jdobbin

It has to be the biggest whopper I have seen here in a while from a lying NDP that they created CPP. They lump it in with OAS which clearly it isn't since it is plan that is a contributory plan from workers. I don't remember any NDP being the primaries on this. Give credit where credit is due and that is John Diefenbaker and the the Progressive Conservatives who pushed the idea and to the Liberals who completed it. The statement that "we created CPP" is big brass balls of a lie on the part of an overzealous NDP member who looks for any political opportunity even when it is a death as what we saw in Ontario. Totally repugnant.

It is why people distrust the NDP since they can't seem to get away from being against big companies. Unfortunately for them, it is big companies that employ more of their members than any other type of business.

Certainly not in Canada. Perhaps the NDP are taking credit for Canada not going to war there.

Certainly, they won't get far by lying about creating CPP. Think they must be confused about a plan where people contributed to their own pensions through work.

The last major poll taken only a week ago with a large sample showed the NDP in third place in Manitoba. http://www.probe-research.com/090930%20Fed...20Standings.pdf

The lies the NDP tell. It is hilarious. The contributory CPP started when Diefenbaker got the ball rolling in 1957 and Pearson put into place between 1963 and 1965. All they do is lie and try to take credit for things that they didn't do. As for the Implied Bill of Rights, they existed long before the NDP ever came to existence. Long before the CCF came into existence. That would be 1867. So tell me which NDP leader was around then? All legislation that came after that flowed from what the judiciary was already doing. Is it no wonder that the NDP with all it bloviating tends to get kicked in the balls when it tried to take credit for things?

Getting Canadians in any election to vote is no easy task. Who knows what might happen. There may be more success in simply being interviewed by all the media present. I'll have to look a bit more at it. One of my clients is an educator in aboriginal governance. Perhaps she might have some insights on the history. I dunno. I have met some pretty obstinate people. A two year old child comes to mind and yet that is how some adults go through life. Perhaps this is where solutions might come from.

I'm rather horrified to hear the amount of jamming the M-4 has been having. I have not heard about Canadians having similar problems with the C-7 although the Danes have complained about their C-7s jamming. Don't know why theirs have the problem and I've seen no reports of the same thing in Canada.

It is funny to see the NDP take credit for CPP. Funny to see them take credit for the Charter of Rights as well when the Implied Bill of Rights preceded their existence in any form as a party. They certainly take credit for healthcare on the provincial front but they should remember that the drive for a national program came from a Conservative by the name of Diefenbaker years before Saskatchewan had a program.

I still think that it is difficult given reserve and off reserve and populations. My understanding is that how people will be separated is by Olympic participant and non-participant and that it will be extremely difficult to get close for those not in attendance at the games itself. Consensus in any society is difficult. I have not seen talks anywhere in the world where a group within that society didn't fight for leadership of the debate and were not opposed by others. I suspect that there would even be a fight over what consensus really was. For some it means unanimity. For others it means a substantial majority.

And the Tories decided to plays games and not let the legislation pass last week unamended.

The problem is activists mingle with other activists. It is sometimes hard to gauge support unless you travel the length and breadth of the community and even then, it only tells you about that community. First Nations are many and spread out across the country. I would hesitate to think that many truly know the opinions with any accuracy without some sort of polling or a vote of some sort. Guess I'd have to hear what the view is of what makes for a side of native journalism. I see a few different native journalists here as well as NCI and APTN. I'm not sure which ones that have a side. It is why they keep the potential protesters far away from where events happen. If you thought Beijing's protest areas were far away, Vancouver will probably be farther. Still not sure who arranges for a treaty talk on the native side. If the Feds ask to negotiate, do they bypass the Band Councils? Seems like a recipe for a breakdown right from the get go.

They probably have weapons that work though. The U.S. has lost lots of people because of weapons malfunction. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33267598/ns/wo...d_central_asia/

Never said the Taliban were a tribe and tribalism makes it possible for such a group to find refuge and to act out against others. I was referring to the border provinces where Pakistan's military routinely take it on the chin because there is support from local tribes. The analysis by the experts is that this fight is going to continue and we still don't know how it will turn out. They do that from Pakistan now. Unless we are prepared to go into Pakistan, they can wait us out. Centuries if need be since Pakistan won't challenge them in the western provinces. The problem is that the threat has moved to an sanctuary and we are lobbing missiles in anyway. Even hundreds of thousands of soldiers will not be able to change the culture and tribalism that has led to the nation being a battleground for as long as it has been. While the violence might be quelled temporarily, we cannot have faith that it will hold if we ever leave. And the longer we stay, the bigger the target we become.

So all we need is around a couple of hundred thousand tough, well trained NATO soldiers to end centuries of distrustful tribal violence? The objective of nation building in a nation determined to fight itself seems destined to failure.

Are their poll numbers for that? I mean how does one tell that the people are in disagreement with the elected officials? Confusing to some native journalists as well gives some of the varied reporting I have seen on the issue. I think even athletes putting up a "lost dog" poster is illegal at the Games from what I heard this week. Who does the government consult with though? Are the band councils the wrong people to consult?

You mean a Tory majority which is fine. That is the right of the government to do when in power. I certainly don't expect reform and the 8 year term will be out the window for a number of them, I'm sure. And a majority of the Liberals agree. Too bad the Tories didn't allow the vote to go through Thursday as the amendment would have been defeated and the legislation passed. The Tories played games instead of having the vote. No use denying it.

But it doesn't end the tribalism which results in other violent clashes that we find ourselves in the middle of. If Pakistan can't quell its provinces with a military as huge in foot soldiers as you are going to find in the region, it is not going to work out well for us trying the same thing with smaller numbers. Nation building there is something Afghans will have to work out on their own. I much prefer to have a rapid deployment force ready in the region to hit hard and get out if there is a threat to us.

Nope. I am saying the tribalism is rampant amongst every person in the country including the President and that we are right in the middle of it. Our presence there will not remove the violent clash of tribes that has existed for centuries. The only way it will end is if there are no people there. I don't know that this is the way we want to go but I'll bet the idea has crossed some people's minds.

He wouldn't last the day as leader if he tried. I pretty much guarantee that. The Liberals had set a deadline based to avoid getting bogged down long term. Our allies let us down in terms of support and the Afghans didn't meet any criteria for taking over. There is a reason we went to Afghanistan and it was because 23 Canadians were killed on September 11 and the world was threatened with more to come. The Tories called the deadline cowardice for our move to the south and were prepared to add more years till it kicked them right in the balls publicly and almost brought down their government. This is one of the few times Harper reached out because it was the only serious threat to him and he knew it. The Liberals went along with the extension but said the deadline had to be a firm one. Serious issues of progress on the mission have to be asked and Harper for a long time has tried to keep anyone aside from the government scrutinizing things. Now Harper is setting the parameters for continued involvement. Oh please. The military said before the last extension that they needed to re-group but the Tories never cared about that. Harper believed it was a way to puff him on the world stage. Harper used the military as props and photo ops for his speeches.

Then you need to be prepared to kill every man, woman and child in that country to the tun of millions since anything else would be a half measure.

I never claimed anything of the sort. I think anyone there is considered a combatant by insurgents. My view is that we base ourselves outside the country and be prepared to strike external threats. I'm not convinced that whatever we do won't be overturned by a return to tribalism and warfare.

That is certainly China's position. I have seen seen very historians that agree though. What is your source for your belief?

I was told here by many forum members that Harper would never call an election earlier than the fixed date. I'd have to go back and look but I do recall a few saying that it would affect their vote if he did act in such a way. Likewise, the Tories hammered the Liberals on income trusts. I'm not convinced that Harper won't change his mind in this important area. I believe he just doesn't want his government to fall on this matter. That is not a concern if he has a majority. Think it would be interesting to see what the view of the military leader is now. I wonder if their view is a parroting of what the prevailing thought is in Canada or if they would make a case for staying. As far as losing sleep over a change in Tory policy, I'm sure many who held income trusts did just that when they got the bad news from Harper on their end.

All I can go on is what Colleen Simard and other native journalists report in this area. It has left people divided as to what their reaction should be. Perhaps that is just around here. I guess we can't assume a universal point of view on some subjects. Are all B.C. First Nations in agreement about that about the Games being stopped? Think I stopped reading that from about the first few sentences.