking that there comes a point where people must do for themselves is. Everyone wants a nanny state. It's sad really.

You've said your piece. I would still vote for the NDP over the Liberals. At least they have more to offer than hate, vitriole and lies that Liberals the likes of you buy hook, line and sinker. The Liberals used to be a decent party but in their current incarnation they're only slightly more useful than used toilet paper. So are you saying that all Liberals are liars and all liberal's promote hate, and all liberals are thieves cause if you are that is pretty hypocritical of you... we will see how much lying your precious Stephen Harper does, and his people, probably about as much as Mulroney did and he did alot of it, and see how much hate they dish out to other people... yeah I said my piece, but I see you did not comment on anything I said, maybe you know that I am right, and guess what hicksey, the conservatives did not win, it is just the liberals lost, if our country really wanted a big change you would of gotten the majority regardless. And answer me this question, why do you feel that when there is need for a change that it has to be a new government, why can't the old governement fix what is wrong and change from within, answer me that. No, I said the Liberal party is the one espousing the lies, hate and vitriole. And while we're at it I'll amend it to include stealing. Ordinary small 'l' liberals generally are much more civilized in my experience. IMO it is never wise to trust the people that broke it to fix it. We needed a new government for no other reason than to bring accountability and go as far as we can to purging Ottawa of the profiteering and scandal. If Harper can achieve no more than that and his crime bill under the current lineup of the house I'll be satisfied but not impressed.

I'll give credit where its due here. That was a good one!

Even if he has, politics demands he be lost. If Harper had a majority, leaving him there wouldn't matter.

Be thankful that your party lost. Then they can rebuild and have ideas instead of hate to sway Canadians with.

You know if it was a Liberal minority again, I was hoping Martin and Harper would step down and be replaced by McKay and Stronach. THAT would be a campaign... And the only poll she'd have a chance with would be on a stage.

And why was the Quiet Revolution successful? That's quite the stretch. First, your theory depends on Quebecers viewing gays as a "special interest group", and equal marriage as an attack on traditon. I doubt many Quebecers see the issue through that lense. Also, the Liberals can hardly be said to have bent over backwards on the equal marriage issue. Remember, the same Liberals who passed equal marriage vowed not long before to uphold the "traditional" definition. They were dragged into the issue kicking and screaming by the provincial courts (Quebec included). I'll stand corrected here. But its no lie our values and traditions have eroded severely over the last 20 years or so.

You've said your piece. I would still vote for the NDP over the Liberals. At least they have more to offer than hate, vitriole and lies that Liberals the likes of you buy hook, line and sinker. The Liberals used to be a decent party but in their current incarnation they're only slightly more useful than used toilet paper.

You're saying best to brave the issue now while the opposition isn't likely to bring the government doen so it can be defeated and take the issue away from the 'hidden agenda' argument. Having given it a second thought, if in fact it turns out that way, that may be the best idea yet. And Harper wouldn't be nearly as scary as once thought. If it works with SSM they should send Abortion down that river too.

Rubbish. The reason Quebecers are most supportive of equal marriage is the fact that they know what it's like to be a minority and the importance of defending minority rights from the tyrrany of the majority. Quebecers are also among the most socially liberal and irreligious folks in Canada: I don't think they care much about Anglo-Saxon Porotestant Canada's traditions. In fact, if I were a Quebecer and saw the zeal with which other Canadians want to roll back pminority rights, I'd have to wonder where I would be on the list. I think the reason why you think they would be for it is exactly why they would see it as I do. Every minority that stepped up to the Liberals except Quebec was bent over backwards to. They even eroded their own traditions to give the SIGs what they wanted and when Quebec came asking they never got a fair shake.

Me either. But that doesn't make it any less a mistake in judgement. Most people had long ago written these issues off as lost. He should have let sleeping dogs lie.

That was LOW Shoop... :angry: Now that I've read the other part of your post though, Harper did promise the more socially right-wing part of his party that he would bring it up as a free vote and he has to. It will be very close...as another post started recounts, we would need to know how many anti-SSM Liberals won. I disagree. That part of his base are the broken-glass conservatives. They'll excuse that as one of the political realities of a minority. The centrists are the ones he can't anger.

In the beginning I begged my local guy to make some calls and when he got someone to listen to tell them not to trot them out all unless it was a promise not to bring them before parliament. We'd have a majority right now if he was sucessful.

I think I'm going to need some cognac pretty quick. Martin's speech does sound better when you can actual hear it, this is first for him. Good for Martin though, however much he bottomed out his party and was a weak Prime Minister, what he did in the Finance portfolio was quite an accomplishment, and he deserves a ton of credit for that. Good people can even come out of the Liberal Party, sometimes. Any idiot can rob peter to pay paul. He didn't accomplish anything. What would have been impressive to me would have been to come up with a systemic solution that didn't include rading the provinces coffers and leaving our wallets at their mercy.

I am happy to see the Liberals out of office. But with our agenda outnumbered in the house 3 to 2, achieving everything else in our agenda (except a few notables that have general support: crime & accountability) will be similar to your grandfathers indecent 10 mile walk to school in the snow -- uphill both ways no doubt.