Hydraboss

....and that would be the support for MINIMUM sentences. No one ever gets the maximums, so what is the point in having them? Judges refuse to protect children because of sub-human rights, meanwhile some poor two year old is being raped or stripped naked so some pervert f*ck can take take pictures of him or her and trade them with his friends. END THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF CATCH AND RELEASE! Let the bastards burn in hell (or at least share a cell with Bubba the Wonder Queer). Before anyone starts with the "you're just making decisions based on emotional response" BS, why is that so wrong? It's an emotional topic, and it should be dealt with on that basis. There is absolutely nothing that could be considered too harsh a punishment for these creatures. Nothing.

Capital punishment will never return to Canada, which is unfortunate. Very unfortunate. Do I approve of vigilante justice? Never did before, but after watching the scum of the earth get grounded instead of sentenced...I do now. So the solution to violence is not more violence? Ask any parent who has had a child raped or beaten what they would do with five minutes alone and no laws. Everyone here knows the answer to that question. I highly doubt that even those that support wrist-slapping could maintain their holier-than-thou stance if it happened to their loved ones. Argus, I do know the difference between child molestation and child porn. My point about how to deal with these sub-humans was that there should be absolute sentences for some crimes. Watching or possessing child porn does not constitute child molestation in my mind (although it's not a lot better), and this should carry a very stiff sentence. However, whoever is involved in making the porn should be subject to the harshest sentences that society can physically provide (again, my preference would be capital punishment).

"If all that was ever produced was things like the photo and no one ever produced things like the video, I would almost venture to say that child porn would be relegated to a minor concern in the world of law enforcement and criminal law." And that is where the problem lies. You can molest a child "a little" and get away with it. Hell, with today's sentencing guidelines, you can molest a child "a lot" and get away with it. As long as you pretty-please-promise not to do it a ninth time.

I oppose capital punishment but I completely understand the sentiment: equating the crime of child molestation with murder. I am calling you on that "throw them to the prisons" statement. If you truly believe that would be appropriate, I have a better solution: publish their names and addresses and release them to the public. I have often tried to make the case in Alberta that if the courts won't deal with child rapists, etc, like they are criminals, then let them live in Nisku (the oilfield industrial park where I work). Make them wear a sign that states what crime they committed. Pick up the body 48 hours later. Problem solved.

The only problem with having stringent rules on sentencing is that the justice system becomes very inflexible. Historically, when many crimes had very severe punishments (e.g. you get hanged for stealing a loaf of bread) the courts - juries and judges - would not convict because they didn't think the sentence was appropriate. The only two alternatives were to kill the convict or let them go. By having certain sentencing guidelines and giving flexibility to a judge it ensures that people are convicted for the crime solely on the merits of whether or not the jury or judge believes they committed the offence. Then the specific sentence, within the guidelines, can be tailored to the individual and the circumstances of the crime. That being said, if there is a general problem with sentencing for certain crimes, then adjust the guidelines (e.g. minimum sentences). But I really believe for a justice system to work and be fair, a judge must have some flexibility when they impose sentences. As I have said, the absolute sentencing guidelines would be for some crimes, not all. I also believe that there must be flexibility in sentencing for less than major crimes (I may not have worded that in the best way). However, there are certain lines that society must draw that, if crossed, yeild immediate and severe punishments. There is no alternative for judges to allow for less than 25 year service before parole consideration for first degree murder. Personally I believe this to be far too short a time, but at least it is something. I have stated in several previous posts (capital punishment related) that there are crimes that fall into the mandatory category. Sexual and violent crimes against children are as bad, if not substantially worse, than the murder of an adult. These crimes should carry as brutal of penalties as society is willing to hand out. People that commit these crimes cannot be rehabilitated, and we should not waste dollar one on the attempt. Murder, rape, crimes against children. Life in solitary, no parole. To hell with the Human Rights Circus.

Wilbur, in Alberta the support payer must provide, at a minimum, a copy of their T4 at the end of the year. If you adjust how taxes will be collected, it would have to be reflected in some tax document that would then be used to determine changes in support payments. The minute tax-splitting is allowed, would it not enshrine in law that the family is now treated as a single income unit? This would affect all income-related payments you can be sure.

Argus, I agree with you. It would be like deciding whether there should be different levels of punishment for pre-meditated murder depending on how gruesome it was. Then again, there is. Life imprisonment, but the eligibility for parole changes. This is why I believe that judges should have no choice in sentencing for certain crimes. Crimes against children for one. Molest a child - life imprisonment with no parole. (I'm actually a big believer in capital punishment for these crimes, but that's another discussion) A revamp of the criminal justice system would remove the onus of sentencing from the non-elected justices of this country. They should still maintain the rest of their duties, but sentencing should be treated like a rule book. Specific crime = specific penalty. Only then would we have a system that I could believe in.

Jerry, I have sent letters to Klein in this regard and received only the "we would like to, but we'll try it with Canada just one more time..." answer. Look this over and see what you think. It is not a separatist site, but it does endorse the whole firewall idea. The movement is already growing and this site gives like-minded people a focal point. http://www.albertaagenda.ca/ Figleaf, you keep stating "It's a historical fact that Alberta was created by Canada. What reciprocal obligations this implies may be a matter for discussion." Is it not also a fact that Britain and France are responsible for the creation of Canada? If that is your train of thought, should all of Canada acknowledge on the world stage that those two countries are entitled to our prosperity? Fair is fair. Maybe Bush should hand over the keys to the White House to Blair? "...just don't explain the viciousness of the bitterness." And you will never understand the reasons because you choose not to. It is a waste of breath to continue this banter with you because you feel that we are making it up or are delusional, and we feel that you are close-minded and will never come around to our way of thinking. Personally, I don't care if you endorse firewall tactics or separation outright. Should the time ever come, it will not be your decision to make; any more than it was Britain's or France's.

Offshore drilling is an exception, I believe. You're right. Our offshore drilling is rather limited.

Wilbur, I think what he was getting at was whether or not the "family" income would be the number that support payments would be calculated from. For child support: Right now, if the ex-husband (non-custodial parent) is single and is required to support two children then the child support payments are calculated on his income alone, but if he has other children living with him, they are not taken into account in the current formula. Now if he is married, and has four kids, the combined income is used for the formula but his custodial children are still not taken into account. If the tax-splitting model were to be applied, then support payments would be based on combined income, except the children that live with him would count equally as much as the ones he is making payments to. Effectively, this would greatly reduce the amount of support due. (ie. payment amount / 6 kids * 2 kids instead of the current method of payment amount / 2 kids * 2kids). The same method would apply to alimony payments, but could likely result in much higher payments as it would be calculated on combined income.

Kudos to the police involved. I can't imagine the restraint they would have to have not to just draw their 9mm's and take care of the problem right there. Unfortunately, the guy will probably plead-out and get house arrest for six months. Nothing to do but play on his computer..... We need more cops like these guys.

"If BC comes with us,... Ha! You're not going anwhere." Didn't really think BC would. You're right, we're probably not going anywhere. However, if the separation idea continues to grow (and it will) then Ottawa will have to address it as they have had to with Kwebek. Can you just imagine Alberta having special status for no apparent reason other than resource revenue? It would be excellent. No more whipping-boy stature for us, no more "make money and send it to us" attitude. No more "it's all in your head" BS from some easterner that never lived through the hardship. That part would be especially nice.

Fig, why are you so upset about Alberta separation? If we go, the house falls to 280 seats, and with the Lib's 103, they get to have a minority government. If BC comes with us, then the house falls to 244, and with the remaining 94 Liberal seats...nope...still a minority. Oh well. See! If we separate, you win!

What about me? I want to be able to split my income with my wife and my two kids (and maybe the dog). That would ensure that I wouldn't have to pay nearly as much income tax. After all, it's only fair.

Something to be proud of. Yes. More and more proud by the moment.

"Then it should be easy For you to explain...What did I say that's "anti-west"?" Wellll, lets take a look, shall we? "Yes, yes. I know that the trauma of the NEP is your article of faith, but its also fiction." Yep! All Albertans know that the NEP was fiction. Just ask any of us, and I'm sure you'll here the old "I know it's BS, but I just wanted to blame the feds for me losing my job, my house, my savings, etc." "Yep. Knee-jerk, prejudicial, impenetrable by logic or fact, unwarranted disapproval and also hatred. That makes you proud to be Albertan, does it?" Uh-huh. If an Albertan doesn't like the federal government because of what happened in the past, that person demonstrates knee-jerk, prejudicial, impenetrable by logic or fact, unwarranted disapproval. Damn stupid Albertans. "The NEP never put the price of oil below its production cost, and so, it cannot be blamed for substantial hardships." See point #2 above. Pure fiction. "Let me ask you again: Since Canada supported and helped build both Alberta and the oil industry, why shouldn't we get any benefit from that?" Let me answer again: Are the billions we send in transfers and in taxes not enough "benefit" for you. Sorry. Let me send you my first born child too. "Some of you in Alberta clearly LIKE hating the rest of the country, but please, don't bother to pretend it's because of any valid reasons since your reasons are plainly inaccurate." Here we go again. Damn Albertans lack any valid reasons because our reasons are plainly inaccurate. We should have been able to see that. Damn blind Albertans. Figleaf, you are plainly correct. Albertans have no reason to be angry, or resentful, or think independantly. What we should do is just admit that people like you (that have never been to Alberta I assume) know better and can save us from our obvious delusions regarding the false memories of our citizens.

Rudimentary? Bombastic? Please no use 6 cylinder words. Me took 8 minutes to find on Google. Not nice. For the last time: I'm the separatist. Geoffrey is bang on the money. You ask for proof but supply none. Your statements are received clearly as anti-west. How could they not be? Why should the ROC receive anything more from Alberta? Are the billions we send not enough? What will be enough for you? The NEP screwed the West. You can argue your side probably as long as I can argue mine, however, Albertans will never buy your line of BS because too many of us lived through it. Maybe that's just the Alberta Extremist in me talking. I have no doubt that you believe that the civilized and educated world ends at the western border of Ontario, and you will always be welcome to that opinion. There is a very similar sentiment here, it just faces the other direction. Do you remember the phrase "Turn off the valve and let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark"? Well, guess what, it's alive and well again. Good.

Yes, please use the big L when describing the Liberal Party of Canada. People that voted for them tend to get offended if you don't refer to them using a big "L". Lighten up

I hate how these guys make light of a massive waste of taxpayer money to evacuate non-Canadians, just so they can move back to Lebanon. 66 million that could have been tax cuts or program spending (depending on your view). Introducing the new Liberal Conservative Party of Eastern Canada (LPCEC). Funny, I don't remember them being on the last federal ballot.

What were you expecting from the Communist Board of Canada? Maybe something about Canada? Good luck with that. If they put a picture of anyone from this country, they would be racists.

Figleaf, would you mind demonstrating how Alberta was built by the ROC? I'm just curious.

"I'm not calling rightwingers organized or clandestine in the matter. They're openly anti-cbc." *choke* *cough* *aaack!* Gerry's right. *hack* *gurgle* *ouch!* Damn, that hurt. I only meant, of course, that the rightwingers are openly anti-cbc. We just hate wasting money on useless things.

Please continue, Fig, with your knowledge-impaired responses. Personally I love them because they serve well to underscore and highlight the reality of the views of the ROC. While this may not be true overall, it is people like you and comments like yours that stoke separation. Keep going... Your belief that the NEP was not the cause of Alberta's "slight recession" flies in the face of those of us who lived through it. Were you actually around when it happened, or are you speaking from your memories of the Liberal classroom that you grew up in? There are two groups of people that exist in this instance: the oppressors and the oppressed. Sounds very over-blown to use that terminology, but that is the way a great number of Albertans feel. Have you been watching this board and seeing how the attitudes are changing? Members from Alberta are starting to become very vocal about the possibility of separation, and that alone bodes well for my designs. What begins as an idea, can quickly grow to more. So again, please continue telling Albertans that it's all in their heads, and in the heads of the Alberta Extremists (god, I love that phrase). The more you do, the more you will aid in bringing it to a reality.

You need a better accountant if you are paying $40K/year on income tax on 90K/year. If you a single person with no deductions you would be paying 25K in Ontario - at most. If you spent every remaining cent on items that charged the PST and the GST you would pay another 8K in sales taxes bringing your total tax bill to 33K. However, you probably spend a big chunk of you money on stuff that is not taxable so I doubt your total tax bill exceeds 30K.IOW - the 40K/year figure is pure fiction. If you are going to whine about how much tax you pay then get your facts right. Alberta...$90,000 gross income = $26968.56 deductions (federal & provincial tax, max EI, max CPP) = 29.97% tax load. If you take the remaining $63,031.44 and charge 6% GST = $3781.89 (no prov sales tax) that leaves you with a total tax load of $30,750.45 or 34.17%. Just thought I would throw that in.

So if I it takes me an hour and a half to fix a leak in my downstairs water line, I should pay tax based on the 1 1/2 hours I would have been charged by a plumber (even if at a reduced rate)? Are you for real? What about the stay-at-home parent that looks after his or her own children? Should that family have to pay taxes on an amount relative to the cost of professional daycare?