Chuck U. Farlie

So he couldn't understand a simple question asked of him 3 times in an interview yesterday in Halifax. He had is aides there, but they couldn't help him... so if he has a crucial meeting one day with President Obama is he going to have a translator with him to explain what is being said? A greater percentage of Canada is English than French, so the Prime Minister should be 100% fluent in English... which Dion isn't.

I was too young to know or care that Turner had dual citizenship... and I didn't know that until I just read it in this forum. I don't care that it is liberal... I would complain about having a dual-citizen prime minister no matter what party they represent. I started thinking about dual citizenship and decided that Canada shouldn't allow it for any citizens when that Lebanon thing happened and piles of them came rushing back out of convenience. Being Canadian shouldn't just be a passport of convenience. I think if you are born elsewhere and want to immigrate to Canada... then become Canadian and don't look back. Just like my parents did when they came here from Holland and Belgium. If you are born here and only have citizenship because of your parent's lineage, then give it up and be Canadian - as that is what you are anyway. Back in 1995 when Canada had a dispute with Spain over fishing rights - if Chretien also had Spanish citizenship would he be able to represent Canada impartially? Perhaps he could... but there would have definitely been a conflict of interest.

Every day I hear the politicians blasting each other for the smallest things... about Harper telling Canadians to buy stocks now, Dion screwing up an interview, etc etc... What I never hear about anymore is that Dion has dual citizenship with Canada and France... Don't these other politicians or even the media care about that? I think it is completely unacceptable for the leader (or potential leader) of a country to hold dual nationalities. How can he represent us if he were to have to deal with the other country? In fact, I don't even think that any regular Canadian should be allowed to have two citizenships.... and certainly not a person who is running for top spot in the government. I wouldn't even care if on Tuesday the Liberals got a minority... because with a minority gov't there is very little they would be able to pass through to us. I would care immensely though if Dion were our Prime Minister. He is a citizen of France and can barely speak or understand English. He would be a disgrace to Canada.

I don't mind paying my share as long as it is well spent on services that benefit myself or Canada as a whole. I am a tax hater because I can't stand how my taxes are wasted on huge salaries and pensions for useless politicians and support staff, squandered away to the lazy, and thrown away to subsidize private companies and individuals (scandalous or not).

I just wonder who the tax loving people are?

While I think Harper will make the best leader, I am worried about him getting a majority. For the most part I am a fiscal conservative but not necessarily a social conservative. In fact, I don't think I would be comfortable with any of the parties in a majority position... the best is in a minority where there are checks and balances in any major decision. Thanks for the link to vote strategically... I will consider that in my decision.

So I started researching the candidates in my local riding today... Mississauga East - Cooksville riding... and what a joke. I almost prefer not to vote! I was planning to vote Conservative, but the local candidate is some sort of a ex or amateur model who was denied by the liberals so she went blue.... I have very little or no interest in the other parties, and I don't think any of the other candidates deserve my vote. In fact, I don't think any of the candidates in this riding deserve the salary they will get as a politician - or the pension they would get if they get enough years in. But what choice do I have if I want to exercise my duty as a citizen? I almost wish there was a 'none of the above' option that if the majority selected it could call for another sub-election with different candidates. Some might say if you are not happy with the candidates, then run yourself... but I don't have the time or the desire to put myself in that sort of a predicament.... I just wish these parties could offer me a little more substance for my vote!

While Riverwind is doing a great job educating those of you who simply accept global warming as fact, there is too much information that suggests otherwise to regurgitate here in a forum. I suggest everyone who is interested in this topic go read The Deniers from Lawrence Soloman (a journalist from National Post) http://www.amazon.ca/Deniers-World-Renowne...8639&sr=8-1 I am just reading it now, and he covers all of the points being brought up here.... ice caps, glaciers, temperature trends etc etc... he also covers how statistical mistakes were made and covered up, scientific evidence was ignored that didn't suit certain agencies agendas, etc.... In this book he is not arguing that global warming doesn't exist... and he is also not arguing that we are not the cause if it is happening... he is just pointing out some leading experts who don't agree with the media hyped version and states why they believe what they do. He is saying the science isn't settled... and I agree with him and the other numerous experts (some deny, some don't) that he features in the book. Riverwind already pointed out some of what is in the book... such as parts of Antarctica are in glacier building stage, that many glaciers have been retreating since the Little Ice age ended 150 to 200 years ago, that hurricanes go through periods of heightened activity (such as now and back in the 1940's), etc etc etc.... This topic is becoming very much like religion... no one knows conclusively one way or another... but a lot of people sure claim to know.

As soon as they put that on their website I played around with it. I am single, no kids, live in a city, and make about $60k a year.... I would get a whooping $36 a month or $437 a year in total. Because I am single I don't consume much energy, or produce much waste, and I live less than 10km from work so often I bike it ... there is not much I can do to reduce my carbon footprint... Yet... if the green shaft happens, then my food and all my utility expenses will increase, and probably by a lot more than $36 a month. The prices of everything will go up (whether the Liberals admit that or not) and very few will be getting back more than they pay out.

Blackburn and Bernier are not running to be leader of the country. My hearing is fine, but his form of English is painful to listen to. Even more painful than Bush's. Anyway, Dion's English is the least of my concerns when considering the possibility that he could be prime minister. The main reason I won't be voting liberal is to give a clear indication of what I think of this 'green shift' - and that is that I am absolutely against it. I think at this stage, without question, Harper will be the prime minister again. The only question is whether he will have a majority or another minority.

I can't vote in this poll as there is more than one choice I would like to choose. I can't even get to the point to decide if Dion is intelligent or not - I can't listen to him long enough. I can barely understand the guy - even less than I could understand Chretien. I don't think he would represent Canada well because we are a predominately English speaking country and this guy can't speak English. I also don't think he can represent Canada well until he gives up his French citizenship. It might be okay for a regular Joe Citizen to have two nationalities... but the loyalties of the leader should be without question. Finally he won't get my vote because I don't agree with this green shift crap and I don't think we should be spending any money on any sort of carbon scheme. This election will be the first one I have ever voted conservative.

In the news the past couple days... Landed immigrants are seeking to vote in municipal elections. http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/497177 Personally I think that any voting for any level of government should be only after they waited their 3 years and became Canadian... they should show at least some commitment to Canada before being given the right to vote. I also don't think dual-citizenship should be allowed... therefore showing true commitment... but that is a whole other topic.

The question is irrelevant since she stands 0% chance of becoming the prime minister. What I find more appalling is that the leader of the current opposition party has dual citizenship! Dion is a disgrace and never should have been voted to top spot of the Liberals.

I have to admit, I didn't read every posting in this thread... but I read a fair bit. In my opinion, you can buy what you want that works for you. For example... I ride motorcycles. I have a choice of 1000's of japanese bikes that allow for very little creativity. What do I ride? I have a Royal Enfield which is a 50 year old design. This design keeps the gearbox separate from the engine, this allows me to change to almost any engine I like.... My Enfield is fitted with a diesel motor from a gen set... I get about 170mpg and as far as I know it is the only on the road diesel bike in ontario. I can put any engine I want in this bike, and parts are cheap since its made in India, so I will likely keep it as long as possible. I can replace every part on this bike myself... and that is my idea of independence. If car companies go the route that I can't do anything on them myself, then I won't buy that brand of car. Some may try it, but if the only place you can service them is the dealership then they won't be popular cars. They don't need to be regulated to do this... demand itself will take care of it. By the way... I also run linux exclusively. I have no problem with ripping off microsoft, but i figure I may as well get used to what is going to take over now rather than later.

From what I am reading in the news, listening to on talk radio, and from this site, I am becoming more and more likely to vote conservative - I just tend to agree with more of what they are saying far more than the liberals. Besides... I could never vote to elect Dion... did he relinquish is French citizenship yet???

I wonder... wouldn't a warming of the arctic be a good thing to help quell global warming? I mean... sure some CO2 might be released, but at the same time there would be a longer growing season and more warmth for vegetation to thrive both on land and in the oceans, thereby taking carbon out of the system and creating more oxygen. A while back I was reading a Farley Mowat book entitled West Viking: The Ancient Norse in Greenland and North America. In that book Mowat was talking about (I think) around 1000 AD when temperatures in North America were significantly higher than now? I wonder how they ever conquered climate change way back then? I wonder if the environment, in its tendency towards equilibrium, took care of itself and worked things out?

Just wanting to say that I also agree with you Moonbox. By shifting our pollution someplace else in the world and crippling our economy at the same time does absolutely nothing to 'save the planet'. Unless China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, etc, are on board in trying to protect the environment, then whatever we do means nothing. We certainly did set an example for these developing countries - we showed them how to get stinking rich and rule the world and now they want a piece of the pie.

jodobbin... I haven't been following this issue very closely, so I was wondering if you could explain to me the Conservative's policy and where/how it would increase prices by 40 cents a litre? I looked at their website but couldn't find many specifics. So far I am not convinced with Dion's Green Shift, but I have not heard any of the opposing party's ideas.

I don't want to support these immigrants... but why are you accepting his side of it? Who is to say he didn't kick her out hoping she would go home... and is now pissed that she is on welfare and he is paying for it. Should the government just kick out any immigrant who is in a failed marriage? How then would they fight for any assets, custody, etc? There are two sides to every story, so forgive me if I don't take his word for it... If you go marrying a foreigner and bringing them home... make sure you make the right decision or you will pay for it...

OP... your marriage was not a marriage of convenience. A marriage of convenience is when both parties enter into an agreement to gain immigrant status. If yours was a marriage of convenience, maybe you should be arrested and held accountable for breaking immigration law. Because you made a poor choice in brides you are now paying for it. Guess what, if you make a poor choice of brides in Canada you would also pay for it. It seems you are just trying to seek revenge by having this woman deported.

I would suspect that this agreement to sponsor your spouse for 3 years does more good for Canadians than bad. Without it there could be potential for a lot more abuse... such as strip club owners marrying russians or phillipinos, for example... With most people if they know they are responsible for the financial support of the person they sponsor for 3 years, hopefully they will make their decision wisely. Many years ago, when I was young and naive, I lived in Indonesia. During my 3.5 years there I (thought) I fell in love and nearly married an Indonesian woman. I held off doing so because of these very same immigration laws - I needed to make absolute sure this woman was the right woman because I think the sponsorship rules back then stated 10 years of support. The end of the story is that after 2 or so years together this woman likely got tired of waiting for me to make a decision and left me for an Australian... At the end of the day this sponsorship requirement saved me from making a very big mistake both to myself and for other Canadians. Too bad about the Australians got handed the problem... After that situation (and there is a lot more than the condensed version I have given) I was woken up. I told myself that if I marry it will be in the country I intend to live. If in Canada it will be to a Canadian or to an immigrant who has come here on her own and doesn't need my help. As sad as it is to write, the reality is that marriage these days can potentially be the most financially devastating decision you can make - as it has the potential to not just take what you have but also what you will have. Don't make that decision lightly.

I don't know if deterrent even comes into play when you are a habitual drunk... I am sure we all know how drinking reduces our fears, tells us we are what we are not, and no one thinks they are drunk/will get caught/ or will crash... Anyway, the point of this post was about the punishment you get for not even breaking the law... for being under the limit and given a punishment without a conviction (so not contestable).

I don't care what the punishment is, as long as a fair trial is given and a person has a chance to defend themselves. It is the punishment without a trial that bothers me.

They don't like arresting people with a crime that can be contested in court... because then they have to actually go to court and admit any errors they made while making the arrest. Its a lot easier for them when the suspect can't fight back.

I heard today on the radio (AM640 in Ontario), that there are new punishments coming to (almost) impaired drivers. The punishments have to do with having a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08. The previous punishment was a 12-hour suspension. The new punishments are: (note - these may not be exact, as I could not find a printed source to back what I heard on the radio) 1. 72-hour suspension for 1st offence. 2. 2-week suspension and mandatory alcohol dependency councilling for 2nd offence. 3. 6-month suspension and mandatory breathalyser installed in the offender's vehicle for 3rd offense. In addition to the above punishments, the offender will have a note put on their driver's abstract which their insurance companies will see, and no doubt their rates will rise. Now, while I don't condone impaired driving in any way, I have a problem with this new 'law'. 1. Firstly, from what I understand, this is a punishment being handed out without actually breaking a law, since impaired driving is 0.08 and above. Since it is a punishment handed out without a conviction, it is not something that can be challenged in a court of law - say if you suspect the machine was not calibrated, for example. 2. I think they are targeting the wrong people. Aren't the most dangerous people on the road the truly impaired drivers that are well above the 0.08 BAC? With a 0.05 to 0.08 range they are targeting the people that have a glass of wine with dinner, or one beer after golf, etc etc, as it takes very little alcohol to reach the 0.05 BAC level. A call-in police officer to the program agreed that there is no need for these new 'punishments', after all we already have strong impaired driving laws which are aimed at this very problem. Anyway... just one more example of being presumed guilty before innocent, and given a punishment that cannot be challenged before a court of law... along the same lines as actual impaired driving (automatic 90-day suspension)... and street racing (automatic impounding of vehicle). I am, once again, getting worried about this slippery slope we are sliding down... allowing our rights to be eroded and allowing the government to give police too much power and taking away our right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty.