blueblood

and people get mad at peter mackay for shooting himself in the foot...

That's, or course, your own opinion. Some people believe fighting for human rights and the constitution belongs and defines our country as democratic and free. If you want to talk about cost effectiveness, it would be cheaper - much cheaper - to give away money to the poor than throwing them in prison. It is not democratic and free to take my large tax payment because some special interest group feels they are entitled to it over oh lets say health care which benefits everyone, why should some guy who can't read rob someone of a hospital bed? I'm not saying the poor are criminals, it'd be cheapest to create jobs that way they can pay taxes to get a return off of investment. If your talking about poor criminals then, no, jail is best as they are behind bars where they belong and can do society no harm. harm to society is something i care not to put a price tag on. Criminals are like rocks in a field, rocks wreck machinery, there will ALWAYS be rocks coming up, you can change your practices to reduce rocks coming up, but they will still come and have to be dealt with. To deal with them, all one can do is go out and pick them one at a time after the field has been worked and put them in the rock pile where they won't wreck anything. It may seem pointless as its a job that won't end but with each rock put in the pile, that is one less rock that won't wreck anything.

Fair enough. But those enterprises go out of business and don't cost taxpayers anything. If they remain in the public sector they cost taxpayer money on and on and on and on and on.... If some remain in the public sector aren't cost effective, they get axed, just look at what the tories are recently doing to some ineffective cost programs. nuthin wrong with crown corporations giving employment, rather have people work for their money instead of welfare handouts

There have definitely been cases of Canadian border guards leaving their posts out of fear for their safety. Here's a quote from a story this past March. That's a weird report. All it says is So, where did the violence happen? Do you want me to lend you a shovel to help you with that hole your digging

How about an EXAMPLE of when there has been a potentially dangerous confrontation at the border? Refer me to a report of such an case, please. That doesn't include petty crime, lets just say that the Trailer Park Boys won't be getting 25 to life anytime soon. Any sentence over 2yrs. is federal time in Canada, and theft or fraud over $5000 can get you that. Sorry if I overlooked something important ... what question? Sorry for hijacking the thread but not arming the border guards is just plain stupid. Lets ask Cst. Stronquill what can happen at a routine checkstop, oh wait he's dead, and the point I'm going to make is at least he had more of a chance as he had a sidearm, what chance does the border guard have unarmed. Do you want an unarmed guard shot first? A dangerous confrontation can just as easily happen on the border as on Hwy. 16 in small town Manitoba. Lets at least give the guard a fighting chance. Oh back on topic, maybe it's just a coincidence...

now now now now, what's wrong with the Pope saying something nice sure he flubbed up but what's wrong with trying to make it up, I mean he's no John Paul II but those are TALL shoes to fill. I think it's a sign of strength that he's doing that, what that evangelical leader franklin graham says is outright cowardly and completely hypocritical of what is said in the bible. If anyone is nuts its this guy and anyone who uses religion as a weapon and to cause fear and hate mongering. I feel sorry for evangelicals when they have individuals like this who make their religion look bad. I don't think there is a muslim terrorist out there with the guts to attack anything in Rome, cuz if that happened I'll tell you right now the U.S. wouldn't be the leader in the war on terror for very long.

Someone else may already have brought this up in this very lengthy thread, but my first thought upon hearing about this was, even if MacKay did allude to Stronach as a dog, MPs throw insults at each other in the House (and out of it) all the time. The only difference now seems to be that it's okay to throw insults at male MPs, but not at females. So, this appears to be simply an instance of women like Belinda screeching demands to be treated equally, while all the while expecting to be treated differently. I like this post, this is what I like to call TRUE equality, something that seems to be disappearing in today's society. I brought it up in another thread, the get laid one. "Is this some kind of a joke? Peter Mackay doesn't owe her anything, he's allowed to say what he wants. That's like saying an MP from rural Canada is a backwoods redneck. What's even the point of him apologizing, it's not like he's going to mean it so it won't hold water. when any person goes into parliament getting a cheap shot levelled against you is common place, a person should expect that and being a woman shouldn't make you exempt from that, don't take it personally and level one back, it's not like Peter hasn't had a cheap shot levelled against him. I thought it was an amazing burn myself. Peter Mackay shouldn't deny what he said that's not cool, just admit to it and be done. I personally don't care about "looking or acting professional" in my eyes being a professional is actually getting the job done. Peter Mackay can be the biggest sexist bastard around, but if he does a good job I'd rather have that than a mr. nice guy whose utterly incompetant. If I were Belinda I'd be on Duffy going Woof Woof and make Mackay look even stupider instead of looking like a big suck." Yah i know its a little harsh and boorish, but I look at things this way, if a guy and girl are both working in the field all day clearing some land, they both have the right to lay on the couch and watch TV and relax. But if the guy and girl each break their machines which results in damage, they both deserve to get in supreme shit from the boss, and by supreme shit I mean getting screamed at and insulted just like a cadet at Depot by his/her drill corporal.

I refer you to the Enabling Act of 1933. Even in that instance there was a German President. In your theoretical Canada there would be no senatorial or executive check on the PM's ability to pass whatever law he wanted if he commanded a majority in the House. Nice try with the fear mongering. Who's not to say the senate could be corrupt like that?, who would the senate answer to? I don't think in this day and age Canadians are gonna put a leader who would abuse his power like that. And the PM has the greatest check of all, the voting public. And even if that did happen, we have this thing called the RCMP to put a stop to that and even you know they don't answer to the ruling party, just look at all the RCMP investigations on the liberals. And your gonna have a nice time trying to convince me the RCMP is a politically corrupt organization.

blah...Id rather have legislation passed and not be stuck in deadlock. But I guess thats because I dont have any feelings of western alienation. Either way, a Harper government must counter this Ontario is out to get us mentality in Alberta, no? You'd seriously rather have all bills passed into law by the Prime Minister's signature after being voted through in the House? I hope you understand the very serious potential consequences we could easily face in such a situation. What consequence?, if the PM passes a bad bill his ass is history next election and the new governmet can scrap it. I think its a more serious consequence that APPOINTED people are law makers, that's not democracy that's an oligarchy and those senators are accountable to no one but themselves and by the way they spend our money they couldn't care less.

Is this some kind of a joke? Peter Mackay doesn't owe her anything, he's allowed to say what he wants. That's like saying an MP from rural Canada is a backwoods redneck. What's even the point of him apologizing, it's not like he's going to mean it so it won't hold water. when any person goes into parliament getting a cheap shot levelled against you is common place, a person should expect that and being a woman shouldn't make you exempt from that, don't take it personally and level one back, it's not like Peter hasn't had a cheap shot levelled against him. I thought it was an amazing burn myself. Peter Mackay shouldn't deny what he said that's not cool, just admit to it and be done. I personally don't care about "looking or acting professional" in my eyes being a professional is actually getting the job done. Peter Mackay can be the biggest sexist bastard around, but if he does a good job I'd rather have that than a mr. nice guy whose utterly incompetant. If I were Belinda I'd be on Duffy going Woof Woof and make Mackay look even stupider instead of looking like a big suck.

Good grief, that's your complaint? What would you say if they'd have made it to Afghanistan? At least they're not dropping 500 bucks a night plus whatever other senate expenses there are and they're doing what they're supposed to be doing. I don't think you can accumulate expenses in Afghanistan. I've heard of guys getting canned pulling a stunt like that. So what.....if they'd had made it to Afghanistan you wouldn't have complained? Lo and behold, here is the REAL crux of your b1tching. You're ideologically opposed to the Senate. You didn't post a link to the details of this trip because you knew that your complaining wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. They went to show support for the troops and gather information for our leadership. They didn't make it due to circumstances beyond their control. You got a problem with showing support for the troops? yes i am ideologically opposed to the senate, i guess i like saving money. i didn't post the link cuz i plum forgot, believe me if you want to and i posted one when asked. if they'd have made it to Afghanistan and did their job that's alright and i don't have a problem supporting the troops. I think they spent more than 30 large and spent around 100 large, thats pure speculation though, but i wouldn't be surprised. Now i've got a question for you, bear with me as this might sound like im speaking in riddles but here i go how would you like it if you had teenagers and you let them borrow your visa card to go to an equipment dealer in the city to go get parts for machinery which in itself costs a bit, instead its closed (you have a rough idea how much it costs), now these teenagers decide to go crazy with it, they hit up a fancy pants clothing store, buy a new video game system, basically buy whatever it is people buy with little regard to you who has to pay for it. how would you like it? I figure you'll weasel your way out of this but I believe this little scenario is what the senate has done and keeps doing to the taxpayer, and I believe it is wrong. when the government audits my farm for 80 plus thousand dollars, plus collects a nice fat sales tax from my crop inputs and machinery purchases and maintenance, plus income tax and THIS happens i think i'll exercise my right to be pissed off (btw I'm saying i'm paying a lot of tax dollars that's it). I know all you pay taxes as well and if your fine with that then I'm talking to a wall.

Good grief, that's your complaint? What would you say if they'd have made it to Afghanistan? At least they're not dropping 500 bucks a night plus whatever other senate expenses there are and they're doing what they're supposed to be doing. I don't think you can accumulate expenses in Afghanistan. I've heard of guys getting canned pulling a stunt like that. It might not seem like a large amount of money, it's the principle, I shouldn't have to pay for someone who is a part of a useless arm of government. The PM should get the presidential suite not joe nobody senator. 7 guys to hang out in a ritzy hotel doing something they could have done here, wasteful, I can't respect that. All the taxpayer should be paying for is a room at a best western and the equivalent cost of meals at applebees. I mean if they want to stay at a nice hotel it should come out of his senate pay which is ridiculous in itself. Not a business expense the people of Canada should be paying for, that money could be used for a lot more constructive things than that.

so if i go to the states and get in a bar scrap, i can "disappear", not get a trial and be held indefinetely?, well if that's the case im not going there and the terrorists have won.

Senate gets blasted... Try this one, same page

I don't even see the outrage? 30k for a weekend for 100 or so Senators? $300 each? Pretty good if you ask me. You don't even see the outrage? I don't understand what you're trying to say. I'm looking for a link. The poster is obviously upset and throwing out a couple of details. Is a news link too much to ask in a political forum? Senate gets blasted over going to Dubai see if that works, if not search around ctv.ca it's there

does any one know how much the senate costs taxpayers instead of the obvious answer too much

any ideas?

Anyone hear about our good old senate? 30 large for a weeklong vacation and a "light" itenerary. There's 30 large us taxpayers won't see again.

This is a crying shame and is one of those stereotypes of our society that we all must pay for the mistakes of some which i believe is liberal philosophy in a nutshell. I feel sorry for the large group of priests and bishops that DON'T do that sort of thing and actually take their role in life seriously and are actually some of the nicest and best people a person could ever meet, to lump them in with the pervert ones holds as much water as saying all Muslims are terrorists. For the pervert priests they should be charged with the full weight of the law, plus an excommunication by the pope, for those of you not familiar with catholicism that means kicked out of the church with a one way ticket to hell and being as priests are very religious that in itself is a big punishment. It's funny to see some people equate the Church with homosexuality and pedophelia which is something that the Church is firmly against.

here's some cuts, Department of Indian Affairs, the Senate, programs promoting the use of the french language in english canada. I can just see how much money we'd save with that. that's only the tip of the iceberg.

That works very well in a small town, in fact it works too well, if the business leader is an asshole he is done. I'm not saying pass a law, just do what he did to Paul Martin or the liberal leadership contenders. These guys are operating in a big city and i'm sure he's not gonna lose too much business if there are just a few guys and their friends pissed at him, but his face is gonna be red when an elected official of that much sway goes on tv and levels him a nice cheapshot, this guy could be white black yellow pink blue or orange. I mean if the government didn't stand up for anyone what would have happened in Dixie (southern states) during the whole civil rights era? Like I said take care of your men and they'll take care of you. But in any event all the negative publicity will have done something to the korean business owner.

I'm sick of people making BS claims like these. The PM does say merry Christmas and he ends his speeches with "God bless Canada". Our anthem has the word God in it. I can't speak for all provinces but Ontario has a Catholic school board that receives public money to operate. Public money should not be spent on religion specific activities. The rest of your post is too ridiculous to comment on. As for the Korean plaza... Any former tenant can file a suit against the new landlord. If they can prove they were evicted simply because of their race then they may be entitled to some sort of compensation. This has nothing to do with the government. It is simply a matter for the courts decide. Of course the post was ridiculous, try reading between the lines, i was making parallels with the korean logic which is ridiculous and stating some examples of what can be done about it using the same logic, what's good for one is good for all. I can also bet you dollars to donuts that come christmas time there will be some piece on the news about people complaining about how they feel left out at christmas time, which i don't agree with (I don't complain about being left out of hannukah for example), i mean a large portion of the country celebrates christmas and we shouldn't be made to feel bad about celebrating it. I don't make people feel bad about celebrating their stuff. The post was a direct shot at groups who feel they have special priveliges because they are minorities which is what all this is about, that and property rights. I agree with the property rights and they should go BOTH ways in this matter, people can do whatever they want wth their property and at the same time should get full consequenses for their actions good or bad. I can also understand why property rights aren't enshrined in the constitution based solely on this scenario. Oh and the government has an obligation to stand up for its citizens, that is partly why they are elected. Maybe harper dressing down mr. landlord on tv might teach ALL those who pull a stunt like that a lesson. So maybe my original post wasn't that ridiculous.

Geoffrey, I don't know about you, but I'd be intimidated messing around with a country with a state of the art fleet of attack subs that have a reputation for blowing ships out of the water at a moments notice, just knowing we have this capability is a presence in itself. I agree with boosting up naval intelligence, also subs can surface and carry out boarding operations too, subs are also fast. I don't see how subs are more dangerous than ships, both sink, and if your in the arctic in an engagement and lose, everyone dies sub or ship. One problem with this plan too much money to finance this, oh well i can dream. For straight up feasibility and with current funding your plan is the way to go, I thought he was saying the DND got a massive cash injection and if it did I'd go my way.

What a double standard!!!! Koreans allowed to pull this off and if whites did we'd be in shit. Mind you that's what Canada has become, God forbid the Prime Minister say merry christmas or the holiday tree, come on. Those Koreans should be thanking their lucky stars that they're even allowed to immigrate to this country, cuz if it was some country boy running immigration, this country would be sealed up tighter than a bull's ass hole in fly season. I can picture it, "Hmm asians, too many gangs No Canada for the rest of you, Muslims straight from old country, I don't want suicide bombers in my country I'm done with middle eastern immigration DONE, too many immigrants plugging up social security immigration done DONE!!!" This of course is ridiculous but so is kicking people off a property cuz they're white. I would like to see Canada shut for a bit to straighten them out then they can take a libertarian approach and go somewheres else for the same reason as in BC, after all Canada belongs to the people of Canada and if we don't want them, they shouldn't be able to come in. Or else if we're continuing with the Korean logic here, the white land owners shouldn't be selling them land as their money wouldn't be good enough like the white tenants, they could then take a libertarian view and try and go somewhere else it'll be like Dixie all over again and the human rights crew would have a field day. Harper should rip apart those Koreans on national tv, to hell with being politically correct and being "prime ministerial", take care of your men and they'll take care of you. A few koreans not voting for Harper is a small price to pay to get the job done.

Geoffrey is right in that we need a boost in the navy, which is why i said to get the subs, but we also need a stronger air force with intercepter type aircraft, if you look at it this way North Korea has the 4th largest army, but that army is completely useless in a transport plane and in a transport ship, and with modern GPS tracking technology all that is sitting ducks. Also i like geoffery's comment on the drugs, nothing like a good old torpedo to send all that coke to the bottom. Work smarter not harder is what i like to say