rover1

A lot more volatility can be expected until the liquidity problem is worked out.

It does seem that the US is likely entering a period of serious economic downturn. It appears that a severe recession of long duration is in the offing. Its magnitude would likely affect Canada, in particular in the residential property field, as well as the general economy. One bright spot for Canada is that our natural resources will probably give us some protection, as much of what we have to export will still be in demand, although to a lesser extent. I make no comment on whether or not this could have been avoided, or on any particular action or theory.

It has been my understanding that no connexion between El Queda and Saddam has been shown. Some here have said that this is not the case. I would appreciate any references or information on this point.

Of course, I notice the sometimes unusual names of contributors to this and other forums, but if they make reasonable postings, agreeing with me or not, I soon forget the 'handle' and respond to the point made, or not. Foolish posts do not require an unusual name, and deserve no response.

Without commenting on the substance of the previous posts, I have to say that issues like these are clouded by the difficulty in defining 'Terrorism' in context. Terrorism is nothing new, and seems to have been used in different forms from ancient times, and most notably recently in the 60's and 70's by such as the Baader-Meinhoff gang, and the IRA. Up until recently, it has been considered as a rather nasty part of world political reality, and various methods have been used to suppress it, and it has been considered a sort of social criminality. Since 9-11, the US and others have tried to characterise 'Terrorism' as some kind of entity which a country can be 'at war' with. Except in the sense of 'the war on poverty' or 'the war on drugs', in other words a figurative sense, this is a misleading way to put it, and using the word war literally in this context is either foolish or deceptive. Yet President Bush claims to be a 'wartime president' and seems to believe it. Others seem to believe that the US is 'at war' too. It seems unlikely that this mindset will lead to much success in the suppression of terrorism, but it does seem to justify unending and expensive measures to win the war, which is unwinnable in the terms stated.

I think that we would do well to consider trading with others based on commercial considerations and not political ones. My observation is that trying to inject moral issues into trade has not been successful and leads to little but frustration. I may or may not approve of some political measure taken by the US or Zimbabwe or some other, but they are unlikely to listen to me, and I'm not sure that they should. If they want my goods, and they can pay, it is good enough. Not that I have no views on political matters, it just that, for the main part, linking trade to these things doesn't work and leads only to bad feelings. There may be some specific issue, from time to time, where a country wishes to state it's opinion in this way, but they should be aware that it is unlikely to influence the situation. and there is a cost involved. Such interventions should be infrequent, and they are as likely as not to affect the intervener negatively.

bc is right when he says it doesn't matter whether you support a policy in the sense that they don't come to you and ask whether they should or shouldn't, certainly they have never asked me. Still, it is interesting to know what people think of these things, and why.

Golly! It seems like a pretty straightforward question. I don't really understand why people feel that they have to insult one another. Why not try just answering the question, and giving reasons for your position. I feel that waterboarding is clearly torture and that civilised countries ought not to use it. Mr John McCain the American candidate for the presidency said this yesterday, and I agree with him. Some may feel that waterboarding is not torture, and is therefore ok, if so they ought to tell us why they think so. Others may feel that it is torture, but that it is justified in the circumstances. They should furnish reasons, or explain their position as well. There may be other positions that people wish to take. It would be interesting to hear them.

I think that the NDP could have done better for its own members than it has done under Jack Layton. Had it done so, it might have picked up a few more votes from others. The idea that the NDP somehow represents the views of the majority of Canadians is absurd, although I agree that many of its members seem to think so. The NDP used to regularly claim some kind of moral superiority over the others. My observation is that they have not been morally superior to other parties, but probably no worse. It seems unlikely that the NDP will ever have the opportunity to come to power nationally.

The Canadian point of view, as I understand it, it that by staying, we will help to stabilise the country, and allow them to establish an effective government, and to look after their own affairs. Looking at the history of the country, and considering the control of the present government, and the possible improvements it could make, I am not so certain that our participation could achieve our stated goals, ever. In the circumstances, and considering that we will undoubtedly withdraw, sooner or later, I rather doubt that the sacrifices in Canadian lives are justified.

Christian Crybabies, Jewish Jabberers, Moslem Mouthpieces, Hindu Hardtalkers? Really! Give me a break. Courteous people of all stripes don't want to offend anybody, and temper their statements where appropriate in most situations. If what is being spoken of is the Canadian tradition, of being able to express it without somebody raising questions as to whether it might not recognise some other traditions, then so long as such reflection leads to thoughtfulness and politeness, there is nothing wrong with it. It such discussion is meant to lead a rigid prohibition of certain forms of well meant greeting, then it seems presumptuous to me. In case it has escaped anybodies notice, there are, so far as I know, two, separate but interrelated celebrated Christmases in this country, the temporal(Shopping, Winter Festival, Santa Claus), and the religious(Jesus, Birth of Christ, Promise of Salvation) The temporal one ought to be offensive to no one, and public utterances should be considered to be relating to this one.

Well, the woman is entitled to her opinion, even if narrow or uninformed. It seems rude or unmannerly however to make a formal protest without first stating her concerns to the other person involved, especially when information has come to her by overlooking or eavesdropping, and not by public means. The NDP seem to have been involved in other mistakes relating to individuals lately, and are not doing themselves much good with such unconsidered tactics. Perhaps if they confined themselves with opposing government proposals which they disagreed with they would improve their public image.

I think that constitutions and constitutional authority, may be a somewhat more complicated matter than Mr Slave supposes.

All in all, the gun registry as presently constituted should be eliminated, in my view. My observation is that it has been costly and ineffective and has not served the purposes desired by its proposers. Whether or not it could have served such purposes is a matter of debate, but it clearly has been unsuccessful. The worst feature of the present law is that it has created controversy where none existed before. Long gun control has always been something of a non-issue in Canada, as opposed to other countries, and it should remain so. A big waste of money.

Why not let Peter Phillips decide whom he wishes to marry? Later, should all the other nine successors die off, we could have a discussion on the matter.