watching&waiting

I know the liberals are all for taxing from cradle to grave, but this just shows they expect your support even beyond the grave. This is no surprise here, this is exactly what we have come to expect from the liberal party in the past. So why would we think it will change now. Same old party and same old nasty tricks and corruption. They have not learned from their past, so why would any thinking person ever think they will change?

You do not get my point. If we had a city lets say in the middle of what is now call Nunavtik, where it is at least 500 miles to the nearest city. We would have a basic shelter and food to start their sentence, but while they were their they would have to grow food in a green house and have other work to be done. This work would earn them points for things etc. If they do not work they only get basic needs and that is it. Any crimes committed there would mean being put out with only the clothes on your back. Let them see if they can dodge the bears and other things and show them how tough they are. We would send the criminal that have life sentences here or anyone with more then 10 years to serve. They would either setup their own rules and run as a society or they would sooner or later pay the big price for not doing so. The ankle bracelets could keep track of them and make sure they are all where they should be and if any try to escape they would be quickly caught. This would easily be expanded to what ever capacity was needed and as for guard go there would be little need for any but the most skeleton of guards. If the prisoners work and earn the TV and extra food and sweets then they will learn that certain behaviour has rewards an wrong behaviour has punishments. They would fine that they will probably setup their own order of things and then work towards that. The costs would be low compared to todays prisons and it would make for the public a better security knowing that criminal can be locked up without the over crowding.

The issue of increasing the sentences and then overfilling the prison system is and will be a hard issue to pursue. But could we not have some other method of which it would get the troubled criminal out of our system and not cost us a lot. We have areas of vast wilderness where if you wandered out alone you would either die from the environment or the animals etc. Could that not be used in conjuction with the satelite ankle bracelets to remove these from our densely populated society and put them in a place where they have to work and get along together just to survive. Would this not then be a move towards their being rehabilitated? Not every sentence would or should mean that the prisoner must be held in a foraml prison. Why can we not setup a city in our north that we can control what goes in and out and then let this guys go about setting up their own rules and order of things that need to be done so they could survive. That would be the ultimate rehab for many of these people. Canada has the land and the isolation to be able to do this, and it could be done at a reasonable cost. That way we do not worry about overloading our prisons and we would be actually doing rehabilitation which should be the major point in this.

The liberals knew from the day they lost that the party needed to be rebuild from the foundations back to the top, and it was pretty much a given that this will take time and that there would not be much chance of there being a successful leader for quite some time. That is why we have the shameful group of present leadership candidates. The back room politics are such that people who knew thay did not have a chance saw this as time to build alliances and ties to those they thought would have a chance by throwing support to these and then in hopes of later favours or positions etc. To me this is still the mark of the old Chretien system and yes it still has too many from that time. While many of the sure bets to have won the leadership have seen it wise to sit this one out, it says a lot about just how fragmented the party really is. As much as the last election showed that some liberal areas were true to their cause, it probably will not hold thru for another shot in an election. The NDP have pretty much made the biggest mistakes as of late with their positions and yes while the polls say that everything is pretty much the same as that of the last election, I think that is if a election were waged today, the polls would give Harper the needed votes for a majority. That is why I believe the high profile liberals that we would have thought would run for leader, have decided to sit this out and get the veils of corruption to be gone before they run for leadership. So to me that explains a lot of things. Could I be wrong? Maybe, but what other reason do you think explains the fact that the high profile people are not even trying to become party leader, if the prospects were at all bright?

I have had a water source heat pump for my home now going on 15 years, and yes they are an efficient way to heat a home but they still need hydro to work, and unless you can find a way to generate hydro with low or no emmission it still means that you pollute. To be able to run a large generateor with geothermal it is very costly and you need a hole in the earth crust at least 25,000 ft or more to be able to generate heat to run the generators. Iceland is on the northern Atalantic fault and has stable gysers etc and electricity generated there is low emmission and very plentiful, and therefore low cost. What has been said here about 20 k etc is not geothermal by the true sense of the word

Oh yeah, you're not employeed by the CPC. You were pegged your first couple of weeks here...running around accusing every poster critical of Harper of "hate". I wasn't the only one wondering out loud if you were a CPC shill. And now in freudian fashion you've admitted it. "Now that WE'VE been in government"? You're in government, huh? Thx for clearing that up. I thank god for everyday I wake up and read what Gerryhatrick has typed and realise that I am fortunate enough not to in any way ever agree with the posts. When he is confronted like this post, he usuall then ends with "F&*k you or something the like. He never has anything to say that is not tainted by his liberal protracted mind, and mostly I think maybe he suffered a brain injury or something just as truamatic. Opinion like Rae would beat Harper by a large margin are almost comical, but maybe that was what he was trying to do. He will insult and accuse people of all stripes just because he likes being a pain in the but. So sad to have to be him.

It does not matter who they pick as leader as all have their weaknesses, and the CPC will make sure to point these out. CPC are the incumbents this time and many will have to admit that so far his government has done a good job and has now shed the scarey picture and theme used against him before and that would not go well in the next election. I just do not see any of the leaders being able to beat harper unless Harper does something really dumb, and I do not think that will happen. Harper has and still is raising Canadas world profile and we will soon see that has a good chance to swing many votes his way. The extra military spending and extra troops will go over very well with the baby boomers and right now thta is a large number. All harper need to do to win a majority is carry thru with the things he promised and there will be no way that the Libs will get close. The next election he will be able to say I did what I said, and I am saying this now and again promising to do, will get him the votes he needs. If he waivers on things, then he will have a harder time but still could get his majority. Since it is pretty certain that the choices will be Dion,Rae, or Igy, I can easily see where any of them would come with large problems. But Rae would be almost a sure bet for CPC majority. I will never forget Rea and what he did and just about every person I know has the same feelings. So Rae if he gets the liberal nod will get the back view of the ontario voters as far as I can see.

I am not that worried about what the CPC is going to do and I think that yes they will drop the registering of guns. As I stated earlier the lowest rates of violent gun crimes are in states where it is quite legal to own and carry guns. It is just a simple fact and all the stats say this. So if you wanted things to be safer and do the things that work, you would simply allow the people to arm themselves. Now I know that will not happen, but it is the one tried and proven thing in all of this. Harper realises the need for guns in most of the area of Canada, and he is not ging to try to change that. The people who want to blame everything on everyone but themselves, will have to understand that yes some times people are driven to do insane acts. Just because this happens it does not mean that you then use this to take away others rights. It is that simple. England bans guns and most police do not carry guns, but the criminals still use them and that is even in lieu of very harsh sentences for gun crimes. There will always be those who do not care what the consequenses are. In Switzerland every man is expected to have a rifle and ammo for it and all people do serve some time in the military. They all have been trained in the proper care and use of firearms. and every household has atleast one rifle for every adult living there. That would be a very good reason for a low gun crime rate there. Israel also has conscription and most adults have after their terms have kept arms in their homes. I am not sure of the nonterroist gun crimes, but I would assume they would be low. So here we are in Canada and we think that there is a better way to do things, but so far all we have tried has failed to produce the desired results. So when do we finally decide to do the one thing that has been proven to work? I say this as I finish filling out my renewal for my FAC once again and will have to do every 5 years. I would say that it will come down to open gun ownership sooner or later. Even the Liberal will see that in the end, and the registry was only to throw a bone at the protesters to get them some votes, but no way will they ever ban guns period.

This whole whining antigun people just do not get the point that it does not matter if guns were banned, because the criminal do not follow the law and that is just the plain facts of it. Mean while the people rights to hint and trap as a sport would be gone. The criminal would then see that they could go to any rural area and do what they want for how long they want and there would be little or no chance of then getting caught, and the people would have to rely on police that may be 30 miles or more away. I personally would like to see the people in the city take a trip to Churchil MB at this time of year and do not forget to pet the fluffy white polar bears. At least that way they would have a new food supply. The fact is no goes out without a high caliber rifle, most likely semi auto. The same goes for all the northern territories and provinces. It is near the same until you het to the 50 degree lattitude for most other provinces. People that is more then half the land mass of Canada, and the whiners who are way further south who think their will is the only thing that counts do not know the first thing about this. You cna not make different laws for different people because of where they live, because then you have a two tier system for laws. Since the laws must apply to all people and more then half your country need these rifles, then you have to make laws that make sense. The gun registry will not work and we have seen that already. So what is the one thing that has worked when you look at the stats? The states where it is legal to carry side arms for anybody that can pass a safety test, have the lowest rate of violent crime. I know the people do not like that but if you look at the USA, that is the proof right there. So what do you think of that. Yes I know that even if a wacko does go off it may be possible then for others to bring him down immediatey, but that even I have a hard time with, but the numbers say that it is true and the best way. So is the way to better control of the public, is to allow the people to carry side arms?

Afghanistan at this moment has an army that is approx 35,000 strong. It will need to double its size and also quadruple the size of the police forces in their country. This will allow them to secure a proper constitution of rights and laws and have the ability to enforce it while holding the insurgents at bay. This will probably take another 2 years or so. That is probably when Canada will be able to pull out of there completely. I prefer the actions now taking place there as more and more insurgents come there and fight and die the less chance that they will come here to Canada. This way thay come to us over there, and at tha rate of approx 150 dead insurgents per Canadian killed. it is a price that could be much higher. Better there then here.

I think that we should decriminalize Marijuana for personal use. The dealing and trafficing should have their own criminal aspects, such as trafficking to children and near schools 10 years first offence. Life for second offence. Anyone caught using violence during any drug deal should get an immediate 15 year sentence for all parties. Anyone that claims he was under the influence when committing a crime that says they only did it to get drugs should have a 3 year jail with detox during incarceration. Any drugs caught while in jail and 15 years high security facility. Yes we need to get tough on drugs but we also do not want the occassional user to have a criminal record for his own use. He should be fined and made aware that the fines will be much higher the next time.

That is the real question, and it seems that the government and the RCMP have lots to hide, and they know releasin g it would mean they will be shown as the bad guys. Evey person who is not part of the RCMP and CSIS but have the clearance to see the details have said that there does not appear to be any reason for such censoring of the documents. So why is it done so much, other then to hide their crimes.

In the past leaderships there has been a selection of high profile candidates to choose from and the winner then would unite the party and get a boost. But from the selection of candidates for the liberal at this point I can not say that anyone of them is going to be a rainmaker and it will be hard to unite the party for anyone of the leaders. Picking a leader so far would easily be compared to "would you rather be shot in the hand or the foot typwe thing"

The semi-automatic rifles come in every caliber you can think of. There are really very few bolt action rifles being made today and the jamming of a semi-automatic has been solved many years ago. You are more likely to have a catstophic backfire with a bolt action then you ever would with a semi auotmatic. The jams you hear about with altered guns is when a person decides to take an semi and turn it into a full auto. This is because it was never designed to be that way. I have shot guns as semi auto matic and 30.06, 410. and 22 cals as well. All are the modern makes and hav e al,t he necessary safety locks and and trigger locks built in. Accidental firing of these weapons is almost impossible. Large Moose and Bear especially polar bears are rarely dropped with a single shot and if by chance you are near the animal when it is hit and charges you, there would be little time to recock and take aim at a vital spot and fire. The semi-automatic is needed to make this and other things safe. Also as mentions even varmint control, is again where the semi-auto is way superior to the bolt action and has valid uses. The maintenance on these weapons if done right makes them way more reliable then the bolt actions and as I have said already, even an abused semi-auto is less inclined to have harmful back fires that bolt actions have. I have had to unjam more 12 guage pump action shot guns then ever had to with semi-auto. and the pump action jamming is way more dangerous tom unjam then the semi as well. So there are several reason why a semi auto are needed and used. I guess you could also do all the hunting witha bow and arrows, but that then has already been used to kill a spouse a few years back as well.

I am sorry that people keep thinking of this as he was something other then a Canadian citizen. All this arguing and we forget that he was a citizen of Canada. Not a Syrian anymore. So if this was a person that was born here or lets say he was a well known Canadian. Would this have happened? The RCMP and CSIS were wrong to do what they did and those involved deserve to be brought out into the open and removed from their jobs. It is that simple. If I did this same thing as a normal cicitzen and was responsible for the deportation and torture of another Canadian citizen, would I not be tried and made to pay for my deeds? The RCMP and CSIS are no different and should not be accorded any more protection from prsectution then anyone else.

I do not see that branding someone who has depression from guns as it seems the older you get the easier it is to get depressed, but that does not mean you are a wacko. The fact that the Canadian military had rejected this guy due to not being suitable for the military, should have been a big red flag on things. The fact then that he was deeply involved with weapons and even had a restricted weapons certificate, is something I think as hind sight was more then enough to flag him. But again 99.999% of the time this is not a problem. I live in rural area and rifles to me are needed for varmint control etc.. I use them correctly and store them in the gun safe when not in use. That to me is not a problem. But I get mad when people start talking about banning these. But that does not mean I would load up and go shooting them because the disagree with me. I really do not see anyone being able to look inside a person and say this one is bad news and this one is not. The fact that convicted criminals can not legally have guns is already there. But since these guys are criminals they do not follow the law any way, so how do you stop that. Maybe really harsh sentences will do it, but that is a guess. There is just too many variables to be able to get a steadfast answer to the question.

Do you need a semi-automatic? In Australia, a country with much wilderness and wild animals, they are banned.I think we should consider banning all semi-automatic rifles outside of gun clubs. As I said yes there are uses for these rifles to be semi-automatic. It is also a safety factor when hunting large game and also in ones ability to clean oil and maintain the rifles. The semi auomatics have a much safter safty lock mechanism, and ammunition is better stores in clips for the purpose of easy and correct loading. The back fires of yesterday where the shooter risked harm, were all due to the bolt actions on the rifles. The fact that 99% of all rifes manufactured are semi automatic, and the bolt actions are for the history books. Can you imagine a inuit hunter being surprised by a polar bear that usually need more then one shot to kill having to recock the bolt as the bear advances on him. No, there are many more lives saved by semi automatic action then have been killed because of them. I will agree the ful automatic is not needed by anyone but our armed forces.

All applicants for a firearms acquistion cerificate must first take a gun safety course from a registered authority such as Gun Clubs hunters clubs etc. The course consists of the rules and laws and the safe storage of weapons, and how to safely handle weapons when in groups or alone. It also has a small kind of mental evaluation, but unless the person is really out of touch you can see the correct way to answer. The course then must pass a test given by in my case the local police firearms training officer and you must pass it before he will sign your certificate. You also must not have any criminal record and you need to produce your Birth certificate and other picture ID. Once you do all this you send in your application and they will send you FAC permit. From there you can go to a gun shop and you choose the gun or guns you would like, the shop will then check to make sure that you are the holder of the FAC and also register the weapons with the registry. You will need to come back a second time before you get the weapons because the FAC check takes a doy or so and registering another. In my case the gun shop owner says he always checks with local police to make sure there is nothing outstanding aginst the purchaser before completion of the deal. Now while that is proably a lot you must remember that the FAC part is not done each time and you renew this every 5 years. The second part to me is probably the best and safest part, but as you saw it can be flawed. Also on this, the shooter in this had a hand gun which is a restricted weapon already and you need a second course and even more testing before that is given. In this case it to failed to stop him.

I am in favour of gun ownership and yes I have rifles and yes they are all semi-automatic. I like these as yes when hunting or shooting lets say coyotes, they allow me to get more then one of the pack per attempt. Also they would also be preferred in large game hunting as well, as the quicker you can kill the less suffering the animal has. I have said elsewhere that the majority of Canada is wilderness and in areas like the north, to go out without a gun, you are being very reckless as many animals in our north see man as a food source. Out west guns are used for hunting and varmint control of all types. it would be very hard for Canada to ban rifles, and yes it will sometimes be that these can make it into the hands of some crazy people. Better that then suicide bombers, but remember these guys were suicide killers, so that is not that far a step to go and the casualties would be way higher. So are we going to let a few crazies rule our good sense, or are we going to see that these are the oddities, and not let them rule our sensibilities

Doesn't matter. Not a single thing in the article demonstrates anything beyond The medium is the message" Why do you not scrutinize the article even a fraction of the degree you would scrutinize my reply? Because it says something you like, that's why. I like the fact that Afghanistan is rising up against Canadian soldiers? Fu#k you, you're a piece of sh#t. And not once but TWICE you've been told that the story has been based on a report from the Senlis Council, which has 4 field offices in Afghanistan. Yet you still continue to ask what the basis of the story is. It's even in the bloody story. You are going to get yourself banned here with that attitude. But Just because on group said one thing and then all the others have said the opposite, why is it that you can only see the one that fits your view. General R Hillier was one Question Period today and he said not only can it be won, that we are already winning and seeing the effects of it. He also said the troops are in favour of the action even more so now that they are deployed as battlefront soldiers, because they can see and believe in the cause. So why is it one statement in your mind makes all the rest wrong? Also this is a UN and NATO mission and they again say it is being won. Maybe not as fast as they would like but yes it is being run. You really need to start to listen to the many people out there who have said the opposite of the position you hold and you are at most the one of the few.

First off you will never stop someone from killing others if that is what they want to do. The fact that this and several others used guns is a good thing not a bad thing. Since these guys were determined to do this and die in the action, they could have easily become suicide bombers as the makings of many very large scale explosives are posted all over the internet. Most of these guys hated jocks, so what would have happened if he wandered into a sports rally where large numbers of supporters were. You would definitely see a much higher casualty list and it would be targeted more towards who these people hate. Now if that happened would anyone be happier? I should think not. So before all the discussion and the hyperbola about guns and how we need to ban them, remember that most and again I will repeat most of Canada is wilderness and carrying a rifle or weapon is not something that is considered obseesive but rather a necessity of live. I live in the country of eastern Ont.. Here we have coyotes, bears and many other hunted species and I live 42 miles south of nations capital. We use guns for varmint control and to protect livestock etc.. Out west it is even more so as some animals are still capable of attacking man, and our north, is always carry a gun when you go out in the woods or tundra, it is a personal saftey issue and yes a semi automatic is best because not all people can be a crack shot. So before you and the other bleeding hearts start on banning guns rember that it is only a very small area of land that our cities are on that would even think about this.

It would not be a waste of money if it did something to move forward on this. The thought about Geothermal hydro electricity is a very good idea and yes we all know that if we can dig far enough down into the earths crust we will at some point get lots of heat that could be then used thru steam to power our generators and such to then give us very low cost and low emmission electric power. This can be done anywhere as the eraths crust is pretty much the same all over and the thermal factors to be able to find enough heat to do this would all be at nearly the same levels. If we knew of areas where the crust was thinner then all the better. What we would need to know how and do is dig and maintain a large hole several miles deep into the crust of the eart and then we would have goethermal heat in abundance. Now I must admit the Liberals are best at driving the Canadians into the hole, so maybe they would have ideas as well

If the NATO troops manage to drive out the Taliban and then train the Afghanistan people to have an army and police forces capable of continued ability to secure its borders from outside insurgents, then we have won. This was why we went there in the first place. Mind you at the start the biggest targets were Al queda training camps and the Taliban. For a vast percentage of the country we have got a fair grip on things and it looks like we have won the hearts and souls of the people. It takes time to train an army and it takes time to train police, but we do have the time to do both and when all is said and done the people will be who rule the country and also have the ability to secure the country as well.

My plans for retirement were to sell of everything I own and buy a small place in Alberta at the foothills of the rockies (to me the most beautiful place in Canada, and have another home some where in South America or the Mediterrean, which ever has the more stable place at my time to retire. That way I can aleviate the chills of the cold winters with sunny warms of the Mediterrean or South American home. But if the NDP were to ever gain power I think I would have to rethink the rockies, as even though I love them dearly, I am not sure just what damage the NDP would do that would affect me even on my pensions. I figure they would tax me to the point, that my planning for retirement that is outside the governments plans would be considered as excess and then I would lose the government pensions etc. I have no faith in the NDP ever doing anything good for the people of Canada that have worlked hard to get ahead. Then lean more towards those who coast by with out much effort on their part. But a last, I can pretty much have faith that no where in the forseeable future or in my lifetime will I ever see then get more seats then they have already. I take what comfort I can find in that.

One day, I hope to have that problem but I am not there yet. You really do not know many people in the private sector, do you? Nit-picky jerk? Do not worry! In my book, you will have to do much worse than that to qualify as a jerk. It takes a lot to offend me. Bigotry is one of the things that enrage me. Anyway, about the 50% thing, combine all taxes at all levels -- all the way down to the municipal level. With all of the downloading from the higer levels of government down to the lower levels, it makes no sense to just look at income taxes. More importantly, my income is low, to say the least. In other words, you pulled the number out of your ass because it sounded good, but you actually pay very little taxes. Here in Canada the 50% tax rate on income tax is just a little after $60,000.00 yearly income. For the person who makes $650,000.00 per year he dinfinitely would be paying way more in his total taxation of all things, and it would probably be around 65% of every dollar made would be for taxes of some sort or another. Most people with that kind of income though do have tax shelters to make this much less.