Jerry J. Fortin

Guess what people? It makes no difference what party is in power, all of the other parties want them thrown out because they want to be in power instead. All of them, with the exception of the Bloc, want to stir up crap and toss it into a spinning fan. The Bloc only cares about Quebec. So whether or not who came up with a dirty trick first, or who should be able to use the trick second makes no difference at all. The simple fact is that all of these problems stem from partisan spin. They are all guilty as sin for so many things that it just isn't worth mentioning anymore. The fact is that we need political leadership in these trying times. Harper or Iggy, makes no difference either one has to step up to the plate and arrange a political compromise in order to govern effectively. The citizens know that the government was only given a small mandate as a minority, which meant that the government had to function in the House of Commons with the consent of the majority. This isn't that complicated. Harper can either crap or get off the pot, but he cannot do as he pleases with the mandate he has, that is the reality of the political landscape he sits in. Is it any wonder the opposition parties want to toss him on his ear when he refuses to govern with the consent of the majority? Is it any wonder that they are all ganging up on him? Is it any wonder that he said that the last Parliament was unworkable? Harper is no fool, just a bully. In fact he is a bully in a schoolyard where all the other kids just figured out that for one thing this guy isn't so tough and for another there is more of us than there is of him! Look Harper can continue to govern, with the consent of the majority of members of the House or he can pack up his bat and pickup his ball and go home to Cowtown. No what is it that you folks think he wants to do?

We lost all that capability almost 50 years ago when the Conservatives killed the Arrow. Many of them went south to work in the United States military industrial complex. Those folks were very key in the space race. A Canadian was responsible for the primary design of the Lunar Lander. Another former Avro employee designed the Concorde. Pointing fingers opens doors, don't go there.

Obama will be tagged with being at the helm when the ship goes down.

Or course they are legal! The right to free speech and all that stuff applies, even to the folks that claim they are not Canadian. For my two cents, I would suggest that since they do not want to be Canadian then we simply treat them as such.

I would support the rights of the unborn if; The mother was responsible for the health and welfare of the child. Smoking and drinking would constitute an endangerment or risk to the unborn. The parents were held financially responsible for the unborn child, savings plans and educational plans as well as inheritance plans. Society would include the unborn as second citizen within the body of the mother.

I am quite sure that nobody wants real peace. What they all want is real victory.

Thanks

Astute observations, I agree.

Sadly he is seeking help and support from outside of his party.

Nice analogy! Brings back memories of the Arrow.

Neither the left nor the right have an exclusive hold on functional government. I think that both the Conservatives and the Liberals fight for the center, with Canadians falling under one banner or another most of the time. It depends on the flexibility of the party and the economic conditions. Harper had a surplus, now he has a deficit. That is a problem for him to deal with. Harper has cut some tax, and has created some tax breaks, that is a problem for Iggy to deal with. The economy was good, but now its bad. Now matter which way you look at the problems, they are the responsibility of government. The opposition has no real function or role to play. Harper could be a great leader. All he would have to do is turn the tables on Iggy. Take Iggy's ball and run with it by forming his own coalition. Lets look at this for a moment. Canadians just want the government to start dealing with problems and issues that impact our lives. Harper could bring in the Green Party and give them the Ministry of Environment, he could bring in the Bloc and give them a Ministry of Multiculturalism, he could bring in the NDP and give them give them a Ministry of Labour and Employment. Harper could bring in the Liberals and give them a Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Harper could be a great leader if he becomes inclusive and democratic. Make all legislation subject to free votes. Give each and every single member of the Commons a real job with real responsibility. Having done that, he will have successfully eliminated partisan politics between elections. He can sit back in the PMO and direct the efforts of all members. The PMO has incredible power that could move mountains if the owner of that office could only rise above the partisan entrenchment found in the Commons.

Where is was going with this is that women get all of the choices and men get all of the responsibilities, that is reflected in the law. Toward the point of law, it has been subject to social engineering. Where once the pendulum swung far to the right it now swings far to the left. Group rights are now fundamental and individual rights are under constant attack and are at constant risk. We now have no right to own property. How is that for an attack on individual rights? Further to this the rise of group rights denies individual rights unless of course you belong to one of the proscribe groups listed by the human rights commission, human rights(group based) do not apply to you. To return to the case of abortion, I will again state that freedom of choice does rightly belong to women. Yet upon birth, men should have some entitlement to choice as well. A man should be able to choose whether or not to be involved in a relationship. Having one forced upon them is simply repugnant. As to financial burdens, again I will suggest that a man should have the option of accepting responsibility or not. If the man did not want to have a child as his responsibility in the first place, and has had this forced upon him by the choice of a woman, should that lack of choice then result in a financial responsibility? Is that not in reality being punished twice for something done with mutual consent? Let me put it this way; should a female choose to have a child outside of wedlock against the wishes of a male sexual partner, the male should at least have the option of ending the relationship and be absolved of responsibility for the child. The concept of choice should not be merely applied to one sex, but both instead. In my opinion that would be the definition of equality under the law.

Now that is interesting. I would have thought it to be a very foolish political ploy. I was wrong.

Too bad. If you throw missiles around, you should expect a few to land close by. Live by the sword and die by it.

I must say I did not expect to see a shift this quickly. I would say Harper is in trouble considering that Iggy hasn't exactly been prominent.

At one point in time we burned people at the stake for saying that the world was round. Times change, this is no grave revelation to anyone I hope. Now to slip through the rhetoric; nobody disputes a woman's right to determine what to do with her body, at least not here on this forum to the best of my knowledge. What I am stating is that men should have the same rights as women. This is not the case. Where is the male right as it applies to procreation? Men have no rights under law, women do. All I am saying is that there is a double standard being applied here. I am pro-choice, that choice belonging to women. I do not think that it is the right of society to make a decision which applies only to women, and one which has so profound an impact on so many lives. There is however another side to that coin. It is not only men who are responsible for procreation, ultimately the final responsibility lays with the women. It is not only men responsible for contraception, but women as well. According to law if a woman says no to a man pursuing sexual congress with a woman, then a law is broken by that man. So in fact the woman has complete control and assumes complete responsibility for her actions. The man has no control over this decision. Yet the man can be held responsible according to law. Do you see where I am going with this?

In my opinion, Israel should drop some leaflets. Those leaflets should say; You have 48 hours to leave Gaza. No attacks on Gaza shall be permitted by the IDF for the next 48 hours. At the expiration of this time, Gaza will be bombed and shelled until no building is left standing. When the smoke clears, the rubble will be pushed into the sea and no person shall be permitted to live there ever again. Any person found in the area after the rubble is moved into the sea will be killed on sight.

Its a pleasure to find myself agreeing with you for a change.

Great accept responsibility for it. Try reading something from the HRC website and then get back to me and say something like you were wrong.

Military contracts are a little different. There are all kinds of things attached to these contracts, like servicing and spares, weapons systems, avionics and a host of other parts and pieces.

Men cannot carry a child, but should a women be allowed to carry a child? Who gets to choose? Should a woman be allowed to force a man to pay for a child that the man does not want? The law is not equal, never was and never will be. Women receive a little more than "fair" treatment under the law. Let me put it this way, the average white anglo-saxon man cannot be discriminated against according to law. Now is it possible, to use you words, make the law equal with respect to individual rights? I say it is, but the law gives women and minorities rights that the average Canadian male is not entitled to. That is a fact.

Why bother pointing fingers? What would doing that solve? As citizens we need to engage our representatives and tell them what we want to. They may agree or not, that is up to them, but we need to talk to them and give them our voices to hear. End the apathy, become more proactive.

I would suggest that you cannot have it both ways. If you want equality, then seek and accept it. If you want something else then seek that and accept it. As things currently stand, a man cannot compel a woman to have an abortion. A man cannot opt out of child support. So lets draw this to a logical conclusion, without interfering with individual rights, without forcing anybody to make a decision they believe would be detrimental to them, what can we expect the law to do for us? Here is my own answer to this question; In the case of conception resulting from consentual sexual relations, the parents must come to mutual agreement as to the status of any child born as a result. In the case of no consent only the mother has options. Only two options are available to choose from, the child is a product of an existing relationship or the child is not a product of an existing relationship. In the case of an existing relationship both parents are accountable and responsible for the care and upbringing of the child. In the case of a child being born that is not a product of an existing relationship, the mother can either accept full responsibility or give the child up for adoption. The key of course would be to not engage in sexual activities outside of a relationship.

Iggy will surprise a few folks on this forum I think. He is internationally astute, and he is domestically driven. Look at his interviews and review his words, this is no Dion type of guy. He is clever, I think more clever than Harper. Go back and review Commons records and see how Steve dealt with him. Its a different ballgame now.

Let the Conservatives spend their money, let them spend the tax payers money while they are at it. In the end this will hurt them more than it hurts us.