Jerry J. Fortin

In war zones people die. The entire middle east is a war zone and had been since just after the second world war. Anybody that doesn't know this is likely from a different planet. Anybody that would take their family there did so knowing that the area is dangerous. Sadly they lost their lives. It is a tragedy. But that does not change the nature or design of the conflict. Who is right and who is wrong is up to those involved in the conflict. The winner will be declared right and the loser declared wrong that is the nature of warfare.

If Ontario can't get the fed what it wants it to do with its demographics, then nobody can.

The thing for Harper to do is tell everybody straight up that the responsibility for healthcare is with the provinces. Call the provinces together and rewrite the Canada Health Act to reflect changes necessary for them to undertake reforms within their own jurisdictions. Fund the endeavor on a per capita basis with fed funds. Allow the provinces to design a model of their own creation, whatever that may be. I would recommend the inclusion of public opinion to make it stick.

Unfortunately some of our citizens appear to have lost their lives in this war zone in the middle east. As far as demanding an apology, I don't think so. Does anybody on this board think the middle east is a good place for a vacation? The place has been dangerous for decades, the people that go there know this. It is a tragedy that those folks died, anybody and everybody else that dies becomes part of the same tragedy. Unfortunately they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is what happens in war, people die. You can claim anything you want, but that will not bring them back. Like I said before there will be bloodshed over there, and nothing you or I or even the involved parties is going to be able to prevent that. War is upon them, not us you understand, just them and that alone is a great enough tragedy. Don't add to the problem and involve other nations what is going on is bad enough out involvment will just make it worse.

Look guys I know things are a little complicated in the cities with immigration. I saw that crap happening, didn't like and I left. I like it out here a lot, it is different than living in town. I feel safe and so does my family its why we are where we are. My little rant was about that fact that we have choices available to us. Leave the damned cities to the immigrants! Come out into rural Canada where you will find what you are looking for. If you think for a minute that the government will make things better for you then go ahead and stay where you are, suffer it out if you want because it is your right to do so. You don't have to, but you can if you want. I won't hold my breath witing for the government to straigten things out mind you. I do think we need immigration to enrich our country, yes. The United States opened its doors to it and became the greatest nation on earth by taking in the poor and the sick, the old and the young. They took in everybody that wanted to do something for themselves and the nation has propered because of it. We can too. However in order to do this correctly we need some big time change in policies and methods. The main problem is this nanny state business. We should not just open the damned flood gates to drown, but we can sure tap the resource to irrigate and increase our productive efforts. Supply and demand is the rule of the day in a consuming society. Right now in Alberta demand outstrips supply and we have inflation. More is wanted than is available and therefore the cost of supply exceeds current values. It will stay that way until a balance is struck and competition provides choice then prices will fall. If it was up to me I would tell folks to take a look at the options before we jump into the damned river. It is possible to regulate the influx of people by controling the conditions that created the requirement in the first place. Right now in Alberta we have companies providing housing to employees just to get them to work for them. One guy hired people from Indonesia at $15.00 an hour to wash dishes in central Alberta. He had to get them a place to live and buy a bunch of furniture for them before they would come over! So there are ways of doing things. You just need to be creative. Having the government play in this pile is not exactly going to work out the way we want it to. You get some political decision made that will cause social changes not by design but by necessity. That is not a great consequence to public policy. The main problem we face is over governance and under regulation at the same freaking time. There is simply too much reliance on the government to do things for us, we can do these things better than they can and it will cost us less. Government should concern themselves with providing regulations relevant to safety and environmental protection and then let the free citizens decide what happens from there.

You know something people, you are going to have to start thinking for yourself sooner rather than later. The damned government is not the source of inteligence and life saving ability YOU ARE! This is getting to be a very sad commentary on the hearts and minds of Canadians, we have become depedent on the state and that is just stupid.

What makes you think your qualified to make such a statement? Do you pay the bills? Ontario is being DUMPED with 43% of all immigration to Canada. Why is there NO democratic process to resolve the immigration issue? Why are Ontario residents burdened with the huge cost of uncontrolled immigration when municiple taxes, housing, electricity are among or the highest in Canada? If taxes are so high because of the high cost of housing, energy and municiple services how is flooding the province with huge numbers of immigrants many who cannot self-sustain themselves going to help the province that does not even have the proper infrastructure to cope with demand and chaotic conditons? Ontario has 38% of the total population, and it has 43% of immigration. So the sky is falling from that extra 5%, its a freaking flood of humanity! Well I guess we should all cry a freaking river for poor Ontario. Why don't you folks do something about the problem, or is it possibly not a problem for a majority of citizens? Are your taxes high because of the high cost of housing, energy and municiple services? In Alberta we have to pay for all that stuff ourselves! Are you suggesting that these things are free to citizens in Ontario and the taxpaying citizen has to pick up the tab for it? Maybe if the government didn't give away all of your taxdollars in social programs you would have sufficient infrastructure!

I don't buy that story for a second. As long as I can remember Arabs have been ganging up on the Jews. How many times has it happened? I honestly don't know for sure but its lots and that is the truth. Each time the Jews beat back the people who denied their right to live. For a number of years now we didn't have to worry about outright war, because the Arabs seemed to have learned that open conflict is not going to do the trick, the Jews are not as weak as they thought. Now times are changing and the lone bomber has taken the place of the armies of these states who have attacked Israel. These freaks walk into bus depots and resturants, malls and schools and blow themselves to hell. They take a lot of innocent people with them. If these attacks were against military instalations then maybe there would be some concern for the welfare of the fools commiting these acts of terror, but they don't even try to target a possible combatant, they aim for civilians! To listen to people on this forum claim the actions of Israel are unwarranted, to them I suggest you get yourself over there and support the side that you chose. Just don't come back here, because we don't need your attitudes of right and wrong to be mistaken for ours. Don't stay here and bitch about it, just leave and do something about it.

It would be nice to see some leadership in the lower houses to balance the rather staunch direction of the President.

The top of the political food chain isn't important to me. Down here at the bottom link citizens would like to have a say in how things are going to get done. Direct democracy is the only way to go from that perspective, let the politicians proposes and let the people decide, we rule..........

Sure there is! Hydrogen will fill the gap for fuel until fusion is established. For lubrication we have synthetics. In the mean time we can work on solar and wind power in our homes. Tidal power will work on the coast lines very well thankyou. Oil is just plentiful and cheap for the moment so that is what we use. Mankind will adapt or die. That is an evolutionary fact. But you can run around saying the sky is falling if you like, we can all use the entertainment.

You're fine with yours but saying we need more and more immigration knowing those immigrants are coming to live with me not you. Here's the deal. We'll bring in a hundred immigrants from Somalia specifically to live with you and your little town. You'll have to feed and clothe and house them, btw. After a year of living with them you come back here and tell us we should continue to bring in more immigrants. Deal? So you want to force people to live where you want them to live? Great idea! Lets take that a few steps further, since the government can now tell people where to live, those that employ you are able to do the same thing. You could very well find yourself in Somalia because some corporation can use the labour pool there at about 10 cents an hour. With all due respect, I am not in favor of the nanny welfare state. The government handing out tax dollars doesn't really promote the individual incentive to accomplish anything for personal benefit. The entire question about immigration does require a rethink, that much I will agree with you on. But having the government tell people where to live is a no-no. jdobbin (a praire dweller) original post quotes "My little praire city? I live about 3kms from a town with about ten houses and no business's in it. I choose to live away from the city life. You chosse to live in it. You can complain about yours if you like but I am fine with mine!" So jdobbin thinks he's smart enough to escape the pitfalls of Canada's rotten immigration system while actually supporting it, forgets it is the big cities that keep rural Canada alive. In other words if 'big cities go down then rural Canada goes down'. Your part of the the problem of the decay of Canada whether you think so or not. And J.fortin (a praire dweller) must be spaced out if he says he is living in Alberta who is facing current major labour shortages makes this amazing statement: "The entire question about immigration does require a rethink, that much I will agree with you on. But having the government tell people where to live is a no-no." And to think Mr. Harper ( a former praire dweller) is running the country, hopefully he doesn't think along the lines of these two. Hey Leafless ! I don't live in a city, I live outside of a village on 10 acres. I am in favor of immigration BECAUSE there is a labor shortage in Alberta. I am against allowing the government of this nation or any other nation to tell citizens where to live, period. It isn't rocket science just common sense. I relaize there are problems associated with immigrants, I live in Alberta and we get "immigrants" from eastern Canada all the time. The poor simple minded folk are closet socialists who believe in the nanny state! Talk about culture shock. It doesn't take that long for these folks to get a job and grow a few brain cells and become good Albertans. I love listening to you folks complain about the cost of supporting these immigrants in your cities! You realize Alberta tax dollars subsidize your incompetent politicians in charge of their welfare states, so how about a little respect for our helping hand? Failing that just say thankyou and let us get back to work instead of bending our ear with complaints all of the time. As far as I am concerned, the cities are not safe enough to live in, I won't raise my children in them. So I excercised a little personal initiative and moved to the country to protect my family by removing them from danger. You folks want to say in the hood wondering about the safety of your families, dodging car jackers and finding dope in your kids rooms then you are free to do so. But don't snivel about your decisions to me. You knew the risks and you made your call. You are free to leave just as you are free to stay. The demographics of this nation are such that us low life country folks have about a zero say in what goes on in the legislatures of our own provinces and that of the nation. It is in fact you morons who created the damned problem in the first place with your welfare state attitudes whinning to get the government to do this and that, well now you have had your say and now you have got your way. Ahh geewhiz, it doesn't look the way you wanted it to! Guess what, that a real rough break for you. But look at the bright side! While you folks have all the problems in the world to deal with because you are sooooo smart and are the only ones qualified to fix the problem, I will stay out here in rural Alberta. If you ever find yourself in the neigborhood stop in sometime, the cooffee is alway on. I haven't locked the door to the house in ten years. There is four vehicles outside at any given time, maybe five if everybody is home, the keys are in the ignitions. The shed in the back has a couple gas cans full in there if you ever need gas, there is no lock on that door either. We alway keep a few bucks in the jar on top of the fridge for emergencies, feel free if you need to and pay me back when you can! Things are a little different out here.

An escalating war will serve the purpose of providing increased profits to the military industrial complex at the expense of the citizens through direct taxation. Will it hurt Bush, no. He can't be hurt because his term ends, but it can and will hurt the Republican Party.

You're fine with yours but saying we need more and more immigration knowing those immigrants are coming to live with me not you. Here's the deal. We'll bring in a hundred immigrants from Somalia specifically to live with you and your little town. You'll have to feed and clothe and house them, btw. After a year of living with them you come back here and tell us we should continue to bring in more immigrants. Deal? So you want to force people to live where you want them to live? Great idea! Lets take that a few steps further, since the government can now tell people where to live, those that employ you are able to do the same thing. You could very well find yourself in Somalia because some corporation can use the labour pool there at about 10 cents an hour. With all due respect, I am not in favor of the nanny welfare state. The government handing out tax dollars doesn't really promote the individual incentive to accomplish anything for personal benefit. The entire question about immigration does require a rethink, that much I will agree with you on. But having the government tell people where to live is a no-no.

So what is it that you want to see happen?

The middle east has and will be the bain of our existence until such time as a local solution can be made that provides security and prosperity to all parties involved. Anybody getting involved from over here in their private war over there is a potential casualty that will bring no benefit to their families for the sacrifices that they have made. This conflict is THEIR conflict. It is about their land and their sovereignty. If somebody wants to pick a side fine, go over there and pickup a gun. This is a civil war, plain and simple. It is being jacked up into an international conflict just to gain support for one side or another. This thing is already getting out of control. The Syria border is now being looked at, and Iran is talking about backing up Syria. The Arab League is condemning Israel and the United States is evacuating citizens from the affected areas. This thing is not about to be turned off because the Jewish demands/conditions for peace/cease fire are not likely to be met. If the Americans become involved with either Iran or Syria then there will be a large blow back issue to be dealt with. Getting the Government of Canada involved would be a major mistake. Like I said if an individual citzen of this nation wants to do something in that conflict then let them. But the nation itself must stay the hell away from this because no matter which side you choose there will be complications. This war simply cannot be won through our involvement and Canada has nothing to gain from becoming involved in it.

Zealots unite! Just kidding............. Religion has no place in politics which has no place in religion.

I never mentioned the cost because it is difficult to put a cost on the value of human life. I know that some companies and industries use a cost benefit analysis to come up with a number, but that just doesn't sit well with me at all. Some people could suggest that rich people are worth more than poor people or something equally as flash fornicated. I think that society creates the standards of living and justice that it can afford. If it can afford more the citizens benefit more. Capitalism is not the only way to go, it is merely the most profitable. But when talking about society is not the individual and their libertyand freedom more relevant than the profit motive? Would an individual citizen not prefer democracy to affluence?

Funding the military will actually detract from your standard of living.

There is potentially more money in healthcare than in bombs and bullits............

I will agree that equal rights are the way to go, I certainly am not in favor of special rights. But to just trash the agreements in place would have some legal consequence would it not?

I think the worlds largest arms dealer is the United States. They sold biological and chemical weapons to Sadam at one time. They armed the Taliban too. The list is long because there is big dollars in the military industrial complex. Unfortunately in my opinion this industry has served to detract from the basic democratic rights of American citizens. Eisenhower warned everybody about the problem that he had in part created. He went left office with a speech that pretty much reads like a prophesy that has now come true. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation January 17, 1961 Good evening, my fellow Americans: First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunity they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening. Three days from now, after a half century of service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor. This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen. Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all. Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on questions of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation. My own relations with Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years. In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation well rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So my official relationship with Congress ends in a feeling on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together. We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment. Throughout America's adventure in free government, such basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us a grievous hurt, both at home and abroad. Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle – with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment. Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in the newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research – these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel. A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. But each proposal must be weighed in light of a broader consideration; the need to maintain balance in and among national programs – balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages – balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between the actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration. The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. Of these, I mention two only. A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea. Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society. Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield. Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight. Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road. So – in this my last good night to you as your President – I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future. You and I – my fellow citizens – need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals. To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration: We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love. Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it. Thank you, and good night.

The rest of the nation are colonies with limited rights within confederation. But the crown did give us a way to deal with an all powerful federal government, it is just that we have to date not been smart enough to do anything about it. The Statute of Westminster, 1931 provides for in part the method of governance of some former British colonies. In it provinces are allowed to have their own constitutions. So through that means we are able to formulate a great deal of political infrastructure. Which begs the question, why have the provinces not acted to take advantage of this provision?

Every free election has the potential to end some partisan world doesn't it?

If somebody enters into a contract they are bound by the articles in that contract. That is a simple fact. The government can vacate the terms of any agreement they have signed, it is their soveirgn right to do so. That is a fact too. At issue here is a group of citizens that seek compensation for a defaulted contract.....is there any other way to look at it?