greyman

These are examples of specific profiteering. Re-read what I said. Overdone sticklerism.

Don't you think the best preventative for crime is allowing people to do what they like, so long as they're not infringing on someone else's right to do the same?

Cutting is the right move. However, the Conservative party is a neo-conservative party, meaning they will cut spending on social programs, and continue spending hand-over-fist for policing, prisons, and militarism. So basically, they will pander to their neo-con base, and the across-the-board cutting we need won't happen, and we will continue the slow-motion car-crash, just on a smaller scale than the gigantic train-wreck unfolding south of the border.

The problem is not limited government, it is your limited view. The entire thing you've said here above is predicated upon our current system operating as a small-government, unfettered market economy, and that is about the opposite of what we're dealing with at the moment. Your complaint about CEO pay compared to the lower levels, basically all of your complaints are products of big government, not the opposite.

Again, I'm pretty sure murder, and assault were already on the books.

This is why these things shouldn't be left to too much interpretation. War with Iran should be restricted to an incidence where Iran directly attacks our homeland. And jails...we have plenty of jails, we're just charging too many people for things they shouldn't be put in jail for. I have a feeling if we released all the offenders of victim-less crimes, we'd have a lot more elbow room in our prisons.

Slavery is involuntary.

The more money government pours into health care and education, the more expensive both become.

Who's on the hook when your foundation cracks? Who's on the hook when your plumbing's backed up? How much do you spend each year beautifying or keeping up your property? The list could go on and on. Renting is cheaper in the long run. Outright ownership assumes all the risk, and bears all the cost. Just one of those problems I mentioned above could cost the same as your rent for an entire year.

Awesome. Don't forget though that Doc said Marty needed 1.21 jigawatts, and he had to reach 88 m.p.h., or the whole thing would fall apart. Ergo, I am the walrus...coo-coo ka-choo. War profiteering. Profiteering, generally speaking, is the bee's knees. Oxford Dictionary: justify - v. - be a good reason for a decision or action A broken clock is right twice a day. These aren't the droids you're looking for. I'll like it. Pomposity personified.

Maybe we could build a tran-canada oil pipeline that runs directly beside the highway of the same name. What could go wrong?

Again, your point? Your purpose? And I've never said the US nor NATO did not somehow believe their war-making was justified, I said just the opposite in fact, and agreed with you that they politically justify it anyway they like. However, as I've stated before, in my opinion it is war-making for the sake of profit, and not in any way connected to the defense of their national sovereignty. In my view, war is always a last resort, and should not be engaged in except in cases where the homeland is under attack. Anything other than that is unjustifiable in my view. The stated purpose is political rhetoric used to justify war-profiteering. That is why I have a problem with it. What doesn't have to be justified? War? Obviously, I disagree. The collective will in this country is a product of democratic mob rule - a great many opinions in the country go ignored, as does their own sizable collective will. Disagreeing with the mob doesn't make you necessarily right or wrong - it simply means you disagree - as I so clearly do. Newbies? To what? This board? Enlightened thought? What game? Yes, my heart bleeds for the companies who profit from death and suffering for the sake of...death and suffering. Any dying military contractor is replaced by a healthier cousin. Hopefully, the day will come though when war stops being engaged in by nations like Canada and the United States, purely for the sake of keeping military contractors in the black. I didn't "bring it up", it was a part of something I said that you chose to key in on to try and make some inane semantic point that means nothing in the context of the larger conversation.

Yes, more refinement capacity. Agreed. And given that we import most of what we consume, it makes you wonder how sustainable that is given there must be a dwindling supply abroad. Or, I assume as much given the great lengths people are going to extract more crude. Every time I see an ocean rig, or hear about the deepwater drilling that snakes in all directions now to suck up all the oil it makes me wonder if all the low-hanging fruit's almost gone.

Our government legislates morality at every turn. We've turned the regulatory pen into a tool of coercion, as a means to force people to conform to ever-stricter codes of conduct that will only serve to do just the opposite. Your call for the registration and regulation of firearms is a call for legislation. And why do you want it? Because you feel if that regulation didn't exist, people would behave immorally - THUS, you advocate legislating morality. And what you're not understanding is that you cannot do that by government decree. People behave how they behave because that's how we humans are. We've had laws against killing and robbing each other since before firearms even existed, yet has either of those things stopped? No. Will they ever stop? No. Why? Because that's what human beings do. It's the same thing with owning knives, guns, bombs, or a car. Just about anything can be turned into a lethal weapon if the will is there. And that's just it, the will is ALWAYS going to be there. You cannot get rid of that motivation to kill by stroke of a pen, you just can't. Will organized crime go away with drug prohibition? Perhaps not, but they'll be drastically undercut by making all drugs legal. And really, when it comes down to it. What is prohibition for? Has it stopped or slowed drug use or the crimes that have come to be associated with it? No, instead we spend millions every year on law enforcement, courts, and prisons to house people whose only crime was they were deemed less moral than the rest of us because they have what is essentially a health problem, i.e. addiction. The point is, we have laws that deal with those who kill, or hurt one another. Are they perfect, no? But they are there so if some drug addled moron gets behind the wheel and kills someone they're punished. Likewise, if someone uses a gun to commit violence against another, we have laws on the books to deal with it. Allowing people to do what they like as long as they obey the laws of not hurting or killing one another, is not tantamount to the crazy hell-hole you make it out to be, it would be an example of an enlightened nation that understands that with freedom, health, wealth, and happiness follows. And yes, democracy means mob rule. In a democracy, you can still end up with 49.5% of the population unhappily living in a system they have not consented to creating. You can still end up with close to half the population of any given place paying a good chunk of their hard-earned money to fund programs they completely disagree with. That is not freedom, that is mob rule, and is no way to run a country. Have I had a few cold ones? No, but it sounds like you've had LOTS of Kool-Aid.

Should we? Another conversation, I suppose.

You know more about the BC salmon situation than I do, but my basic point was to say that surely that industry has created productive jobs, and generated at least some productive wealth for that region - however, having said that - I am willing to admit I could be very wrong on that. In terms of the region trumping the province, and/or the feds, I agree completely. No one wants to see less centralization than me. On the oil thing, all I'm getting at is that Canada is oil dependent, that's it. And it would probably make more sense for regions within Canada to import their oil from Alberta than from Venezuela (for example)...but again, on that...I'm willing to admit that too might not be true. Maybe it is cheaper to import oil from elsewhere, but then combine that with indirect economic growth of regions that import from closer to home, it might not be as cheap as we think. Tough call. As for your last question, I am 100% in favour of regions splitting off from provinces, again, if that is the will of the people who live there.

Canada was compelled to join the war as the political reality at that time was that Canada was essentially an English entity. England's justifications to make war did not require the consent of the cannon-fodder Canadian conscripts. I haven't said declaring war on Germany was essential, I said from the Canadian point of view is was justified. Canada joined because the country was essentially a part of England at that time, yet not in a position to question England's motives when it comes right down to it. DND policy is rhetoric. Canada is not in NATO for defense, it is in NATO to ally with other perpetrators of crony-capitalist war profiteering. Canada bombing Libyans in the name of supporting war profiteering? Absolutely not justified. What's your point? Abortions are immoral. A life is a life. Northrop Grumman is an example of the war lobby, which, is nowhere near broke. Innocent or not innocent is a game of semantics, and a waste of time.

+1000

What is with you? Are you looking for someone to step up and simplistically state that things are better in Canada than the United States? You'll get no such admission from me. We're every bit as messed up here as in the US...maybe worse. I've never said we don't have prohibition here. We're fighting a moronic war on drugs here, just like the Americans.

England wasn't attacked? Tell that to the survivors of the German bombing raids over lower England. I am not giving more credibility to Canada's involvement in WWII than that of the Americans, never said it...so not sure what you're talking about there. Canada does not belong to NATO for security purposes, that idea is laughable. Canada bombed Libyans in support of alliances built on imperial interests, and contractor lobbying. Proves I'm not comfortable about Canada's past battles? I've already laid out in black and white that I'm worse than "not comfortable" I am outraged at the actions of the Canadian government through our military. We have decades of blood on our hands through unjustified war-making. We have sent thousands of Canadians, and millions of foreigners to their deaths through unjustified war-mongering. You ask me why both the US and Canada should stop fighting unjustified wars? Because as I'd said, war is and always should be a last resort. Why? Because taking the lives of another human being is immoral, barbaric, un-evolved, and just plain wrong. You know who else weren't conscripts? The millions of innocent civilians around the world who have died in the name of imperialism, and so the Board of Directors at Northrop Grumman could further fatten their bank accounts.

Do Jim Pattison, and Galen Weston fish that water themselves? Are the fish caught then flown out of BC immediately? Alberta separating from Canada is fine with me, if that's the will of the people. Should provinces who don't pump oil out of the ground themselves get their oil somewhere other than Alberta? Every province needs it, so what alternative are you suggesting?

Look deeper into the US's high homicide rates, and firearms-related deaths/injuries, and behind the curtain you find the root cause...drug prohibition. End the war on drugs, you cut crime drastically, and likewise the need for the quasi-police state designed to keep us all dependent. Stop legislating morality, end prohibition, allow the natural deterrent an armed citizenry provides, and you won't need more police officers, but less.

dre, I feel for you, it is tough in today's climate. I completely agree, interest rates must rise, sharply. We're due for a correction, and it's going to hurt more because it's going to blindside many Canadians. All because it's not politically expedient to level with the public and tell them that the credit party is over, and then act accordingly. Savings are the way out of this mess, and it is not easy to put money away in the current environment.

Re-read my post, I said "essentially" Canada was attacked by Nazi Germany based on the "political realities of the time". What that means is that in 1939 Canada's ties to England were much stronger as part of the Commonwealth than today. ESSENTIALLY, a direct attack on England was an attack on Canada - we were compelled by the political reality of the time to respond, thus it was justified. Canada being a founding member of NATO is supposed to mean they can't get out? Ridiculous. The U.S. does justify its warring ways in any manner it pleases, but that makes it no more justifiable than any other nation that resorts to such savagery. And to mention Canada with regard to Korea, Iraq, Libya, the Balkans, or Kosovo proves what, exactly? Yes, Canada - much like the Americans - use whatever justification they want to go to war...what's your point? Do you think I'm saying Canada is right, and the US is wrong? No, I'm saying both nations fight wars that are unjustifiable, and it ought to stop. We can get into the semantics of what comprises an "all-out" war all day, but for the relatives of those men and women who've given their lives - on either side of the battlefield - the semantics matter not. As a compliant electorate, we all have their blood on our hands.

A democracy, again, is mob rule - and hardly the bastion it is held up to be. Also, the puppet government in Afghanistan is not there for the good of the Afghan people, but for the good of the CIA heroin trade, Pentagon strategic territorialism, and oil pipeline contractors.