Hicksey

How exactly is one Canadian more Canadian than another? And how does that relate to Harper and Rae?

The reason is that some people reject your "rules" because they did not consent to them. These are not my rules. These are the rules of society. They were not adopted on my say so. I just profess to agree with them. No. The difference is that you justify exerting control over people whereas I do not. And if we lived under either socialist or communist rule there would not be some sort of control exerted over us? There will always be rules to live by in a civilized society. Living outside those rules will always make one's like harder. You have chosen the hard way. I have not. I can live within the rules. It is not hard. I fail to see why others cannot.

Would you extend that power -- I mean, "courtesy" to me so that I may tell YOU what you can or can not do? and exact punishment upon you?Why is it that when people do not wish to play within the rules they simply seek to change the rules? You decided nothing. We use the term "society" as a label when we want to hide behind personal responsibility.I didn't decide anything. Society has made those decisions over many years. The difference between our positions is that I agree with them and you do not. I view them as rules to live by and you view them as restrictions upon how you wish to live.

Done.As a public personality, Dryden is worse than Harper. Dryden has no persona - he's all dim-witted policy advisor. Like Kennedy, his French doesn't work. John Crosbie said it best - it is no longer possible to be Prime Minister of Canada unless you are bilingual. In the future, the criteria for selection will be even higher. In a different thread, I referred to a debate about Quebec pacifism. A Canadian Prime Minister must be able to hold her/his own in such a debate. Dion could. Ignatieff and Rae would gain admirable acceptance. The only Liberal candidates who can defeat Harper are among those three: Rae, Ignatieff, Dion. Rae would leave the Right to Harper - but the guy is so damned passionate about Canada, he'd make Harper look pathetic. Ignatieff would split the Right - what would Harper do? Play on Layton to squeeze the middle? Dion - well, Dion is grilled cheese. I think the Liberals will choose Dion but then be astonished to learn that English-Canadians are tired of having another French-speaking Prime Minister. The Liberals have a tough choice. People like Jason Cherniak have no principles - they want power (they call it compromise). And it's not obvious which candidate is best placed to achieve what they want. Canada is about to undergo an interesting change, I think. Are you kidding? Rae is loathed in Ontario. His record of mismanagement still commands anger ten years later. Is he hoping people will either have forgotten he couldn't run a province or believe he's learned his lesson and he can now be trusted with an entire country?

Uh, because there's no victim when someone likes to smoke pot when they watch TV?I agree. I do not think it is wrong. My question comes from the double standard. Actually, it should matter because otherwise you are dictating moral behavior and tradition and personal preference. That is none of your business. If I do not hurt you or anybody else, what do you care??? Why do we have a fine for a small amount but a criminal record for a large amount??? Either it is a crime or not. Either it is wrong or it is not. Reasonable people would not think that way for other transgressions. I do not understand how anti-drug people can think it is reasonable to have that double standard. [i understand the assumption of large amounts suggest trafficking, however, that is just a stupid triple standard.] I would support that double standard solely from the standpoint that a lot of people try it and to have one mistake mar one's life with a criminal record is a tragedy. But unlike the law we have now, I think that courtesy should stop at the first offense. Isn't "dictating moral behavior and tradition" what laws do? As a society we have decided what should and should not be allowed. Invariably some things have been disallowed not because we seek to protect potential victims, but to promote values that are thought to maintain a healthy, productive society. Laws aren't only designed to punish wrongs.

Uh, because there's no victim when someone likes to smoke pot when they watch TV? Because criminalizing something when there is no victim involved goes against the very conservative principle that government should not get involved in our personal lives? If someone stole something from you that you were going to throw out eventually, is that still theft? It didn't hurt you ... If a prisoner shivs a man that is on his final walk to the electric chair is he not still guilty of murder even though that man was to die only a short 5 minutes from the time he was killed? Was anyone hurt that wasn't going to be? We cannot measure crimes by who or whether they hurt others. What's wrong is wrong. It shouldn't matter that it doesn't hurt someone.

It has been proven that fewer guns leads to fewer gun crimes. That's misleading. As you insist less legal guns would translate to less legal firearms being used in crime. However, as it stands the percentage of crimes that are committed with properly registered weapons is negligible compared to those committed with illegal/unregistered weapons. The gun registry only places further restrictions on people who already handled, stored and used their weapons legally, and it does essentially nothing to address gun crime.

Then why are people willing to lose their lives absconding in leaky boats from the Florida Keys bound for Cuba? Why are people shot by US troops trying to escape from South Korea to North Korea? Why was the Berlin Wall needed to keep people out of the Deutsche Democratic Republic a/k/a East Germany? The number of people moving from those countries to North America is much higher than the number that were going there. People come here for hope. Despite all the efforts of liberals to create a nanny state, the dream of splendor and making it on one's own ingenuity still lives on here.

History has proved that virtually every argument provided by the war mongers to justify the war was a pack of lies. We know from hindsight that VietNam would likely be a better place today if the US had let the communists take over a country that was not destroyed by a decade of war. I'll take capitalism over communism 1000 times out of 1000. Communism has never worked and never will. Communism is just a euphanism for oppression, poverty and a general lack of freedom. If you think people are better off poor, oppressed and under the rule of a dictator, IMO you're nuts.

Stop whining. If that really is a concern, write a list of all the ways in which it conceivably hurts the rest of us and the solution is in your hands: cut those government expenditures and their corresponding taxes. Cut those government expenditures and their corresponding taxes. OK! When you need treatment for anything, we will drug test you. Care for anything related to your drug use you pay 100% -- no medicare money for you. That would certainly help reduce the strain on the health care system.

The best I can figure is that the right figures that not allowing people to be free makes themselves feel morally superior somehow, and others on the right/left feel that fueling the black market will get them a bigger bank account. We have to pay out of our pockets for their mistakes. I'm with the people that say to deciminalize marijauna as far as reducing simple possession to a fine, and to go after the dealers with a vengence because that usually leads to other larger enterpises that deal in harder drugs. But beyond that, I fail to see how making more drugs legal solves anything. We are short of rehab centers now and there are waiting lines as long as a year to get in. If we legalize it and allow more people access to more drugs it will just exasterbate the problem will it not? I see it as creating more problems for society as a whole than it solves.

The WTC was the only target of terrorist attacks within western countries. All other terrorist incidents occurred within Muslim countries and are not really our concern. More importantly, there would have been no 9/11 if the FBI and the CIA had acted on the intelligence they had available. IOW - there was no need to go to war to stop terror - good old fashion police work would have prevented it if the agencies with the responsibility had actually done their job.To contrast, there have been two deadly terrorist attacks in western countries since Iraq war that are clear retaliation for the invasion. IOW - fighting terror with 'war' simply creates more terror. That's not entirely true. The barriers built up between the US alphabet agencies prevented that from happening. According to the commission, 9/11 was the key that opened up that barrier. Without that wakeup call 9/11 doesn't get stopped. Since then, you are correct in that we have prevented a few attacks in North America. And I severely disagree that terrorism in embassies abroad and against our citizenry. IMO an attack on a Canadian embassy or if they were to perpetrate a USS Cole type attack against us -- that is an attack on Canada and should be treated severely. The real reason this fight will last and will be hard to win is that we refuse to sink to their level. If we ignored the people that do the bombing and killed their families as they kill ours instead of meeting those that fight for us head on as we do them it would send a much more decisive message. We are fighting a politically correct war. If we faught as they do the war would end quickly, but that isn't politically correct and there are enough anti-war zealots that would froth at the mouth if we did that our politicians haven't the stones to even consider it let alone try it. Because we only react we make no gains. If we continue to fight this way, I agree that we may not win -- not because we do not have the ability but because the will to continue will erode among our citizenry. This is just my opinion ... Much like during Vietnam times, there are 3 combatants in this battle. There are those who wish to fight terror, the terrorists and anti-war liberals. The Viet Kong didn't win the Vietnam War. The US didn't lose Vietnam. L(l)iberals won that war with words. IMO the same thing is happening here. Those who seek to restrict how effectively we can fight and foster the defeatism at home will eventually cause us to lose. This is a war that CAN be won. It will be hard fought, but if we go in and beat them at their own game we can win.

I don't see how it does any good. The best I can figure is that the left figures that allowing more people to make themselves dependent junkies will get them a bigger base. Who does it hurt you ask? The rest of us. We have to pay out of our pockets for their mistakes.

It seems a lengthy enough of a process but as you've said, it can still let the occasional killer through. I don't know if any process could eliminate the threat. Do you have any ideas as to how to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and those who'd do harm to themselves and others? Regardless of how vigilant you are, he who desires to kill will find a way if he wants it bad enough. The Montreal incident was an anomaly. One will get through now and then. Gun control functions more as a way to curb gun violence in the home. It effectively lowers the rate of family members shooting each other by accident or on purpose if the firearms are stored properly. Because the guns that criminals use to commit crimes are largely unregistered weapons, anything short of house to house searches daily will not root out enough of them to make a difference. The best we can do is restrict their further use by restricting the freedom of their users as long as possible. If that doesn't make us safer by acting as an effective deterrent, at least one less criminal in our midst will.

Terrorists are like school yard bullies - they attack because they want to provoke an over-reaction. If we stop over-reacting then the terrorists will go away. Trying not to over react does not mean that we do not try to protect ourselves. It makes sense to spend money on security and law enforcement designed to catch plots before they happen. Invading countries that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks and constant use of rhetoric like the 'war on terror' is an over reaction. We have to do society's equivalent of looking terrorists in the eye and showing them that we are not only not afraid of them but think that they are completely irrelevant. Unfortunately, the Bush regime and has so completely undermined our position that it makes it very difficult to use this strategy now. That said, it could be used once Bush and the rest of the chicken littles are gone from the whitehouse. Clinton did that for 8 years and prior to 9/11 Bush had done nothing to further infuriate them, how do you explain not only the more frequent attacks, but also the escalation of the severity of the attacks? If ignoring them and prosecuting them when caught works, wouldn't the instances of terror go down? Would they not have given up before 9/11 seeing that the attacks weren't spurning the over-reactions they were looking for?

Terrorists are like school yard bullies - they attack because they want to provoke an over-reaction. If we stop over-reacting then the terrorists will go away. Trying not to over react does not mean that we do not try to protect ourselves. It makes sense to spend money on security and law enforcement designed to catch plots before they happen. Invading countries that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks and constant use of rhetoric like the 'war on terror' is an over reaction. We have to do society's equivalent of looking terrorists in the eye and showing them that we are not only not afraid of them but think that they are completely irrelevant. Unfortunately, the Bush regime and has so completely undermined our position that it makes it very difficult to use this strategy now. That said, it could be used once Bush and the rest of the chicken littles are gone from the whitehouse. Is it just me or is it disingenuous to tell me someone has crossed a line, but not define the line? Where should the line be drawn? You think taking the battle from our country to theirs is crossing the lines? I don't. I'd rather it be fought there and not here. We cannot just ignore them. It was that ignorance that gave them the idea that they would be able to escalate their attacks with impunity and not be punished.

So what do we do differently then? Lay down whenever they attack? Do nothing?

As someone else has already pointed out there is a successful NDP government in Manitoba right now. There have been many successful NDP/CCF governments since the 1950’s. As I pointed out in an earlier post, all Canadian parties currently support the same general social democratic principles the CCF, precursor to the NDP, first introduced into Canada. The most successful expression of those principles is the Canada Health Act, which has become a central focus for Canadian national goals and national pride. But it is seldom recognized that NDP governments have also been the most successful at managing provincial finances as well as being among the worst: Roy Romanow in Saskatchewan as the best and Glenn Clarke as the worst. (Note the difference in that Roy was a lawyer first and Glenn was a union official) So it is hard to understand your fear. There is no doubt that the NDP can govern successfully so what, specifically, in their platform gives you the willies? What about Bob Rae? If nothing else I hope he becomes leader of the Liberals. Will be much easier to win another round if that happens. Ontarians loathe the guy.

Good guesses, but no. It comes from the Laugh at Liberals Web Blog. Link? Link. It certainly made me laugh! Statement after statement about waht liberals believe or think or say and no quotes of them saying anything. It certainly is funny how many people think that the Strawman fallacy represents cleverness. It wasn't presented as fact. And I never said it was especially clever. All I said is that it was funny to me. I laughed because it reminded me of all the liberals that do the same to conservatives. I laughed because it reminded me exactly how juvenile people can be. It is funny because in an awkward way it is true. Not true as in truth, but true as in belief. Both sides most often prescribe the views of the extreme to the mainstream in an effort to discredit each other as an idealogy. This is funny because this obtuse viewfinder is how the political sides see each other.

Good guesses, but no. It comes from the Laugh at Liberals Web Blog. Link? Link.

I believe it has become an economic reality where a sizable chunk of Canadian families feel they need two incomes to survive. At that point, the Feds feel that the welfare of children becomes an issue. Personally I see it as an evolution. At one time the same arguments against daycare (i don't feel daycare should be a handout) were used against creating public schools....but the reality of creating a literate society compelled local governments to step in. I don't think that governments should directly pay people to send kids to daycare, but I think they should be involved in creating the infrastructure necessary to increase the number of daycares available and to regulate to a degree the quality of daycares along with the relevant safety issues. Why don't we try taxing people less so the second parent doesn't need to go to work? Then if people choose to send a second parent to work it would be solely their choice and expense.

Being a liberal, I must assume you are incorrect. Perhaps I should have used the capital L.

I'll pick on Southern Comfort, although everyone else seems to be using the "Canadians are ignorant about Kyoto argument".Well, so what! Most Canadians are ignorant about all kinds of arcane issues, but that doesn't stop them having an opinion, and often an intelligent opinion. It is obvious that Canadians are concerned about the environment and want the government to do something about it. I took the trouble of finding the wording of the question used in the poll: Link (Admittedly, that was a 2002 poll but McAllister's web site explains that they pose the same question to track responses.)To that question, 77% of Canadians answered either "strongly support" or "somewhat support". You are foolish to dismiss this by saying that Canadians don't know what they are saying. I'm sure Harper is not so foolish as you. Compared to Afghanistan, this is an issue that could determine who will form the next government. ---- BTW, the poll linked in the OP was conducted in July 2006. Why is it now in the news? I disagree. While most people know of Kyoto, almost nobody really understands it, or more importantly what adhering to it would cost them from their everyday existence. If that was detailed, I too think that the results of the poll would be much different. As it stands, the question states about as much as the average person knows about Kyoto. The issue isn't that people support things that will destroy our environment. Everyone I know wants to keep it clean. But they also acknowledge that the environment isn't the only important issue of the day and it has to be balanced with our economy and health care as an issue of the day. If we institute what would be needed to achieve the target we would decimate our economy and eliminate the resulting tax revenue that supports our health care system. Kyoto is not a solution. But I whole heartedly agree that there should be worldwide targets. They should be reasonable, but the solutions should be home-grown ones so that each country has the flexibility to reach them without systematically destroying itself. L(l)iberals tell the public that conservatives don't care about the environment and would willingly accept its demise for a dollar. That is simply not true. We care too. We're just realistic about what we can achieve.

Why is it that liberals always side with terrorists? Or is it just another case of them taking the opposite side conservatives do for the sake of opposition alone?

Amidst of all the whining and complaining about the CPC continuation of a deployment that both the Liberals and NDP approved of just a year ago, all we hear is about how much more virtuous their position is than that of the CPC. I read an opinion piece in the Toronto Sun I wholeheartedly agree with. The relevant parts are noted below and the rest can be found HERE. But apparently while it is possible for the Liberals and NDP to act on principle, anything Stephen Harper does must be the result of both collusion and conspiracy with George Bush. For those keeping count, here's that Liberal and NDP principle for you.