Nocrap

Statistically, we do have a major issue with health care professionals, nurses and docs, going south. The only way we are going to be able to pay them more, and hire more, is cutting alot of the fat from the system. The only way thats happening, is if delivery is privatized. For every argument supporting private healthcare, there are at least a dozen that show why it can't and doesn't work. It will be like a hotel. Those with money will get the luxury suites, and those without the broom closet. However, this thread was not necessarily to pit private and public, but to state that while Stephen Harper is posturing about protecting the Canada Health Act - it is just that - posturing - and the dream that he and the NCC had about scrapping Medicare is now within his grasp. If he had a majority government he could take his time, but with a vulnerable minority, it will be fast tracked. The stage is set and his ducks are in a row.

The government would control the insurance, so yes, they'd still hold the purse strings. Capital investment, efficiency and higher service levels would come from a highly competitive private sector. As soon as a wait list developes, someone else will open a clinic to pick up the slack. That's the beauty of the market, it generally doesn't leave wasteful resources around or create waiting lists. Geoffrey wrote: "Everyone would have their insurance paid for by the government," The government does not pay for anything. Taxpayers do. There is no such thing as government money - only taxpayers' money, and as such it's the taxpayers who get to decide how it will be spent. Again, I hope that everyone will google Liberal contributors (since people continue to prove my point that both Liberals and CPC are the same) and then Harper's. THEY BOTH TAKE CORPORATE MONEY - HARPER JUST TAKES MORE! My argument is that there are some people who believe that Stephen Harper has come in on his white horse to save Medicare, and I am giving my reasons why I believe that he is going to (at least try) to scrap it. Presently, while I'm no fan of Mr. Harper (guess you figured that out already), there seems to be no viable alternative, so instead we have to watch him VERY closely. Don't just let the ducks float by, but a knock a few of them out of the water, if you want to save Public health care. I have many arguments for public vs. private, but the best is the most obvious - Private health care providers MUST MAKE A PROFIT! In a tiered system, the best doctors and nurses will go where the money is and public hospitals, without unlimited funds and regulations, would not be able to compete. As for the CPC platform - it is the Reform Party platform, regardless of what colour or banner they are currently waving. When Stephen Harper wrote the policy for the Reform Party; according to past National Citizens' Coalition president, David Somerville, it was cribbed from the NCC handbook. The NCC was formed to fight medicare. From William Johnson's book "Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada" -(pg 76), when the Reform Party's platform was being drafted "At lunch on saturday, Harper and Weissenberger sat a table with David Somerville, president of the National Citizen's Coalition...At one point, according to Weisenberger, Somerville, who attended as an observer, asked if any of the eight people at the table were members of the NCC. All of the other seven, including Harper, raised their hand." Stephen Harper has been a long time member of the NCC, has served as vice-President of the NCC, has served as President of the NCC - the NCC has long been committed to private healthcare (founded to fight Medicare) Yes the Liberals have been leading us down that path for sometime, and in fact have probably left us hanging on the cliff. However, Harper is not offering a lifeline, but is poised to push us over. If you want a tiered system, or even a completely private system, funded through taxpayer money, then stay where you are and ejoy the ride. However, if you want public healthcare fixed and not scrapped, fight like the dickens.

" My responsibilities were about the... needs of Canadians," Harper said. " I don't intend to participate in the actions of famous people." I agree with the PM to a certain extent, however, many Canadians may feel that the way they are perceived in the world IS a need. We hold ourselves up as as being 'nice' and I believe on the whole that we are. By simply refusing not to discuss it, could send a negative message, that Canadians are just a bunch of bloodthirsty yokels. Avoiding the issue will not make it go away. Remember, the Beatles still have a huge following around the world, and while I don't really remember much about Bardot, she is seen as high profile in this issue.

Nonsense, Stephen Harper obviously destroyed healthcare in the 2 months that he was in office. OK. I guess you missed the point. Stephen Harper did not destroy healthcare, but is definitely not positioned to save it, as many believe. In fact, he has never hidden his agenda in that regard. The Liberals have done just as much to tear it down and have actually made it easy pickings for lobbyists. However, I am only encouraging people to be more informed voters and not just assume Liberals Bad - CPC Good. If we've learned anything from the sponsorship scandal, it's what can happen when we put too much faith in any politician or party. I'm extremely angry that the Liberals took my money and squandered it so recklessly. However, I'm not ready to just assume that the CPC will do any better, when it's clear that they have just as many friends in the private healthcare industry as the Liberals. In bringing up the people behind Mr. Harper's rise to the top, it's only to show that he also has some favours to keep, and that we as Canadians, need to watch him closely. I've seen many posts where some have suggested that with the $5,000.00 limit, corporations can no longer influence any politician, but if you follow the money; as I suggested; you will see that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Anyone; including the Desmarais family are well within their rights to contribute to whatever party they want and their donation of 20 grand was perfectly legal. (4 people - 5,000 each) It's just that since Mr. Harper wants me to believe that he is above reproach, he has to prove it first I'm no longer that naive. I don't believe that either party is squeaky clean, and Canadians have to be ready to make sure that our MP's really do protect public healthcare, and not just stage a play for our amusement. Why then don't you wait until he does something bad to judge him as such,instead of just assuming it? "This became necessary only because your beloved Martin cut the Healthcare and Infrastructure transfer payments by 40%." My beloved Martin? How many times do I have to say that I am not a Liberal! However, I do remember many drastic federal cost cutting measures taken to clean up Mulroney's mess. I voted for him first time around and then like others, made sure he didn't get a second chance to completely bankrupt us. I also agree that googling Liberal campaign contributors would uncover the same corporate support, but doesn't that just level the playing field? I only brought up Mr. Harper's because so many believe that he has NO CORPORATIONS BEHIND HIM; when in fact this time around he had MORE THAN ANY OTHER PARTY! The idea of a private healthcare system funded through public funds, would be a disaster. Private companies NEED to make a profit and there is no guarantee that the person who had to wait six hours to see a doctor for a potentially life altering illness, would have waited any less time. That is, unless they could whip out a credit card to go to a hospital designed to treat the wealthy. This would not be a parallel system, but a two-tier system. Case in point - my daughter had knee surgery, which thankfully was covered. However, after the surgery she was told that she would require extensive rehabilitation. Now she could wait four to six months for publicly funded, or we could pay for the three day a week treatment ourselves. It was tough, but we opted to get her the immediate rehab, rather than risk her not being able to walk properly. We are not wealthy people, and barely managed to scrape up the money, but what if we could not? Again, the rich or heavily mortgaged will be guaranteed immediate care, which they can get now in the US. As someone else mentioned about the HMO nightmares...is that the kind of healthcare we want? Bottom line; Stephen Harper has never hidden his intention with regards to private healthcare. He was president of National Citizen's Coalition...NCC was founded to fight Medicare...looks like they are finally going to win. Yes, we should give the PM a chance, but if you want public healthcare than you MUST WATCH HIM CAREFULLY and remember that the Reform party and NCC had a pet word 'Choice', which simply means 'Private', so if he calls anything a 'Choice' - look a little deeper. You won't have to look far.

Actually, Geoffrey has proven my point about Public Healthcare vs Private Healthcare. Mr. Harper is not protecting public as many believe. Good or bad is not the issue. He is poised to scrap public, whether we choose to believe it or not. If you want public - fight. If you want private - stick with Mr. Harper. As to the Desmarais, who cares if they also gave to the Liberals. The Liberal party is just as much behind Private Healthcare as the CPC - I think I said that. I can't stand Chretien; I never could and the only good thing he did when he was PM was to take a stand on Iraq. But again, nothing to do with Private Healthcare. This actually, only proves my point that the CPC is no better or worse than the Liberals, when it comes to lobbying, and we need to arm ourselves (hypothetically) against another Gomery Report. Think, look, learn! Again - Liberals Bad (Liberals Very Bad!!!), but CPC not looking so good either; so instead of turning a blind eye; keep them on their toes, before they step on ours.

Nonsense, Stephen Harper obviously destroyed healthcare in the 2 months that he was in office. OK. I guess you missed the point. Stephen Harper did not destroy healthcare, but is definitely not positioned to save it, as many believe. In fact, he has never hidden his agenda in that regard. The Liberals have done just as much to tear it down and have actually made it easy pickings for lobbyists. However, I am only encouraging people to be more informed voters and not just assume Liberals Bad - CPC Good. If we've learned anything from the sponsorship scandal, it's what can happen when we put too much faith in any politician or party. I'm extremely angry that the Liberals took my money and squandered it so recklessly. However, I'm not ready to just assume that the CPC will do any better, when it's clear that they have just as many friends in the private healthcare industry as the Liberals. In bringing up the people behind Mr. Harper's rise to the top, it's only to show that he also has some favours to keep, and that we as Canadians, need to watch him closely. I've seen many posts where some have suggested that with the $5,000.00 limit, corporations can no longer influence any politician, but if you follow the money; as I suggested; you will see that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Anyone; including the Desmarais family are well within their rights to contribute to whatever party they want and their donation of 20 grand was perfectly legal. (4 people - 5,000 each) It's just that since Mr. Harper wants me to believe that he is above reproach, he has to prove it first I'm no longer that naive. I don't believe that either party is squeaky clean, and Canadians have to be ready to make sure that our MP's really do protect public healthcare, and not just stage a play for our amusement.

Not one or two. Many are waiting to cash in. And as for a mere $5,000.00, just follow the money and watch it add up. Powercorp - 20,000.00, Networc - 10,100.00 Human Resources Inc. thousands when you follow the money. And no, I'm not suggesting that the Supreme Court can be bought but it had to BE CHALLENGED just as Ralph Klein has TO CHALLENGE the Canada Health Act. They must already know what elements will not stand up to a forensic examination. I agree that there are problems with our current healthcare system, which have not been helped with the likes of Clement and Klein; but rather than try to fix them; they prefer to sell them; despite the fact that private health services have proven to be far more expensive and far less effective. After all, the bottom line is their line; and the human element is rarely a factor. Oops! That should have read: "the bottom line is their bottom line...". I didn't think I resorted to name calling, and again, I have never been on this board before. I did pick up the No-Crap simply because I have always been a Tory supporter and followed closely the dealings between Mackay and Harper. (and yes I chuckled at the name before it was changed to CPC) As far as the Liberal connection, you're singing to the choir. I mentioned that they have also been wooing the private healthcare people and I'm sure take just as much money from their lobbyists. I voted Liberal once in my life and that was last election (like most people doing so, I held my nose before dropping my vote into the ballot box) I also believe that anyone involved in the sponsorship scandal should be thrown in prison. I just want people to be ready to go after their MP's at the first sign that our public healthcare system is being scrapped, and not wait until it's too late. Remember why the National Citizen's Coalition was formed in the first place and remember too, that Stephen Harper is a past president of the NCC and has often spoken out in favour of private healthcare. Don't buy into the posturing and don't believe for a moment that Corporate Canada is not behind his rise to the top. If stating substantiated facts is bashing, than I don't know what more I can do. Could it be than only Stephen Harper fans are allowed in this forum? If so, then I'm in the wrong place.

Not one or two. Many are waiting to cash in. And as for a mere $5,000.00, just follow the money and watch it add up. Powercorp - 20,000.00, Networc - 10,100.00 Human Resources Inc. thousands when you follow the money. And no, I'm not suggesting that the Supreme Court can be bought but it had to BE CHALLENGED just as Ralph Klein has TO CHALLENGE the Canada Health Act. They must already know what elements will not stand up to a forensic examination. I agree that there are problems with our current healthcare system, which have not been helped with the likes of Clement and Klein; but rather than try to fix them; they prefer to sell them; despite the fact that private health services have proven to be far more expensive and far less effective. After all, the bottom line is their line; and the human element is rarely a factor. Oops! That should have read: "the bottom line is their bottom line...".

Not one or two. Many are waiting to cash in. And as for a mere $5,000.00, just follow the money and watch it add up. Powercorp - 20,000.00, Networc - 10,100.00 Human Resources Inc. thousands when you follow the money. And no, I'm not suggesting that the Supreme Court can be bought but it had to BE CHALLENGED just as Ralph Klein has TO CHALLENGE the Canada Health Act. They must already know what elements will not stand up to a forensic examination. I agree that there are problems with our current healthcare system, which have not been helped with the likes of Clement and Klein; but rather than try to fix them; they prefer to sell them; despite the fact that private health services have proven to be far more expensive and far less effective. After all, the bottom line is their line; and the human element is rarely a factor.

From the man who claims to be thinking strategy 24/7; Stephen Harper has certainly strategized Canadians into private healthcare, come hell or highwater. The stage is set and he is ready to put in motion his and the National Citizen’s Coalition’s agenda to scrap Medicare. http://www.answers.com/topic/national-citizens-coalition He appointed Two-Tier Tony Clement as Minister of Health; congratulated Quebec for their initiative to reform their healthcare system and then promised to ‘investigate’ Alberta’s attempt at privatization. What a load of CRAP. (Conservative Reform Alliance Platform) Anyone living in Ontario knows all about two-tier Tony Clement who has long been committed to privatizing the public health care system. http://www.afl.org/campaigns-issues/health/health-track.cfm He was aggressively involved in the slash and burn of Mike Harris’ Common Sense Revolution; firing nurses and shutting down hospitals, which helped to create the current ‘wait times’ and bed shortage epidemic. Then there’s Quebec, whose privatizing initiative was enhanced when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of private health insurance. One company who benefited the most from this decision was the Power Corporation, owned by the wealthy Desmarais family (reportedly worth almost 4 billion dollars). Forget the fact that Peter Mackay is dating Sophie Desmarais (Julie Smyth, National Post, November 26, 2005, amoung others), but the family also, through it’s four principle owners, contributed $ 20,000.00 to Harper’s party in 2005. Our PM’s congratulatory speech was just one more step to keeping his cash cows content. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...r_health_060220 This brings us to the posturing over Ralph Klein. Harper needs Klein to oppose the act; which will force a debate; and result in the opening of the road which is really a one-way street to adequate healthcare only for the rich or heavily mortgaged. Like Clement in Ontario, it was Klein’s health care funding cuts that closed beds, wards and hospitals in Alberta, in an attempt to fight the deficit. http://www.cupe.ca/www/arp2002calgary Enter Health Resource Group Inc., a private, Calgary-based company, whose Board of Directors collectively control most of the private healthcare companies including: MDS Health Ventures Inc., Connaught Laboratories Limited (leading supplier of vaccines), Columbia Health Care Inc., Tokos Medical of Canada, ISG Technologies, Life Imaging Systems Inc, Kasper Medical Laboratories (who have a long-term, $88-million per year contract to operate all diagnostic laboratories in Calgary. They also own 50 per-cent of Canadian Injury Recovery Clinic in Ottawa jointly with U.S.-based Sun Healthcare Group Inc), Networc Health Care Inc. and Metropolitan Investment Corp.; along with several numbered companies and related interest groups. And if you don’t think they are buddies of Mr. Harper: Peter Burgener, owner of Designs Group Inc. and chief architect for HRG, donated $5,000 to Harper’s campaign on August 2, 2005. His wife, Jocelyn Burgener, was a former member of the Alberta Legislature that closed down several hospitals. HRG was ‘gifted’ space at Grace Hospital (one of the victims) to create their posh health care facility which provides services to the wealthy and Jocelyn started a non-profit organization (with money from Heritage Canada) in the same digs. Dr. Stephen Miller; Associate Clinical Professor at the University of Calgary and Chief Medical Officer of Columbia Health Care Inc. (with 33 rehabilitation centres across Canada. He was also Co-founder of the Western Occupational Rehabilitation Centre (now owned by Columbia.) The American Columbia Health Care Inc. was charged with fraud against Medicare, Medicaid, and the military healthcare system. http://www.nurseweek.com/features/97-9/columbia1.html When they began their downward spiral they suffered severe losses and were eventually sold to Networc Health Care Inc of Calgary for four million dollars. Columbia’s parent company in the US was Sun Healthcare Group who have contributed more than $150,000 to the Reform Party of Canada since 1993. http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dis...a_over_pt2.html http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/June/03_civ_386.htm Frank W. and Jeanette King; owners of Networc Health Care Inc., who purchased Columbia after their legal battles in the US; contributed $ 10,100.00 to Harper’s Party - Frank W. King gave $5, 100 on August 19, 2005 and Jeanette $ 5,000 on the same day. With his hands in this many pockets, do you really think that Stephen Harper is going to fight Ralph Klein, especially when the Liberals have also been taking money from private healthcare interests for years? And finally; since lately all roads seem to lead to the PR firm Hill & Knowlton, who have had tremendous success through their connections to both the Liberal and Reform (aka CPC) parties, we find ourselves right back to David Emerson, and yet another reason why it was so important that he remain a cabinet minister, no matter what party won the election. Dale Flood, who was special advisor to Emerson when he was Industry Minister with the Liberals, and manager of his campaign; is a director at Hill & Knowlton. His clients include not only MDS Laboratory Services, but MEI (Montreal Economic Institute). Helene Desmarais sits on the board of MEI, and it is a well known fact that the institute supports private healthcare. Another director at Hill & Knowlton is Brian Mulroney. According to the National Post “Peter MacKay has been dating a blonde billionairess. Not Belinda Stronach -- this time it's Sophie Desmarais of the wealthy Power Corp. family....Mr. MacKay, who is deputy leader of the Conservatives, and Ms. Desmarais met at dinner at Brian and Mila Mulroney's Montreal home about a month ago. The Mulroneys played matchmaker -- Mrs. Mulroney thinks highly of Mr. MacKay and knows Ms. Desmarais.” Do you think this means that he will sit out of the healthcare debates due to conflict of interest? I guess we'll have to wait and see. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Desmarais This can’t all be coincidence, but before I put my tinfoil hat back in it’s box, I urge you to do a bit of research, if you really want to save public healthcare. It’s not that hard to find. Simply go to the Elections Canada website and follow the money. Look for Harper’s main contributors and google a few names. These people have more money than God, and most have something to gain from at least one of Harper/Reform’s pet projects: private healthcare, soft environmental policy and increased military spending.

I wasn't disappointed. I expect so little from government when it comes to ethics, that I've developed a rather thick skin in that department.

Since the French have a milder climate and shorter transportation distances, their GDP is smaller by these facts alone.So, tell me, who has the more successful economy? Canada or France? And since the French apparently go into the street and protest when they disagree with a government policy, which country has a more vibrant democracy? Judging by nocrap's list, North Americans protest jury decisions and cultural events whereas the French protest political decisions. Which type of protest implies a popular democracy and which childish hooligans? ---- I'd trust the OECD over the CIA's World Factbook (I suspect the CIA gets its stats from the OECD), but I won't quibble about $1000. hmmm. We'd have to remove the US from the North American equation, since many of their riots turn into blood baths; so that would definitely tip the scales. However, a riot is a riot - damage to property is damage to property - civil unrest is civil unrest; whether is starts from a change to labour laws or lack of funding for students. A protest can be civil, but once a few of the protestors decide to make it violent or start damaging property, it can soon turn into something more, and that has nothing to do with whether or not you are French. It's simply the mob mentality.

I would agree that the majority of muslims are not terrorists or radical Islamists, but if only 10% (a figure I read somewhere) are, thats one h..l of a lot of dangerous radicals who wish to do the west harm). Today, radical Islamism is a threat to our way of life, while Christian fundamentalism radical or otherwise is no threat. I don't consider western Christian fundamentalists a threat in any way, as we have a democratic system and supreme courts to maintain our democracy and constitutions. Either way, Christians are not intent on imposing theological law, granted they would like to outlaw abortion but these issues are handled by the courts and government. From Daniel Pipes: The hardest thing for Westerners to understand is not that a war with militant Islam is underway but that the nature of the enemy's ultimate goal. That goal is to apply the Islamic law (the Shari‘a) globally. In U.S. terms, it intends to replace the Constitution with the Qur'an. For a 'religion of peace' this isn't so peaceful, don't try to convert http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188364,00.html Afghan Man Faces Death for Allegedly Converting to Christianity KABUL, Afghanistan — An Afghan man who allegedly converted from Islam to Christianity is being prosecuted in a Kabul court and could be sentenced to death, a judge said Sunday. The defendant, Abdul Rahman, was arrested last month after his family went to the police and accused him of becoming a Christian, Judge Ansarullah Mawlavezada told the Associated Press in an interview. Such a conversion would violate the country's Islamic laws. "From Daniel Pipes: The hardest thing for Westerners to understand is not that a war with militant Islam is underway but that the nature of the enemy's ultimate goal. That goal is to apply the Islamic law (the Shari‘a) globally. In U.S. terms, it intends to replace the Constitution with the Qur'an.'" as posted by Scriblett What we may not realize is that for every Christian who believes that the Islam world is out to convert the west, there are thousands of Islams who believe that the West wants to convert them to Christianity, and it is not without merit. Case in Point - Franklin Graham, president of the evangelical relief organization called Samaritan's Purse , and close friend of the Bush family. During the Gulf War Samaritan's Purse sent over 30,000 bibles in the Arabic language to encourage the soldiers to pick up the crusade. From their website - Graham was later "touched most deeply" by a letter from an A-10 Thunderbolt "tank-killer" pilot. "Just two weeks earlier I had been trying to kill those guys," the pilot told Graham. "Then I found myself in an army hospital talking with an Iraqi POW. I gave him the Arabic New Testament." When Saudis and US General Norman Schwartzkopf, got wind of it, they confiscated the bibles and other Evangelical literature, though apparently it only fueled their passions and more bibles were sent. Samaritans Purse is now back in Iraq and the Muslims are reminded of Franklin Graham's comments when he publicly branded Islam "a very evil and wicked religion." A British Muslim magazine responded to Graham's plans by writing, "For the few remaining Muslims who doubted the crusading nature of the coalition forces, the final blow came last week." There is no denying that they do a lot of good, but despite what Graham says, there are potentially damaging strings. From their website: "We are first a Christian organization and second an aid organization. We can't really separate the two." Currently in Iraq, an evangelical chaplain by the name of Josh Llano also shows why Islamic groups distrust their motives. At Camp Bushmaster near Najaf, he exploited a water shortage with a 500-gallon pool of clean, cool water under his control. He told a reporter: "It's simple...they want water. I have it, as long as they agree to get baptized." I read an excellent quote a while back, when a Republican senator was being questioned. He was reproached with : "Sir, you put your hand on the bible and swore to uphold the constitution - you did not place your hand on the constitution and swear to uphold the bible". If you believe this is a Holy War, then there are just as many Christian Crusadors as their are Muslim Fundamentalists.

Sadly it's been silly comments back and forth on both sides that detract from the real reason for so much anti-American sentiment of late, and not just by Canadians. We are fairly well behaved when it comes to other Bush-wackers. Again, I don't hate Americans, but they do have my sympathy Not only for 9/11 but for being straddled with George W. Bush and his band of freaks. (Sorry, it had to be said) Let's face facts...2/3 of all Americans no longer have faith in his ability to run the country, so we can't blame all Americans. They were deceived.

Rioting is not limited to the French by any means. What about the LA/Rodney King riots? That's just one example of many race riots in the US. However, Canada is not so squeaky clean either. We may not have the death toll that the LA riot does, but we can certainly inflict damage. 1969 - at Sir George Williams University in Montreal - The computer lab was destroyed, resulting in over $2 million in damage. June 14, 1994 - The "Stanley Cup riot" in downtown Vancouver after the Canucks lost the seventh game of the Stanley Cup final, resulted in extensive looting and street fighting. February 7, 1996 - the "National Day of Action" student protest over cuts to Post-Secondary education funds - At the Ontario Legislature, over 1,200 students broke through the barricades, smashing out windows as they went. November 7, 2002 - Thousands of fans rioted after hearing that a Guns n' Roses concert was cancelled. More than $100,000 dollars damage was done to GM Place. (at least it's not as petty as hoping for job security) Again - you don't have to be French to want to become involved in a protest.

I disagree that we need a draft. I think a force that wants to be there will not only end up being better trained, but more motivated to complete whatever mission is at hand. However I do agree that Canadians would never support the idea as most are so far removed from war and having any clue what sacrifices have been made for their freedom. They simply don't appreciate that there's a price to be paid for freedom. As such, I also agree that politician would ever approach the issue because the second he suggested it he'd kiss his career goodbye. I don't believe the US would ever have to move their military in to take us over. We're so dependent on the teet of the USA that they could buy us for pennies on the dollar after destroying our country with economic sanctions. This is why we need to be on the same page with the US economically, look to open new markets in Middle and South America, and stop allowing countries like China to close their markets to us. We need to take advantage of every sale we can make in the USA, while pursuing new markets. Most of all, we need to work with the US to force China to truly open its market to North American goods. If we do that and fashion a favorable trade situation with China, it won't matter what the US does economically--we'll have a much bigger trade partner. I'll admit that the sense of civic pride in the USA is probably one foot the wrong side of hubris, but what is wrong with believing you live in the best country in the world? Why shouldn't they believe that everyone wants to be like them? The world is becoming more and more Americanized every day--and not just by their military. People all over the world fight to get into the country for 'a better life'. Its gotten so bad people sneak in because they want it so badly. Their hubris fails them however when they seek to export their way of life as they forget that the ones in the countries they invade that wanted their way of life usually have already left to get it. I don't think Americans are any less tolerant or compassionate than Canadians, today. Yes, historically they have been pretty intolerant, but today I don't see it. They are for equality today more than ever. A lot like me though, they do not wish to give one ioda more than equality. I cannot fault them for that. Just got a chance to read through the thread and found some very good comments (and maybe a few not so good) My thoughts are not so much anti-American as they are Pro-Canadian, and I think we really need to hold tight to our national identity as peacekeepers, no matter how fragile that may be. I take comfort in the fact that if we were ever attacked, our US allies would be there to help us out, just as we did when the US was attacked (9/11) and went after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. I support good trade relations with the US and other countries, but we need to be careful and not just pant after the US dollar (or Euro or Yen). Our goods are for sale but not our people or country. I have relatives in Maine and Michigan (my grandmother was born in Brewer Maine), so do not hate Americans; just their foreign policy. When I visit the US I usually like the people I meet, but there is a definite cultural difference. They rarely mention the fact that Canadians hate Americans, because frankly they believe that the whole world does, and are not happy about it. I support more money for our troops and believe that their equipment should be updated. However, I don't believe that they should have to support US agression simply because the US tells us it's OK. (again foreign policy). So long as the US continues it's rampage unchecked, the Canadian military will always be needed to clean up their mess. I just don't want to see us making it. I would not support a draft and I think our census forms should be processed by a Canadian company. Oh, and I am not a socialist.

I agree with Geoffrey. We can't call all Muslims terrorists, or even the vast majority of Muslims terrorists. Most killing is political, on both sides. For argument's sake it was believed that Tim McVeigh belonged to the 'Christian Identity' a racist Christian (and I use the term very lightly) Right group. Whether he did or didn't, this group certainly praised his actions, and shows what can happen when you tap into the dark side of any religion. (I believe this was the meaning of the Sith comment when the rogue Jedi believed that true power of the Force lay not through contemplation and passivity and only by tapping its dark side could its true potential be gained.) I'm not a Trekkie but looked it up, and actually it is a very astute comparison.

Mr. Harper is always posturing and campaigning. we all know how sincere his speech to the troops was - I suppose as sincere as Bush was when he delivered the same speech a while ago. But how about his meeting with the Afghan President? "As I said to the president, we have a parliamentary system and I don’t control the majority and I don’t control the other parties." Implying that he is the only one concerned with their plight. Then of course cited a Conservative election promise to hold a vote on all future military deployments: ."These things obviously will be put to votes in the future. That's a commitment we've made," Harper said. And then "I would urge the opposition parties not to play politics with that commitment but to get behind our troops and get behind our international commitment," What the heck?

What you'll hear from the left is that someone who shoots an abortion doctor is the same as someone strapping a bomb on their back and blowing up a whole bus of innocents. I don't know how they can make these comparisons with a straight face, but they do. What about Cheryl Gallant, Pro-Life activist and MP for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke? She compared the beheading of American contractor Nicholas Berg to the the abortions performed in Canada, saying that it 'absolutely no different'; and with a straight face. George Bush proclaims himself a born-again Christian and makes constant references to God when he refers to America's "victory" in Iraq and soldiers are led into battle believing that they will be rewarded for their actions in heaven if they make the ultimate sacrifice. People who want to do bad things, can always twist the words in whatever good book they live by, as a way to validate their actions. Now, for argument's sake, let's say that Bush is fundamentally Christian (I prefer fundamentally evil or 2/3 of Americans now believe fundamentally incompetent). By his own admissions and constant references to God and Jesus, we can make the argument that the coalition forces are on the side of Christianity (hypothetically) since I believe that you are looking for numbers. As of March 17, 2006; CNN provides the latest casualties here: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/ There have been 2,519 coalition deaths, 2,314 of which were Americans. Now if we add the 3,000 9/11 victims, we can hypothetically say that the Muslim world has killed 5,500 people from the Christian world. However, the Iraqi casualties to date are more than 35,000 (roughly 7 times) and of that 35,000; more than half were women and children. (I had jotted down a few weeks ago 12,000+ children with just less than half under 3 years of age and 15,000+ women) So by your argument; Christians killed about 7 times as many Muslims as Muslims have killed Christians. And let's not forget the environmental damage that they have inflicted, which will create many more premature deaths in the years to come. See, it's not that easy is it?

Wow. Everyone is weighing in on this. The problem with such a debate is that we are assuming that people who are Gay cannot be religous, or if you are religous, you cannot be Gay. Once we debate on religous grounds, it becomes something quite different. Gay couples want to be married in a church, for the same reason that Heterosexual couples want to be married in a church. The trouble is that once you say Gay, SEX becomes the only consideration. We don't ask a man and woman wanting to marry if they practice S and M....Do they practice group sex....will they molest their children....will they cheat on their partner...yet all of these occur within the confines of a man/woman marriage. My grandson has a rare genetic disorder and in my town of about 150,000 there is only one other child with same disease. His parents happen to be both women, who adopted him knowing the challenges they would face. They both attend church regularly and are bringing their son up with what you could call 'Christian values', which include not passing judgement on anyone. I watched him be baptized, and he and my grandson visit back and forth on a regular basis. He is happy and healthy and well cared for, both physically and spiritually. An absolute delight. Funnily enough, when we get together with his mothers, we never discuss our sex lives.

Is that all you've got, I'd assume you'd have a massive amount of numbers ready considering how fervently you seem to believe in this. Can you name in the last twenty years where Muslim fundamentalists have killed more than the Christian extremists in Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and Uganda? I can think of some major events... 9/11 being the biggest at about 3,000 right? If you are to include Sudan at the higher number, than Rwanda can definitely be brought in on the same abiguity. Yugoslavia's ethnic cleansing (killing and rendering homeless of Muslim's by Serbian Christians) was massive. Ok. Of the 3,000 people killed in 9/11 not all were Christians. I remember watching some of the services and the victims represented many different cultures and religions. The attack was against Americans - not Christians.

such as? Yes I'd like to know what as well. Things can always be changed if enough people want it to be so.

I agree to a certain extent. I'm currently reading Stephen Harper's biography and find his idea of a triple E, or elected senate, not without merit. However, the risk is that an elected senate will simply produce more partisan politics but at a different level; like we're seeing with the Liberal stacked senate now. I don't believe that there is an easy solution, unless there is a way to make the senate more equally divided, so that it won't matter what party is in power; all would be equally represented. Your only statement that I don't agree with is that the CPC plans to restore Medicare. I think they're poised to scrap it.

One more thing betsy.....demanding that the policy on detainees is vocalized by our leadership IS supporting our troops. You talk about "damaging our soldiers morale" but obviously haven't considered the damage that the torture pictures did to the morale of the US forces. And then to have thier civilian leadership blame them for a policy of "softening" that they asked for. Not exactly a morale booster. And all for nothing, since testimony indicates no real useful information ever came out of all that "softening". The only result was a tripling of enemies and a loss of respect worldwide. I would also like to hear that our troops who are required to guard detainees have suitable training. I find your complaining above to be "fluff" and pseudo-something. Certainly not logical or thought-out at all. It's just more partisan nonsense. Showing concern for what will happen to detainees is not unreasonable and in light of the horrific images of American brutality, we should know whether Mr, Harper supports this kind of treatment, the way he supports everything else Mr. Bush does. Maybe we should contact our MP's and demand that they present the question in parliament.

Bob Rae has been considered for the post of Governer General in the past (unless you mean me, and I'm not a guy) Bob Rae would be everything Stephen Harper fears - just like him only better at it. As far as the religous thing - Harper's caucus and even his supporters have made it about religion, whether he intended to do that or not. Read Hansard - almost every argument from the Reform/Alliance includes the fact that they are Christian. As I said before: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT! SO AM I. But if his caucus was mostly Jewish, and they tried to legislate that every Canadian male had to be circumcized, even if it was for health reasons (hypothetical), every non-Jew would say that it was not the government's place to tell them what to do. Gay rights have nothing to do with religion and religion has no place in politics. Number one, Bob Rae might not be better at it, thats only your opinion. Secondly, there is no Reform/Alliance party anymore, only the CPC, so please tell us where in the policies they address abortion or other 'social' issues, again using the religious theocracy bit is a crock The only CPC policy on any social issue as far as I know, is a free vote in parliament. You know, a party that encourages diversity of views and opinions and allows open debate and Free Votes. MP's would have free will to vote their concience or their riding's wishes. Harper is more of a libetarian born and raised in Ontario, he may attend church but he cetainly doesn't make religion an issue, that is mainly coming from the press and secular liberals. Yes there are some MP's with strong views in the CPC, there are in the liberals too. Most people have some religious background whether or not they go to a church or whatever, their values and beliefs generally are based on that very upbringing and background. Pretty hard for anyone to think in comletely secular terms, and divorce themselves from everything they've believed in, and take an -anything goes - attitue, or to even embrace the new religion of secular humanism. I agree with separation of church and state, but you cannot deny a group of people their democratic voice because they go to church more often than we do. Neither can you deny a group of people whomever they are, the right to lobby government, to deny a group that right based on the fact they are Christian (or other) would be discrimination. Maybe you could provide a Hansard quoe for us where the CPC and or Harper have made religious comments. Those we need to fear most, are the radical liberal secularists who have been forcing their agenda down our throats for decades. I hadn't really intended this to be about religion but the fact that I read his bio and was comforted by his diverse religous background, may also mean that others will be. (BTW: There is still a Reform Party very much alive and well in Canada - they are just now calling themselves CPC. Mr. Harper has been involved in more parties than Belinda Stronach - and all without crossing the floor.) However, my post was only meant to compare Bob Rae to Stephen Harper and present MY OPINION as to why I thought BR may have an edge over SH. Many feel that Ontarians will never forgive Bob Rae for his history with Ontario politics, but I disagree. Their distate for Mike Harris will far outweigh Rae's ancient history and the fact that three relics from the 'Common Sense Revolution" are now key Harper cabinet ministers, will continue to remind us. 'Two-Tier' Tony Clement and Jim Flaherty, whose brilliant solution to the homeless problem was to simply throw them all in jail; like being poor was a crime. And then of course, there's Baird, whose name is synonymous with the 500 million dollar computer boondoggle, when he was minister of Community and Social Services. For those who don't know, the 'boondoggle' centered around government outsourcing to Anderson Consulting, to reform our welfare system. To save taxpayers 89.5 million dollars, they were paid 193 million dollars, and the shoddy equipment they saddled us with created extra expense and nightmares beyond belief. And now with my tinfoil hat firmly in place, Anderson Consulting quickly changed it's name to Accenture after it's founder Arthur Anderson got into legal trouble for his involvement with the Enron scandal. And what does this have to do with Stephen Harper? One of Accenture's directors is Patrick Daniel who also sits on the boards of Encana and Enerflex. Encana's CEO is Michael Chernoff. Michael Chernoff and his wife Dorine each gave Harper's party $ 5,000.00 on December 11, 2004 and then less than six months later, on May 20, 2005; each an additional $ 5,100.00. So for those who believe that corporations are limited to $1,000.00 per year. Guess again. There's $20,200.00 in less than six months from one corporation. Enerflex were not left out either. It's CEO John Peter Alfred and his wife Cheryl, each contributed $ 5,100.00 on July 7, 2005. I could continue with the list, but believe me, it goes on and on. I'm not really suggesting corruption, but will be watching closely to see how much outsourcing is thrown Accenture's way. The point is, that casting doubt on anyone's integrity is very easy, so it wouldn't take much to put Rae and Harper on the same level, where we could then simply look at their abilities to lead our country during turbulent times. Both strong economists; both apt policy makers, but Mr. Rae has a much better record on the International scene and a more realistic view of our involvement in the Middle East.