Hydraboss

Mr. Canada, If I'm not mistaken, Charles A posted in the other thread about Layton and the massage parlor that there were to be no other threads on this topic. Are you just too stupid to understand something so simple? I am far, far from a socialist but even I'm getting sick of your childish fucking attacks on this "issue". Grow up. Why don't you contain it to the one thread that has been allowed to survive (and I don't know why at that)? There's partisan, and then there's juvenile. Guess which one this thread falls under?

Which is exactly what has been proposed by groups in Alberta, but no....the Libs and NDP go on the news with "private healthcare! private healthcare! evil conservatives and their private healthcare!" Hypocrisy at it's finest.

You mean the same way you and the other psycho-partisan members on this board go after those "bible-thumping, neo-con, anti-abortionist, anti-human rights, right-wing conservatives"???? You mean that way? Are you referring to THOSE kinds of lies? Punked, I had quite a bit of respect for someone who came on this board and supported the never-to-be-in-power socialist party...NDP...and did it with fervor. Since this little rise in popularity (for which I will forever be thankful - F T Liberals!), you've turned into a incoherent, rabid dipper. Threatening to "report" slander to "Der Headquarters" over a childish thread. Calling the kettle black when it comes to party attacks. Generally just degrading your discourse here to a very low level of psychobabble riddled with personal insults. It's all pretty disappointing from you.

Wrong again skippy. They don't have to verify a damn thing with the plaintiff. If they took their information from duly filed police records (which they will show), then the only ones who have to answer are the cops. All the cops have to do is pull their signed statements from officers (nightly report) and voila! They're in the clear. Listen, if I want to know something about socialism I'll call you. If you want to know about libel and slander defence (defamation cases), call me.

SCC Defamation info Go ahead punked, make my day. [edited for sarcasm and poor ripoff of Clint]

No, little one, you are incorrect. If they print or state something that is unprovable, it is libel/slander. If they imply it, no go. If people infer it, no go.

If the dips end up in power, the rest of his pension will be going to the NDP anyway so who cares?

Bullshit. Learn what the hell you're talking about. I WAS sued for slander and libel by my builder and guess what....it was unsuccessful BECAUSE my statements were true and provable. Now this may change from province to province, but in Alberta the absolute defence is the truth.

They're not your resources. They're Alberta's.

Guess it's my bad. You are obviously unstoppable in a one-on-one or five-on-one debate. I should probably lower my head and back out now before it gets embarrassing for me. Please forgive me.

Good for him. Name a real poster on MLW that espouses strict financial controls, doesn't give a shit about "green" motives, and is openly against any immigration that isn't of immediate and provable financial benefit to Canada. I'm not including those posters that show up on here every time the election draws near, never to be heard of again, or the mentally unstable (and we both know a few members like that). So you think I have a swastika on my forehead? Good for you.

wyly, I'd love to see the math on that assumption. It would be 2-3 generations down the road before the metrics of finances proved you correct (if at all). As for the source of immigration, those that are beneficial to Canada (educated, skilled, etc), those individuals or core families will move here of their own will. The ones that won't are of no use to this country. Point in fact (and go ahead with the xenophobe statements) - we don't need any more cab drivers. Regardless of intent, this is where a hell of a lot of "immigrants" end up when they come from third world shitholes. Doesn't mean it's right, just that it's true.

There is no answer to this debate without metrics. If you are to the left of me, you're leftist. If you're to the right of me, well, there really aren't any to the right of me.

So if everyone just posts up their Political Compass scores on this thread we'll have the truth.

Apparently what happens in Vegas doesn't necessarily stay in Vegas.

All true. And then you end up with multiples of what I just described.

Please take it easy on me. I'm still learning to spell.

Smallc, you're bang on. I've never had a problem with any immigrants coming to Canada, as long as they bring their strong backs with them (figuratively - could be their creds). Where I have issues with it is when, for every individual that comes over and pays taxes, they want to bring more than just their immediate family (wife, kids, husband, pet iguana). So we end up with a situation like this (for the sake of argument): Husband (lands a decent job and pays taxes) Wife (stays at home to look after 3 munchkins) 3 munchkins four grandparents (all are on Canada's social programs - ESL?) one great grandparent two great aunts and one great uncle And who, exactly, thinks that one taxpayer is contributing enough to the pot to support all of them (never mind the other seniors in Canada - you remember - the reason they were allowed to come here in the first place?)

Why are people even eating up bandwidth with this argument? Just answer the damn poll and the answer will "magically" appear.

Yes. Exactly. This is somehow news to you?

Hanging himself? Not even close. He just nailed the whole family reunification issue in a sentence or two. Too many "old people" cause the payer pyramid to turn upside down - now we need more immigrants to pay taxes - then we bring in their "old" relatives" - now we need more immigrants to pay taxes - etc, etc.

Not only are they family members, they are money-sucking leeches. The good news is, they vote for whomever allowed them to exist as leeches. Be nice or the NDP and Libs will be angry with you. There is absolutely no good reason for grandparents to come to Canada.

Except, for any leader that even has a hope of becoming PM (Lib or Con), to try to look "relaxed" would instantly be interpreted as "cocky" (Harper) or "arrogant" (Iggy). The only one that can attempt to look "light hearted" is Layton because, as with all he promises, he knows he'll never have to deliver. Arrogance in particular would be a no-win situation for either of the potential leaders. Harper's best bet was to look exactly like he did, or even apologetic. Takes the "scary" out of his persona.

Actually, chances are the choice is there because some MLW members aren't Canadian (BC, JBG, BONAM!!!) heh, heh

True, but if it's a matter of survival I could see the Lib's sucking up to the CPC. After all, they just spent how many years unofficially doing just that in the House. Since Ig will have to do an about-face anyway, this would be easier to swallow since no one trusts him anyway.