Slavik44

If this was simply a private Television company airing it, I don't think it would be that big of a deal, the response would be very simple...don't watch it. However, given that this is being shown by a billion dollar leech on the Canadian tax payer's back, I think it is more than fair for some to raise objections to the programming content of that leech.

So if you met a person who told you they were a social conservative and supported Gay Marriage, Stem cell research, abortion, and Drug Legalization. Would you conclude Social conservatives don't make any sense or that the person in reference was just misnaming themselves?

Isn't it the Turks and Caicos? I had to go running around looking for the name but I recall hearing about it a couple years ago....unless we have now switched Islands...why don't we just take on the Carribean...maybe we could send a diplomatic mission to Cuba and convince Castro to give us the country in his will.

Can you point to me where I suggested they take a Kayak? And at the very least is it wrong to ask ministers spending the money of Canadian taxpayers to account for there expendatures? Can Emerson truly justify that the $10,000 was neccessary? I am not going to say thats it he loses his job, or spend the rest of my days on an anti-Emerson Campaign. Nor am I opposed to MP's partaking in some luxuries. But if we need to allow MP"s executive style luxuries, can we also not ask these executives to report to the board, the Canadian electorate. Why suddenly am I in the wrong, for wanting someone who derives their power and position from me, to report to me. That would be a fundemental flaw in Canadian politics if we say that MP's are above requests from the electorate. Perhaps a foundation for Ottawa's culture of entitlement arises from the fact that we do not want to keep a check on the spending habbits of our "executives." Maybe the sponsorship Scandal is just another luxury that is taken with tax payer money. If Emerson wants his luxuries fine I am not opposed to Emerson wanting to arrive in Switzerland well rested and well prepared, if that includes certain luxuries so be it. But Can we then ask for such things to be accounted for? Is that wrong? Is it treating MP"s like Crap to ask them to be accountable to the Canadian Electorate? If that is the case then we as a country are in a very sorry state.

The deputy Prime Ministership isn't worth a warm bucket of piss, and besides are we planing on assassinating harper any time soon? Why should you worry Catchme...won't he be gone in a few months anyway? There is also another key factor being Ignored here. THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME THE ROLE OF PRIME MINISTER UPOUN THE INCAPACITATION OF THE PRIME MINISTER. Making the position of deputy prime minister worth even less than an object worth less than a warm bucket of piss. And the reasons given for wanting a deputy prime minister factually flawed. It is also a well published fact that when Harper took office he clearly outlined policy for succession. Which passes from Harper to Cannon. If Cannon is also unable to perform his duties, the position would fall on Jim Prentice. From there it follows the order of precedence that has been previously posted in this thread. I am no harper Fan boy but even I feel like this is a pointless and un-based attack.

So if we asked the government to do less and focus more on neccessary specific tasks while also making the government more transparent does it not stand to reason that perhaps the government would do a better job and be more easily controlled by the people? And would it not also be correct to assert that the government in Canada derives both it's power and money from the citizens of Canada and when the government of Canada is sleeping with Big business and special interest groups, might it be easier to change this relationship, by people excersizing their power over the government?

Would it then be fair to ask a question about the enron situation? Enron was a company very close to the Government, very involved in political donations, certainly recieved a number of important contracts from the government. Might it be fair to suggest that Enron is actually an example of what happens when Big business and Big Governments start to sleep in the same bed. It is in both of their best interests to help each other out, and they did. While connections are important, would it not also be fair to suggest that the neccessity of close political and corporate ties are artifically increased by a system that relies too heavily on the government to distribute wealth?

I don't see why this has to be a partisan issue...when political parties overspend it is a waste of every ones money, demanding some level of accountability in public expendatures shouldn't be a partisan based issue, it should simply be an issue in the best interests of the Canadian tax payer. If Paul Benoit Can get to switzerland on $1,800...would emerson be able to do it on $3,000? Basically we are looking at a cost of $6,000 per person. Clearly even in that group of people we have evidence that it can be done much cheaper. Yes, they were there to do a job, but a part of their job should be wisely spending Canadians money. Did the Liberals do a good job of it, NO. but I think it is fair to say one persons extravagent spending of anothers money is not justification for other people to do it, even if it is slightly less extravegant. It is instead justification to ask people to be more responsible.

I don't see suddenly why I am being accused of wanting a U.S style Healthcare system, I think in other threads I have been pretty clear about the derection I want Canada to take in that matter. Allowing private companies to deliver health care does not neccessarily mean America and it is not neccessarily a bad thing. The best healthcare systems in the world allow an element of private deliver. Simply all I am asking is, are we asking the government to do to much? Seeing as how all government initiatives need funding from somewhere, and most of them are lacking in funding. Would it not be wise to scale back what we ask the government to do? Cut away the unneccessary? Instead of expanding what we ask the government to do for us? Particularly given the wastefullness associated with government bureacracy? Remembering as well that it is higher operating costs that increase the price of products and that such operating costs come in a number of forms.

Unfortunately we do not have a predicted bright future with either pensions or healthcare. I would say the healthcare system could stand some improvement by incorporating private elements...which would be benifical to both rich and poor. The CPP could also stand to be nothing but a false hope. Can we be assured, as the population ages, that it will still recieve adequate funding? And How much of a burden will it be to Young Canadians to pay into a plan as the number of old dependants in Canada rise? Will that mean even higher taxes in the future, and at what point do those higher taxes start to have an even deeper effect on Canadian businesses. It is not just a question of what we can reasonably ask the government to do, but how long we can ask them to do this aswell. Would it not then be better advised to get the government to focus on programs of absolute neccessity and duties of absolute neccessity? Trying to trim down transfers to a justifiable need based situation? Because as it is I have yet to hear of a government program that isn't lacking funding or predicted to be in trouble in some time, yet all around us people want the government to spend more, do more, take on more responsibilities. When does it end? Where does it end? Does this ambitous nature of getting the government to tack on more and more and more hurt the programs that truly stand to benifiet Canadians?

I have noticted that every now and then I will hear of a world leader die and feel a little sad. On the otherhand sometimes someone dies and I really don't feel for them, wether it be Arafat, Suddam's Children, or Suddam himself, Apparently Castro may be on his way out soon aswell...he is another one I can add to that list of deaths, where I just go oh well. Certainly no sympathy card from me.

The Government

So like if you took your child to church and every week he heard your life was not worth living for a second if you don't have jesus...where does that fall on the recruit, indoctrinate, and retain scale? 1 Peter 2:9 (King James Version) But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. Oh I get it, they are not building nice big fancy buildings with custom stained glass windows or ornate drawings on the roof? Does that mean we can finally do away with those tax exemptions?

You know the relationship between people and the government is a very interesting and unique one that seems to simultaniously incorporate feelings of both love and hate, trust and suspicion. According to a leger survey, politicians are the least trusted profession in Canada, garnering the trust of only 14% of Canadians. We just don't trust them and for good reason, they rarely proove to be comptent spenders of public money. The records will show that politicians habitually squander public money. They are paid by the public to do a job, to spend the publics money, and in the case of the Canada Revenue Agency to take the Publics money, and in turn they grossly misuse this money both as a group and as individuals. Yet when a problem arises for some strange reason we expect the government to fix it, the government to do it. We don't trust the government, and seeing as how they have failed to responsbiley spend our money from the very first parliment, this lack of trust is certainly reasonable. But in the same sense we then ask the least trusted person in society to spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year on our behalf, are we not setting ourselves up for failure? Financially the biggest role played by the Canadian government is the transfer of wealth, from one individual to the next. But is that really a role we should be asking the government to play, at the very least should we be asking the government to play such a role to the extent it currently is? Perhaps we should look into having mor elimited trasnfers of weath by the government. Take Business welfare as an example, see business like money, can't blame them we all do, and when they don't get enough money from Canadian taxpayers, probabley because we are paying taxes. The government steps and gives these business some of the taxes we paid to the government. Unfortunately like most middle men the government skims a bit off the top, because the government also likes money. In this case they are lead by the noble 40,000 of the Canada revenue agency. In total the government skims off about 27 cents on every dollar we give them. The government is happy, they get to go to the carribean, send themselves flowers on their birthdays, and buy $8,000 leather Jackets. Tax Payers aren't so happy, Between the carribean, flowers, and Jackets thats their Yearly salary. Some business are happy, because a few lucky businesses get a bit of money from the government. And in turn they are supposed to create oppurtunities for employment of Canadians. Seeing as how some businesses are left out, they don't create new oppurtunities. But the government has that covered, the employees of the companies who didn't get lucky, get employment Insurance when they loose their job. Employment Insurance is designed to supplement people untill they can find a job with one of the subsidized companies. Sometimes these subsidized companies are not always on the ball, and may be laying off thousands of people themselves. Thankfully, when this happens the government starts giving a couple cents on every dollar back to the average Canadian. This may come in the form of welfare or sometimes even tax credits. As you can see the Government is very good at spending our money. This year the Government spent around 45 cents of every tax dollar on either themselves or interest payments on the debt they have raked up on our behalf. We will call this, the shiter effect. This because once money is given to the government, most of it goes down the shiter. At Christmas time it is tough to pass a store that doesn't have a help wanted sign, this is another strange phenomenon. You see when alot of people are buying stuff, we need to have people to make the stuff, to sell the stuff, to transport the stuff, perhaps even to guard the stuff. Apparently Businesses can get money from places other than the government, from people. And people can get money from places other then the government. Apparently when people spend money, business hire people and give them money to do work, and then people buy stuff with that money. And people are capable of buying and sellling goods with out such a grossly expensive and irresponsible middle man. We might need this middle man to ensure the rule of law and to help ensure a level of honesty on the part of both individuals, involved in such transactions. So that I don't into a store brandishing a gun to acquire a new blender and that the blender I am acquiring really is a blender as marketed. Sure the government is doing alot of things right now, but how many of these things are we capable of doing on are own? Without the 8,000 dollar leather jackets and if we choose to buy a leather jacket it is our money. Because I can't think of too many politicians I want to buy flowers, jackets, or vacations for. Yes the government might be doing alot right now. But in the same sense are the tasks that the government is doing distracting them from their primary duty of ensuring the liberty and freedom of individuals in this country and ultimately the protection of the country itself? Because the government is not really doing a good job, we ask them to do all these extra governmental activities like redistribute wealth. Why should I or anyone for that matter empower a group of people that inspires trust in only 14% of us to redistribute billions upoun billions of our dollars? I don't particularly trust big business, so I don't directly give away to big business thousands of dollars a year to spend as they wish. On the otherhand we don't trust big government but we give them thousands of dollars every year as individuals. And in return Big government gives themselves 27% of that, the interest on the debt they created 17% of that, and big business and other individuals 21% of that. I don't see why we can't scale back what we ask the government to do, scale back what we give the government and then let individuals decide on their own where that money goes. Because governments have been doing a lousy job spending this money and if we as individuals do a lousy job spending this money, atleast we will be the ones doing so. This is not a call to end the government or to end all government programs. But I question how effective and neccassary certain government initiatives are when what they are doing is just taking wealth from one place and irresponsibley plopping it in the next, all the while skiming off some of that money to do so.

But you've fired the first shot, Slavik44. And it is a personal attack. Here's where it started (post #13)... It might be a posting style to be intense...or abrasive, but then some people will react in equally abrasive or intense manner, when they are the ones at the receiving end of it. Especially with new posters, who have not familiarized themselves with the regulars' individual persona or style of posting. And although I do not think seniority has anything to do with memberships here, being a "senior" should at least entail a certain responsibility in keeping the civility in this forum....by being a positive example to new-comers. You two have started on the wrong footing. C'mon...reach out to each other and make peace. Obviously this is a touchy subject, and it will be a heated disscussion, and if I crossed the line or WV thinks I crossed the line I do appologize...it certainly was not my intention. If it was percieved as such I appologize for my actions and hope the discussion can get back on track, in a civil manner.

I put down Libertarian, I will probabley vote for them anyways.

WestViking is a new poster here, and I don't know much about his posting style. It seems a lot more temperate than yours, Sir. I do not deny and have never denied that I have an intense posting style. But I do nto attack the person who makes the arguement, but I will attack the arguement. If you make an arguement that peadophilia arises from two teens having sex with each other...I will call that ignorant and I may ask that poster to give me a break, you cannot honestly expect any sane person to believe such crap. But I will not call the poster ignorant. On the other hand WV...went straight out and called me an idiot and told me to Shut the fuck up, which is far different then give me a break. He further took that to attribute to me positions that were not mine and then imply through the mention of a guilty conscience that I was taking part in sexually immoral activities. My posting style, though intense, does not cross that line. As you have said yourself, WV is a new poster, it should be telling that he is already running around here calling people idiots. I have been around longer then any active poster on this forum and have yet to call someone an idiot. I will be blunt in my attacks on a persons arguement, but not on that person themselves. Certainly not to the point where I threaten physical violence against another person.

No, you come aboard hurling insults, ask to "GIVE ME A BREAK" and take umbrage when I verbally take up your offer. Good day, and good riddance. I hurled no insults your way, certainly I might have been a little abrasive, but I hurled no insults at your personally, the same can not be said to you...Good Ridance to you.

As much as I whole heartedly disagree with Rue's position...this forum would be kinda pointless if it was composed of people who all thought the same. As long as Rue isn't going around and continually insulting people who support Canada first and foremost, I see very little problem. I believe there are even some posters here from America(?), obviously Canada would not be the country they support first and foremost either.

CON'T Teen Sex and Pedophilia are two different things. Human trafficing and Sex between two teenagers are two different things. The sex trade and sex between two teenagers are two different things. Consensual sex between two teenagers and assault/rape are two different things. Sex between two teenagers, is not murder. You are aware that underage pornography is illegal? And that the Age of consent for that is 18? Again, I cannot stress this enough, I was exclusively discussing your desire to criminlize teen sex. I am not talking about sexual exploitation, assault, abuse, rape, etc.... ... First off, I was strictly discussing your desire to criminlize teen sex. I am not interested in throwing almost half of teens in Jail. I am more interested in throwing pedophiles, rapists, yes the real criminals in Jail. Throwing teens in Jail for having sex with each other is not dealing with the real criminals. That is what I am responding to, your desire to create laws that would result in hundreds of thousands of Canadian Teens to be thrown in Jail. Yes lets focus on the real criminals when you want to start talking about the real criminals right now. Right now you are talking about criminalising teen sex. You are the one who is refusing to talk about the real criminals. First off, befor eI talk about solutions, I would rahter narrow the definition of what we find criminal. I am willing to talk solutions to activites that I see as criminal. But right now your primary concern is to extend the definition of what a criminal is, to inculde anyone who has had sex under the age of 18. On Mapleleafweb I am free to come in to threads and challange concepts and ideas of the original poster in a civil manner. I have chosen to challange your position that we should be throwing nearly half of teens in Jail.

You originally said anyone. If you do not mean anyone, plese refrain from stating anyone. I never said all teens in high school are having sex with each other. Your accusation that I believe all teens are having sex is not only reprehensible it is blatantly false, and you have no evidence to back it up. Do a good number of teens have sex. Yes. But I never said all of them. Furthermore, the case I outlined about an 11 year sentence (10 years Jail time, + 1 year probation) Is an actual case that has happened. Again, I think it is very important that you understand that the discussion we are having pertains to your proposed criminlization of teen sex. Sexual predation, exploitation, and abuse are a far different category then Teen sex. They likewise require different actions then criminalizing Teen Sex. Again...you brought the topic of criminalizing teen sex up. I have never once proposed that we allow sexual harrasment or abuse...that is absolutely un-acceptable behavoir. You are aware that, I am citing an actual case? And your guilty conscience line is a blatant and unfounded attack on me and my charachter and it is not welcome on this forums, or in Canadian society. Just because you havee a computer does not give you the right to slander me. So the mature thing to do, is to throw almost half of Teens in Jail and insult posters on internet forums? I am going to make this very clear I DO NOT COME TO THESE FORUMS TO HAVE THREATS MADE TO MY PERSONAL HEALTH.

1. Underemployment First, stress is not an indicator of Underemployment. And Then, so people feel stressed, maybe they should be looking at learning new ways to deal with stress. Wether it is going 30 Km/h over the speed limit to get to work a minute early, or circling a parking lot fliping everyone the finger trying to find a spot close to the door, when there is an empty lot only a minute walk away. People just feel stress, often needlessly. I don't think stress is a relavent indicator, People will feel work related stress if they have a job, and if they don't have a job they will still feel work related stress, or lack of work stress. If you find stress is a problem in the Canadian work force...then please do me a favour and buy all of these, red light running, speed limit breaking, horn honking, caffiene Junkies a Bob Marley CD, cause ultimately Every little thing is going to be alright. Peoples lack of ability to deal with stress is not a problem with the availability of Good Jobs in Canada. 2. Skilled Shortages Again this is irrelavent to wether a job is part time or full time. If I owned a company and needed a Nuclear Physicist but couldn't find someone...that would be slowing my growth. Wether or not I hired three part time Janitors during that time is absolutely irrelavent. 3. Overall employment Goes up and down on a seasonal basis...I work as a shipper reciever for a roofing supply company. I work full Time during the summers and part time While I go to School. Recently they Laid off an individual because...its winter....its a down time for roofing and construction in general. I live in British Columbia, I can't imagine how much more prounounced this down time is in places where tempatures regularly dip down past -20 degreese. People don't build houses in the winter. What about resource extraction? Alot of people tend to work only 6 months out of a year or so and then waste tax payer money going on EI Holidays. Same thing with a number of Jobs in the forest industry...such as tree planters its a seasonal job, then we have things like Orchards, apparently apples don't need to be harvested in December. Alot of the Canadian workforce have good jobs, that pay well, but also have seasonal ups and downs. I have a friend who goes works in Alberta as a labourer for an oil company during the summers and then works part time as a waiter at a resturant, he makes plenty of money and doesn't even need to work as a waiter but he enjoys it. Pointing out that there are seasonal changes in employment does not negate the value of certain Jobs, and it doesn't reflect poorly on the status of the Canadian workforce.

Not having permission [consent] for sex is called rape. What a complete display of Ignorance. You are comparing a blow job between a 15 and 17 year old to stealing a car? Honestly I don't know what to say other then you have some really screwed up morals. Furthermore, at 17 you should theoretically be attracted to people your own age...and that is a trend to continue. As an example, I picked up my old elementary school year books and looked at a picture of a girl I was attracted to in grade 7. Do I find that picture at all attractive now? Absolutely not. It is a completely un-scientific view you are espousing to suggest that being attracted to young children when you are young means that you will be attracted to young children when you are old. It shows your absolute ignorance on these topic. Please give your head a shake. You kow how you do that? You talk to your children, develop a relationship with your children and then you explain your views. Why does the government have to be your Nany? If raising the age of consent will not stop teen sex. Then why bother, you are still free to tell your children that sex is an evil thing and will cause blindness...go right ahead. But most human beings will find it utterly disturbing to send a 17 year old to jail for 11 years over a blow job with a 15 year old. No pretending that teenager having sex with another teenager, means that said teenager will continue to have sex with teenagers even at age 44. Is nonsense. That is irresponsible. That is Unscientific. That is disgusting. 11 years in prison over a blow job is not long term harm? Why would we throw a teen in jail for having sex with another person of the same age? That also causes long term harm. Oh I get it, in order to avoid negative psychological impacts on teenagers, we should throw them in jail for having sex...yeah. Bullshit. ------ There are real pedophiles out there. There are real sex offenders out there. there are mothers selling their nine year old daughters for $20 a sex session. There are people filming videos of sex session with pre-teens. There are young children being sexualy abused. Yet people like you have decided it is better to waste valuable resources throwing teenagers in Jail for havinh sex, who compare Teen sex to stealing a car. GIVE ME A BREAK.

Messed up priorities. You know whats messed up? A 17 year old getting sentenced to 11 years for getting a blow Job from a 15 year old. That is messed up. Then on the other hand we have a mother who sold her 9 year old daughter for 20 bucks a session on hundreds of different occasions getting a 10 year sentence. I realise these are cases from the states, but it highlights just how screwed up the justice system is. We need to stop getting so stuck up about teen sex...who cares. I am more concerned about a mother pimping her 9 year old daughter out...give her a couple life sentences, I certainly won't complain. But 11 years for a blow Job from a 15 year old? Then I see this defense that, it won't happen anymore the laws have been changed and it would only be one year in prison. Oh, okay...Yeah one year in prison for a 17 year old recieving a blow job from a 15 year old...makes perfect sense. Now you are comming on here and talking about checking the Lust of teenagers, I would rather Check the stupidity of mothers who make prostitutes out of their 9 year old daughters, not sexual relations between teenagers. But this is what I log on to see, someone talking about teens, Hormones, and raising the age of consent to 18. Their are screwed up people in this world, make laws to fight them, not teenagers.

It might be interesting if it gets cold enough to kill off the pine beetle. Until then it is just a blip in a long term trend.... Of general cooling since the middle ages? It's a warm year for me, it was like 5 degrees today. Green Christmas. Oh well, what can you do? Poor soul....5 degrees...warm.....no wonder B.C gets stuck with homeless people from every Province in Canada...Can we ship them back...we could use their welfare checks to buy them plane tickets.