mar

Does it matter? Either you accept that as Canadians we believe all citizens are equal under the Charter or you don't. It doesn't matter how many there are or whether we like them or even whether we approve. A quick example for you. In the 1800's it was common practice for both british and french immigrants in canada to marry First Nations women. After awhile, both the Anglican and Catholic churches decided they didn't like this so they nullified all marriages saying that since the women were not baptized Christains early enough (they had to make it that way because most of them had converted to Christianity before or at the time of their marriage) the marriages were not valid. Many women were abandoned by their spouses. So, would you accept this restriction to the Charter? Can a religion say, sorry we don't like you savages so we'll nullify your sacrements, the ones we performed? There is an old saying "First they came for the gypsies but I wasn't a gypsey so I didn't care. Then they came for the Jews but I wasn't a Jew so I didn't care. Then they came for the homosexuals but I wasn't a homosexual so I didn't care. Then they came for me but there was nobody left to care."

I really, really hope that Conservative leadership thinks like you. Blaming the previous government is an old political ploy - especially popular with the incompetent - and rarely works for long. The Liberals discredited the Mulrooney finances only because they were able to put the government into surplus within two years. If they hadn't, cretien would have lasted one term as the voters get real tired of a government that does nothing but blame their predecessors for problems and investigate dead issues. The public wasn't even interested when the RCMP were investigating Mulroony for kickbacks under Cretien. Once a government is gone, the only people interested in dissecting its corpse is the government who succeeded them. Voters only care about what the present government is doing for them. So by all means write your Conservative representatives and demand they spend a whole lot of time in investigating the Liberals. The more the better. The PC's were wiped out by theCanadian voters before the Liberals took power. Everything that came afterwards was flogging a dead horse.

That would be a better argument if the institution of marriage did not pre-date Christianity. Babylon had purely civil mariage concerned entirely with property rights long before Christianity emerged, so why is that definition not the "traditional definition of marriage"? As a technical matter in most Western countries, the state extends its right of legal association to churches only so far as they can perform ceremonies. Licensing is always handled by the state. In the Netherlands, the religious ceremony has no legal standing, so people have a civil ceremony and only a religious one if they choose. While people may claim they are married under God, Netherlands wants to see your signature on a binding legal document before they start doling out any marriage benefits

Therein lies the reason why we won't get it, regardless of what any party not in power says they would do in power. PR has the effect of reducing the power of the party getting the largest number of seats and distributing power to other parties. What government in power is going to push through legislation to achieve that? The European case was different as several countries had an overriding fear of a minority controlling the government because of the experience with Mussolini and other fascist takeovers so PR had huge popular support.

Uh huh. Some of them still do. In fact I saw a comment on the Guardian today saying "Move over, Tony! Georgie's got a new rent boy."

"Freakin' immigrants! Come here and steal our country, take everything, run all the elections." About the only people who might be entitled to make that comment came here quite a few thousand years ago. Course they just got screwed outta the Kelowna Accord so they may not be feeling quite so polite right now.

LMAO (almost literally). And tml12, you haven't really got a scoop on the NDP. A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away the NDP actually used to campaign as a socialist party. When I was very young they would have Marxist professors of economics, Teamsters and other assorted dangers to society running for the NDP . . . and some of them even got elected! They were a lot more interesting then.

God! My grandmother was a party worker many years ago for the Conservatives and not one of the more enlightened voices of her generation. She used to tell me about all these immigrants they would encounter while campaigning and how all of them would just vote Liberal because that's who was in power when they came to Canada and how they all stuck together and whoever their "bosses" (whoever they were?) decided they would vote for that's who they all voted for and how they would be paid to vote a certain way. Only thing was this was a long time ago and the immigrants she was talking about were Ukranians and Italians and Jews and whoever else was coming in at that time when non-caucasian immigration was rarer. Same bigotry, two generations away. So have "we" whoever "we" are, accepted the Italians and Jews and Ukranians yet? Can they volunteer at polling stations without making "us" uncomfortable? This is like the twi-lite zone. I know I'm from the same country as some of you but I feel like one of us is from Mars. I mean we're not talking politics here, we're talking how we see the world.

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?

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.

If the problem is this routine, it would make far more sense to create and task an RCMP or even military group to police the border, rather than expecting civil servants hired to check for contraband, collect tax and check passports to become a SWAT team. Long before 9-11 most european countries used either military or national police at border crossings. It makes far more sense and is far safer for all concerned to provide full time professional armed support rather than arming customs officers who weren't hired for it and are not trained for it. Customs officers have a real purpose. If we need security use professionals, don't make it part of their job as they will never be as well trained or experienced as professional police or military personnel and it will actually impede their real function. I hope this won't become one of those idiot ideas that amounts to "Hey! We got these guys there already. Just give them guns and save money instead of providing real security." Its a recipe for disaster and some things should not be considered just because they're cheaper.

The bizarre aspect of this is that all through Gomery, etc. the only people who had a problem with the actual idea of the sponsorship program - as opposed to the money aspect - were those in Quebec. A number of Quebecois analysts thought that Quebec's reaction was much more that the program existed (even though it wasn't exactly a secret during the last referendum), rather than that money was stolen. Not surprising when you think that Gomery was shown so extensively in Quebec and people were seeing a daily accounting of this "undercover" spending. Ironically, they chose to blame Martin, though as pointed out above, the program began under Trudeau, was enthusiastically taken over by Mulroony and in the '90's was enthusiastically supported by all the Anglophone federal parties. I don't think this is a "pork" issue, I think it is a question of whether the government should be in the business of attempting to manipulate the opinions of Canadian citizens by subterfuge using fake action groups. etc. As a means of influencing the outcome of the referendum, it would probably have been cheaper and more effective just to mail everyone in Quebec a cheque for their percentage of what the government was going to spend on this ill-conceived program.

Why precisely did you feel uncomfortable? Are you saying merely being in the presence of non-caucasians makes you uncomfortable? You said "staffed" so the complaint is, what? That causasians should only have to hand their ballots to other caucasians? Is that what you're actually saying? And for those suggesting the fact they are there means they are "hijacking the election process' what is that about? Simple solution. Volunteer and get your white ass down there next election (which can't come too soon if this view represents dominant Conservative opinion).

I think Stronach is an attractive package for a leader in some ways. Neither Liberals or Conservatives (in all previous forms) have ever really committed to a female leader (nothing against Kim Campbell but I think she was tokenism). An awful lot of the disaffected PC's are women which could mean votes. One thing she's very good at is appearing natural in public speaking settings. Harper doesn't have it, nor Martin and its a fairly rare ability. A big negative is her conservative origins (though they would try to make that a plus to bring in disaffected PC's) and relative lack of political experience. On the other hand she just survived a vicious, white hot attack by the Conservatives in the national media and in her riding and still won her seat fairly convincingly. That may say something about her abilities as a campaigner. Sometimes voters just like a candidate...call it charisma or whatever. I don't think she'll be selected as leader but I can see reasons for serious consideration. Everybody agrees Ignatieff is smart, but if you're gonna be typed an intellectual in politics, you have to have "the common touch." Trudeau was brilliant but he could also tell a joke, give a great speech making it sound like he was making it up as he went along and deliver wicked one liners at a moment's notice. I haven't seen enough of Ignatieff to be sure, but he strikes me as too much the academic in how he comes off. Two recent examples of smart leaders who came off badly when they spoke in public were Al Gore and John Kerry, both of whom are engaging, funny and relaxed in a 1-on-1 but seemed stiff, pompous and remote in public events. I'll leave our ambassador to the court of the boy king for those who've seen more of him than me. He may be the guy as he seems a "safe" choice. Purely on visuals and the ease of crafting a campaign for him, you got to think Dryden will have supporters. The guy does come off well in public. It will be interesting to see if the party goes back to the fount of all Liberal success and goes with a Quebecois for leader. You have to admit the sons of Quebec have done pretty well for the Liberals throughout history. Anyone think any of the surviving Quebec Liberal MP's have a shot?

And you base this on? This board seems to have taken a decidedly Mathusian tone, and from some unexpected sources. However, since we seem to be returning to the fiscal policy of the ninetheenth century, I suppose we might as well regress to the social values as well. Whether people are suggesting that the poor are mentally defective, lazy or whatever else, we have the paradigm of 'US" vs "THEM," Them being some inferior sub-species of humanity who represent a drag on the country and must be eliminated. Well, there are lots of models; Malthus preferred they simply be allowed to starve and die of disease, something all of the post 1492 North American immigrants have already put into practice with considerable success in "the new world." The Third Reich preferred a more active approach, apparently being an impatient lot. I am not sure which prospect I find worse: a) that we have become not a nation, not even a society, but a collection of greedy, unthinking, selfish bastards who happen to occupy a certain geographic area and can only grasp one idea: "I want more." or that people who used to know better have succumbed to the worst of human impulses. Ultimately, I suppose it doesn't matter; if we are to destroy the immense promise of Canada, is it really important who is beating the drum and who is merely pulling on the oars? Every imperialist power has its hangers on, its collaborators, its willing servants. Perhaps the miracle of Canada is that we had managed to produce a few giants who resisted this pressure, but apparently that was a different generation, a different time. Shed a tear for Canada as it slides noiselessly into the stinking cesspool that engulfs us from the South.

Actually what you said was: "Your the one holding on to centuries old values (especially in your defense of Federal power based on Keynesian economics, and from even that perspect you were wrong). We are the ones trying to improve the way things are done." Which of course is meant to suggest that the economic policies of the Conservatives will eschew Keynesian economics. However, the principal argument being proferred in favour of joining the missle defence system is, in fact, the economic benefit - a Keynesian argument. If you examine the history of Canada's involvement with U.S. plans in military procurement, you will find that the economic benefit obtained by Canada represents only scraps of what is usually trumpeted as the total. Part of this is that our defence sector is dwarfed by that of the U.S. part of it is simply that any plan proposed by the U.S. for their economic benefit is just that: for their benefit, not ours. Perhaps as a student of economics you might wish to review the literature on the economic value of spending in the defence sector as opposed to other areas of the economy. You will find that there are countless more effective ways to provide economic benefit. To be specific, yes, any major government spending program will generate some employment and revenue, but the bang-for-the-buck in the defence sector is very low.

Unless you're extremely gullible, you won't be convinced. However, there is an upside. We keep hearing from posters on here and Conservative politicians that they firmly believe its more democratic to let the majority decide. Given there are numerous surveys showing the majority of Canadians are in favour of decriminalizing cannibis possession, guess that's gonna be a Conservatibe priority too, huh?

You gettin' tired, eureka? I really disagree with your first paragraph. Most of us - if we're lucky - go through life not realizing that we're walking a tightrope over the abyss, that we're totally unprepared for and totally incapable of dealing with a catastrophic change in our life or the lives of those in our immediate family. Many of the poor were not always so. Some of them lost their careers through a long illness. Some of them found themselves in a family situation where a parent or child was terminally ill and the burden of providing care and trying to survive financially proved to much and they ended up with neither career or money or the family member who ultimately died. Some of them made one mistake that landed them in prison, after which your life is never the same. And lets not be naive or sententious about this, most of us have made at least one mistake in our lives that could have landed us in prison. Did you ever drive drunk, maybe have an accident but without any fatalities? As a teenager did you ever in one stupid moment do something that could have killed or seriously injured someone else? I could go on, but pretty much everyone I know has one of those "there but for the Grace of God go I" moments. Some of them were just so screwed over and brutalized by the time they reached 18 that "normal life" was no longer an option. I'll stop now.

Huh? think you've got the wrong forum. You mean those values aren't an inspiration? Did he take that back too? Kinda like him saying: "I didn't really mean we should send troops to Iraq even tho I said it a hundred times or so on TV. I really meant we should only send troops if the information I argued for months was right, was really right which I now say wasn't and, of course I couldn't listen to Creiten or the majority of canadoians at the time, could I? And when I said troops about 100 times which you can look up in Hansard I didn't really mean troops I meant we really should just support the Americans. Something like Oprah saying "we're there for you." I meant perhaps our troops could stay here but think good thoughts of support or form a prayer circle.

The thing that would have the most benefit for the general population, would be easy to implement and inherently equal regarding GST would be to expand the exempt items. I can't say my info is 100% up to date as I haven't been there for awhile but I know that in France they do not merely exempt childrens clothing and groceries and a few other items like here, but also exempt a lot of other household essentials that we tax like soap, etc., from their federal tax. There is also a "luxury" component. So for example, all clothing is exempt up to a certain price (varies for item). You can buy a nice suit or dress without paying federal tax; buy Armani or Chanel and you're taxed. Or actually, not always as French retailers will put more expensive items on sale priced just below the tax threshhold. This seems a reasonable approach to me, I mean unless you work in the porn industry or at a nude beach you probably need to buy clothes to allow you to work and its amazing to buy a bunch of household essentials and see how few of them are taxed compared to here. This would be inherently equal - everyone buys this stuff - and would have a real benefit for middle and low income families. And even tho sales taxes are hated in all countries that have them, it might even reduce the resentment a bit.

No you were right, Diefenbaker did tell Kennedy "he would not put his military on high alert" My piont was that the Canadain Military disregarded those orders and placed thier troops on High readiness because they saw the situation as it really was and were it was leading to, and nuke stand off. DND had ordered it's ships to par take in the blockade to atleast have a seat at the table when the button was pushed. Diefenbaker relented when he found out that DND had acted against his orders. Whew! Glad we got that settled What with the Arrow and all Dief had a rather controvesial history regarding military matters, huh? Almost as much as Paul - "the little corporal" - Hellier.

ABCs of Conservative Party of Canada(sic) Values" http://www.gop.com/

A few flaws. Won't deal with all but in order of most glaring: 5, eight surpluses are easy to accomplish. It simply involves moving numbers when convenient. Understate your revenue, and BOOM, you have a surplus. Steal from the EI fund much? Well, you DO actually have to spend less than you take in, no? I mean, whatever you forecast the revenue as, it still has to ultimately be more than expenditure. Or are you saying the Liberals have somehow managed to conceal billions of dollars in added deficit? Too bad Mulrooney didn't know how to do that, huh? 2, the CPP is about as effective as a bladeless knife without a handle. Organized, legalized theft. Nothing more. I actually agree with on some of your CPP comments, tho I would stop short of theft, but part of the problem with the CPP is that - as in the U.S. with the old age pension monies - nobody in the investment community wants CPP revenues to be invested by the government as a single block investment fund which would drastically alter the rate of return. However, I do understand that it would be the 2000 lb. gorilla of investment groups and also, the power this fund would have to affect the market could be used for questionable and self-serving purposes by government. the problem is, are Canadians better off with nothing? I have known a lot of seniors who don't think so, the kind who worked hard all their lives at very low paid jobs. And yes, they would have been better off to invest the money instead of putting it in CPP but they wouldn't have. They would have blown it on food and caring for their children as poor people tend to do. Not gonna get into Trudeau tho I disagree with you in the strongest terms. However, last time I looked he wasn't running in this election

Actually both points are questionable. First, your understanding of economics has not been tested as none of the people in the Conservative party pushing it have ever been in a position to implement it. Second, If we look at the U.S. economy they had the nightmare economy and immense deficits of Reagan-Bush who got the ball rolling on the "new economics" punctuated by the 8 years of unprecedented growth of the Clinton years followed by the nightmare of Bush II. Not a good recommendation for your cause. Third, Bushco have not abandoned Keynesian economics. The signal feature of Keynesian economics in the post WWII period was military spending. There are endless analyses of this but the conclusion of most economists was that by the 1970's, military spending had lost a great deal of its value in stimulating growth. Part of this was that the technology became divorced from the general economy so the spin-off effect was steadily decreasing, part was that monopolization within the arms sector resulted in an increasingly narrow economic benefit, part of it is that the structure of defence contracting escalated costs to such a stratospheric level that the benefit was dwarfed by the federal outlay. However both Reagan-Bush and Bush II still seem to believe in the economic value of military spending, despite all evidence to the contrary (and I am not talking so much about Iraq as the "missle shield" - or "Peace Shield" as Reagan liked to call it - which has never had much support among experts on operational grounds and many argue is being pushed for the supposed benefit to the economy). And this is NOT an argument not to spend on the military in Canada. What I am saying is the spending should be done because it is necessary for operations but not with any idea it is going to fuel economic growth.

I think if you research the Cuban Missle Crisis you'll find that our Military was on high alert, in fact Canadian warships were part of the blockade, these orders came from DND, not the PM. You're right that I am guilty of oversimplifying for brevity. In fact, then Prime Minister John Diefenbaker hesitated when asked by Kennedy to put the Canadian forces on high-alert status. Diefenbaker finally relented - some would argue after the most crucial period has passed - but relations with Kennedy were permanently strained and the then U.S. ambassador to Canada went to considerable pains to help defeat Diefenbaker in the next election including calling reporters to the embassy to "privately" discuss the high-alert incident. However, as I mentioned, under existing Canada-U.S. agreements it was unclear whether any explicit order from Diefenbaker was required. However, my point was Diefenbaker's position.