Morgan

Riff, If you want to forgive someone that did this: ...be my guest. That kind of person is not good citizenship material, in my opinion. Who says we need to take in all the hooligans of the world? Besides, M. Chretien has already done his bit to give a healthy number of terrorists a good home and drum up more LPOC voters....enough is enough... Report states that Canada is a haven for terrorists, June 30/03, Vancouver Sun It's unlikely that Khadr is pure as driven snow, considering that his father is a big wig Al Qaeda in Afghan and his brother is currently in Guantanamo. You can consider Americans as bad guys. I don't. Americans fought with us in 2 world wars. Terrorists haven't. Americans aren't blowing up innocent people at the Trade Centre, Bali, Iraqi Police Station, Red Cross and UN in Baghdad, apartment housing in Saudi Arabia. Terrorists have. We should be ashamed when a terrorist has Canadian citizenship. Al Qaeda tape praises Canadian as a hero, a martyr, National Post Dec.06/03 Err, Sir Riff, btw, with terrorists, it's unwise to wait until the criminal act is done to prove guilt. And thank goodness the USA isn't waiting for Canada to clean up its collection of terrorist dilitantes. Ambassador Cellucci just announced that the USA will continue to deport terrorist suspects to their homelands regardless of their Canadian passports. Good for the USA. Good for Canada.

Here's a news story from the Telegraph today that is an interview with the high ranking Iraqi Colonel, who was the source for the UK's claim that Saddam could unleash WMD in 45 minutes. Read it here or read it nowhere...well, at least not in the Guardian! Iraqi Colonel stands by his claim that Saddam could unleash WMD in 45 minutes Dec.7/03 Telegraph 2. As for the evil USA having supported Saddam, SirRiff you seem to have selective amnesia. After the first Gulf War, the USA had nothing to do with Saddam. The folks who propped him up, supported him, let him kill Iraqis at whim were your heroes at the UN[ Syria, France, Germany, Russia, to name a few] and the UN NGO's as well...we wonder where the money went...that fancy laabel called food for oil...the USA has now asked the UN for an accounting of that money and golly, gee...flutter, flutter, there seems to be a problem with all the paper work...so the USA did more than atone for the error of their ways, whereas your UN heroes have not, so until you can figure out a way to explain why you don't rant about the aforementioned, please cease and desist with your anti-American hate rants. The Iraqis should be so lucky that there's a US, UK, Australia, or they would still be in their underground prisons or six feet under in new graves. Kofi Annan and da boys at the UN could care less, that's for sure. Too busy counting their pay-offs... 3. As for Wilson and his wife, the "stealthy" Valerie Plame...hee, hee...guess the Guardian hasn't caught up with the latest news about those 2 showboats. Those to Democrat insiders have kind of discredited themselves with their front page pictures and extensive interview in the upcoming Vanity Fair. Sigh...another Dumbocrat attempt to discredit Bush ends in laughter. CIA Agent Valerie Plame goes undercover in Vanity Fair, Washington Post,Dec.03/03 Whopper: Joseph Wilson, or Goodbye Plamegate, Dec.03/03 Slate

Same sex marriage is neither morally right nor socially beneficial. Gays like all Canadian citizens share the same rights and protections under the law if not more due to recent "anti-hate" laws. Gays cannot have their unions legalized just like other individuals in society, be they polygamists or blood relatives like adult brothers and sisters. At some level, what's best for society as a whole trumps what is viewed as "beneficial/morally right" by a select group of individuals. To claim that same sex marriage is "social progress" is to be intellectually dishonest.

I'll be optimistic like Neal and go with 115-125 seats for the conservatives. But to accomplish this number of wins, I think the movers and shakers in the CA/PC conservatives , need to start drawing up plans now about how to fight Kinsella-like in the federal election. Conservatives need to develop a strategy to present their strengths, protect their weaknesses, and attack the weaknesses of the LPOC/NDP. Clearly Harper is the smartest guy of the lot-I'm not saying he'll win the leadership, but I'm saying if the merged PC/alliance has him or someone like him at the helm, leadership would be a strength, so the back room boys don't have to worry about that aspect of the election campaign. Whereas I think Paul is a weakness to the LPOC -too much skullduggery in his past and issue flip flopping. Layton is personable enough but IMHO he has a bit too much of a slick used car salesman aura. Layton is a neutral to the NDP. So like Craig said elsewhere I think the conservatives need to focus on platforms [with answers not just attacks against LPOC], getting party members to agree to disciplined unified responses to iparty platform issues, undermining the image of opposing parties by painting NDP/LPOC as one choice not 2 separate parties thereby repelling social moderates and fiscal conservatives from the LPOC, and good pre-election publicity for the conservative party's goals and promises.Hire the best commercial PR agency they can afford. a. Platforms-if the conservatives keep their ideas limited in number and simply stated -these are only examples: -health care reform starting with more provincial independence on how federal funding is used provided all provinces allow for "access" to universal health care as one of the choices - military reform with a better budget based on other Nato countries' average per capita support and increase of military salaries/benefits based on comps from other Nato countries -immigration reform with a revision of annual quotas so they reflect what other G8 countries take in per year on a per capita basis and a creation of sub class of priority immigration candidates within "business class" of immigrants who are credentialed/experienced and commit themselves to serve in the Cdn. military for 5 years - public referendum on the issue of same sex marriage followed by a constitutional amendment if needed based on the results of the referendum - intellectual freedom/free choice - bring up reform in CRTC committee's and side with cable companies[become allies with them] saying that since 65% of citizens have spoken in a recent poll that they want more choice and not be forced to act criminally with dishes to get their choice you'll fight against current staist control of television/radio and furthermore commit the party to fight against UN's plan to control the Internet, saying it's bad for intellectual freedom and bad for developed countries period. b. Then the conservatives should look to protecting their weakness - example:same sex marriage referendum -fundies and red tories need to get on board way ahead of the election with this idea and "politic" accordingly ie. " Our party has DECIDED to let Canadians decide what's best for Canada and therefore our personal preferences are irrelevant, we have only one vote each like all Canadians and OUR PARTY is committed to ABIDING with whatever Canadians tell us they want." Period, end of story, fermez le bouche and that goes for the Larry Spencer types as well as the Scott Brison types. c. Then work to the LPOC/NDP weakness - which is work to their similarities-paint them as being more similar than different so as to divide the vote between the Left wing voters and to attract fiscal liberals and social moderates from the LPOC. d. Publicity-this is EXCEEDINGLY IMPORTANT-I believe the LPOC's main power is their control of the media, thus controlling the message. The conservatives need to commit a sizeable portion of their campaign budget to publicity no 2 ways about it. Conservatives need to get their message out to counter balance Pravda CBC. Conservatives need the owners of cable companies on board by courting them a.s.a.p. and promising them that the conservatives will reform CRTC and will get their digtal packages approved withing 12 months if they give conservatives as much air time as possible leading up to and after the election. Conservatives need to meet with the Asper Family a.s.a.p. and promise them that conservatives will fight against anti-semitism in Canada with all the legal tools available and that conservatives will posture a more balanced approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict diplomatically then it is today, which is heavily weighted as pro-Palestine. Conservatives need the Aspers to counter balance the Liberal's support in the CBC, even if the Aspers, a long standing LPOC family, only promise NEUTRALITY in their Editorial viewpoints... neutral is good and far better than pro-LPOC as the Aspers have been in previous elections. Take out full page ads with basic platform promises in the Globe and Mail , National Post and in all 10 highest circulating newspapers every weekend in the last 2 months before the election. Canadians still have one of the highest newspaper readership in the country. Use that to conservatives' advantage. And like Boydfish says the conservatives should not take their popularity in the Western provinces for granted. They need to get them to go out and vote conservative not throw their hands up in exasperation that their votes don't count anyways blah, blah Get the west inspired that this new conservative party is re-energized and has not forgotten the West's concerns. But I'm not as pessimistic about the breakdown of confederation in the near future as Boydfish is.

Boydfish, I always respect what you post. However, in this instance I beg to differ with your confidence in property rights being protected per Common Law. You use BC as an example. It would appear that as we speak there are worries about the issue of property rights as documented by the BC Real Estate Association. It has drawn up a position paper, dated September 2003, with a recommendation that the Federal Government add property rights to the Charter. It appears to me that the BC Real Estate Association[possibly on advice of counsel?] is seeing some "holes" in Common Law. Property Rights Position Paper, Sept. 2003, BC Real Estate Association As James Madison once said about property rights:

Hugo, You are correct on both counts. The Canadian Charter was developed out of the UN's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" document which was drafted interestingly enough by a Canadian legal scholar from McGill, John Humphries, and adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. Hence the Charter, because of its UN "inspiration", has left leaning undertones. No private property rights is an example of this persuation. And as you pointed out, Hugo, Trudeau was not about to fight for including property rights in the Charter when his former "colleagues" ie. the NDP were dead set against this inclusion, as one would expect from a full fledged socialist party. Here's an amplification of the property rights exclusion: Propert rights in Canada Funny how everyone thinks the Charter is US influenced. Wrongo.

Daniel said: Trudeau did not have the chance to dismantle our sovereignity and pay allegiance to the UN. Strong will have Martin doing daily genuflections to Kofi Annan in short order. Daniel said: Ummm... if deficit reduction is done by raising taxes, as was done under the Chretien-Martin regime, this is not conservatism at work. Daniel said: LOL. We'll see how happy you are with your socialist heroes once the New World Order is in place. LOL. If you love Trudeau/Douglas/Strong, I'm sure you'll absolutely adore "multicultural" movers and shakers like the leaders of China and Zimbabwe calling the shots for matters that affect Canadians. Read this and weep. Global Governance is Global Socialism Mugabe envisions an alternative world order headed by China, Dec.03/03

The Law Society is NOT ACCOUNTABLE to Canadians, whereas MP's are. I would suggest to you that an in camera selection of judicial candidates by a non-elected, select group of lawyers, who profit from legal action and conflict, is more in keeping with an oligarchy rather than a democracy. This is further demonstrated by the fact that this secret list is given to the PM, who has sole power to choose the Supreme Court judges. This is NOT A TRANSPARENT PROCESS. That the Supreme Court in the USA read in "activist inspired rights" into the constitution is true, but on the other hand Americans at least have a hope/a chance that there will be some balance in the Supreme Court perspectives due to the USA's more public and transparent judicial appointment process. Canadians have next to nil chance for balanced perspectives but a very great chance for special interest/agenda driven perspectives. P.S. It would be helpful to conducting a debate if you stayed on point. What's the benefit of bringing in irrelevant comments to a debate? Of course, the Supreme Court judges should not be plumbers or electricians. What does that have to do with having a transparent, accountable process? And how is it relevant to the discussion about the differences between the USA and Canadian Supreme Court's judicial selection process as to whether I favour guns and traditional marriage?

Michael, You're a bit naive if you believe that Canada and the US are the same in their checks and balances. When you tell Hugo that he's peeved ...that's an understatement if I've ever heard one!The Supreme Court judges in Canada only share opinions of the PM and the Law Society...not exactly an unskewed sampling of "beliefs." yuk, yuk The citizens of the USA have a distinct advantage over the citizens of Canada with respect to curtailing runaway judicial activism, though you'd never know it in light of recent majority rulings on affirmative action and sodomy whose support was arrogantly "read into" the constitution. The President's nominations for the Supreme Court in the USA are rigorously vetted and voted on by elected representatives in Congress. However, in Canada the people have no say in which judges are appointed to the highest court in the land. Appointments to the Supreme Court are made entirely at the discretion/whim of the Prime Minister,who, himself, is elected by politicians not by citizens at large like the President is. The Supreme Court's candidates' names are referred to the PM by the Law Society...so it amounts to lawyers recommending lawyers to the highest court. So Canada's judicial version of a "check and balance" is a bit of a cruel joke on ordinary Canadians, who, by and large, are not members of the hallowed[cough] Law Society. Canadians can thank Pierre Elliot Trudeau for this brilliant piece of chicanery.

Strange that you don't recognize the hell inflicted on Canada by all the years of the LPOC in charge of Canada. Let's see there's Communist loving Trudeau who put the wheels in motion for decline. Trudeau was a Liberal PM, wasn't he, Daniel, and he ruled for how many years? Did you know that when Trudeau was a student at the London School of Economics, his classmates referred to him a "Fabian Socialist?" Trudeau studied under a socialist economist, Harold Laski, and became convinced of the superiority of a socialist managed economy over free enterprise. Trudeau gave out entitlements left and right, weakened the Cdn. dollar like never before, and ran up a national debt of $200 billion. Wasn't the Charter of Rights Trudeau's baby? Through this carefully crafted Charter,Trudeau managed to subordinate the wishes of the electorate through their PM's to the ACTIVIST whims of a PM-appointed Supreme Court. And there's no denying that Trudeau was a social activist par excellence. In 1969, Trudeau was asked by some students what kind of society he would like to make in Canada – socialist or capitalist. Trudeau replied: "Labour Party socialist – or Cuban socialism or Chinese socialism – socialism from each according to his means." Then there is Chretien, who learned all his socialist ideas at the knee of Pierre. Chretien has been in power for 8 long years as well. Chretien has increased immigration from non-Christian Third World countries, has almost become the patron saint of Africa and the poor, he's been unwavering in his support of Communist leaders[go Castro!], Chretien promoted same sex marriage for Canada, so this country can be only ONE OF THREE UN countries to do this, Chretien has also promoted de-criminalization of pot and through his policies on re-distribution of wealth has made Canadian citizens one of the highest taxed citizens of all G8 countries. As for Paullie Wallie...he's already a committed socialist and believer of the New World Order. Paul's mentor, who has just moved into a leased apartment in Ottawa, is Maurice Strong, under secretary to Kofi Annan. Paul already is jumping on Chretien's noblesse oblige Third World band wagon by declaring his support for forgiving the debts/loans of Third World countries. Who is going to pay for all that bleeding heart generosity, Daniel? Furthermore, Paul Martin announced on Dec.03 that he is committed to the Kyoto Protocol which would represent a death blow to many Canadian businesses and is merely a re-packaged version of old socialist tripe ie. re-distribution of First World wealth to Third World countries. Maurice Strong backs/directs Martin's pro-Kyoto stance Maurice Strong just won the Public Welfare medal and has been called a "citizen of the world." Argh. Maurice was quoted as follows about his relationship with Paulie Wallie: Don't bet the farm on Maurice's words, Daniel. Maurice Strong, diplomat extra-ordinaire, wins Public Welfare Medal

KrustyKidd and Hardner, News flash...maybe in the near future law enforcement authorities will not be able to do a darn thing about "peripheral" terrorism. A new judicial ruling in the USA, which may influence case law in Canada if it goes unchallenged, has concluded that aiding terrorism is not illegal. This is just a skip away from "attending terrorist camps, not knowing they were for designed to teach a person how to commit terror"...one can see how a wily lawyer might use this case law to take a further jump in illogic. Here's what the wacky 9th didtrict court in the USA just ruled...you better read this sitting down... 9th District Court says it's legal to abett terrorists

More news trickling in about the UN's plan to heist control of the Internet. This is nasty, regardless of whether your political leanings are left or right. If you have a brain and like to use it and you value intellectual freedom, then UN control of the internet is bad for all of the aforementioned. Puzzling, isn't it, that the Canadian news media hasn't covered this rather important issue much...ho hum, no worries... UN Summit to focus on the Internet, Washington Post, Dec.04/03 Here's the tentative guest list of "movers and shakers" who are attending the Geneva conference. You can search by last name or download the whole PDF list. I am somewhat concerned to see "the cast of thousands" of warm bodies who are listed to represent little hole in the wall countries like Bangladesh and various NGO's versus the numbers of people representing First World countries like Canada and the USA, which stand to suffer very negative repercussions if the UN manages to take control of the Internet. Wakey, wakey...USA... Canada's reps. appear to hail, in the main, from the East...no surprises there. Maybe Harper should figure out a way to get some folks from the West and with a conservative business mindset signed up for the Tunisia meeting scheduled for 2005? Fyi, due to my own curiosity, I confirmed that Maurice Strong, mentor of the Prince of Wales of the LPOC, is in attendence in Geneva. Guess he and the wife are all done moving into their newly purchased Ottawa condo so they could fly to Switzerland. Just do a search by Maurice's last name. I suspect Maurice Babe's role at this conference is not to defend intellectual freedom rights...bets? Draft list of participants of the Geneva phase of the UN Internet Conference

1. KrustyKidd , Here's additional information on Hillary's patriotic Thanksgiving visit "to show respect" for the troops[why are we not surprised?]: GI reports back that troops in Iraq waited, while Hillary chowed down turkey 2. Daniel, a. While you're mocking Rumsfield for a quote he made that was circulated in left wing democrat blogs this past week, why don't you acknowledge the prestigous award won by Rumsfield in the same week? Ummm...looks like other European folks...important folks by the looks of it...understand Rumsfield perfectly well and like what he says. Rumsfield just won a top European award. Rumsfield wins top "non-EU citizen of the year" award. Kofi Annan lost to Rumsfield.Nominees for non-EU citizen of the year award b. Btw, Daniel, here's the proper source for the Rumsfield/Arnold bashing you forgot to cite...call me a snob, but somehow the "Plain English Campaign on the net" doesn't strike me as being too representative of influential EU opinion. Foot in the Mouth award by little known UK group of journalists c. Pity that the "puzzling, scratch your head" comments by the Left's sweetheart, Howard Dean, were not considered for the Foot in the Mouth award: Back in the U.S.S.R. ...better known as Howard Dean's blooper on national television

I was wondering what people thought about the growing spectre of anti-Semitism in Europe. Please note that it appears that the anti-Semite mindset is not only associated with Muslims. A NYT article that follows gives a reasonable sketch of the problem and it quotes some Jewish leaders whose remarks seem odd, IMHO. Also, I'm providing a link to a leaked 2003 UN report about an increase in documented attacks on Jews and synagogues across Europe. -Is this related to the 2000 fatwah? -Is it related to a simmering long standing anti-Semite mentality in Europe that's just raising its head again due to the poor economic conditions in Germany and France with a high level of unemployed who are looking to beat up on a familiar "whipping boy?" -Is it related to a European anti-American mentality and because Israel is an ally of America, Jews are visible targets for anti-American anger? -Are "hate laws" counter productive, just further setting Jews apart and where perceived "specialness" can build further anti-Jewish resentment? NYT article about attacks on Jews in France European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia report re: anti-Semitism in Europe

Yet another media wail fest by the usual suspects [Toronto Star leading the charge of the intellectual lightweight brigade]concerning a Cdn. terrorist suspect who was allegedly mistreated by American authorities. This case may become another cause celebre of the left wing media to further strain US/Cdn relations. Maybe it's just me, but I'm getting weary of reading the left's knee-jerk automatic defence of Arab terrorist suspects and flogging cases like Khadr's and Arar's as alleged examples of American mistreatment of Canadian citizens. Yet the same media have a limp wristed response or present no information at all about cases where innocent Arabs are routinely mis-treated by Arab terrorists and by Arab dictators. It's only okay to worry about Arabs' rights if there's a chance to demonize America. Why is it that Mr. Khadr and Mr. Arar should have automatic credibility in the eyes of the Toronto Star and CBC? Why is there no balance to their press reporting? Why does a person have to search out news in the National Post or Ottawa Citizen or Margaret Wente's columns to have all the dots of the picture presented? I think it's shameful that left wing journalists show such little respect for truth. Whether Arar or Khadr are innocent or guilty, I think it is not for the Toronto Star or the CBC and the left wing news cabal to reach decisions for the public. You've probably read the aforementioned news accounts about Khadr, so I'll provide news sources that provide the "other side." a)Kadhr's story about Afghan training camp exposure is questionable Welcome back, Kadhr! by Margaret Wente c) Mark Steyn on "Da brief is da brief or the Chretien-Khadr fiasco" d) Khadr's lawyer claims he is a "victim" too Toronto Star claims Khadr's lawyer's life in danger for defending Khadr

righturnonred, You share the "old school" melting pot American mindset of paying no heed to your ethnic roots in terms of relating them to political party loyalties. But I don't think that's the case for many first and second generation Arab-Americans. I think Nader could get some mileage out of his ethnicity in an election year that is post Iraq War. At least the Democrats might see it as a plus factor vs Nader's negative zealot "green" image. Bush would be a shoe-in if Dean took Nader has his VP running mate or even if Nader did a well publicized endorsement and was given a high profile post in Dean's election committee. In the eyes of most Americans...Dean + Nader = double whammy nutbars. [in Canada this combination could probably beat the pants off Martin and Layton]. As well, I agree with your theory about Hillary's plan. As you pointed out, Hillary's plan is predicated on the assumption that Bush will win in 2004, ergo, any of the 9 dwarfs will do as sacrificial lambs in the next election, and then she'll "save" the DNC from political extinction by running against a Republican, who may not have her "whitewashed" name recognition in 2008. And with a little help from her allies in the media[CNN, MSNBC, all versions of alphabet channels, Al Jazeera, BBC, CBC]Hillary could be a real force to be reckoned with in 2008. As noted elsewhere, I truly believe that the only Republican match up that could effectively take on Hillary in 2008 would need either Condi Rice or Rudi Guilliani or a combination of both on the Presidential/VP ticket.

Hardner said: Nice. The judicial system should hire you as chief clairvoyant and save themselves alot of money with an obviously out-moded jury system. This is not France, Hardner, with the Napoleonic judicial system in effect. The school is innocent until proven guilty, so you should can your prejudiced wail about this child being "victimized" by anti-gay bias and while you're at it, please can your baseless rant that this kind of thing happens "every day." Here's a few points for you to consider before jumping to any conclusions about this case and the issue of children's victimization by social prejudice/bias: a. If the ACLU was genuine about its concern for the child victim, why hasn't the ACLU taken the gay parents to court on behalf of the 7 year old child for subjecting the child on an ongoing basis to a stressful home environment that statistically is likely to put this child at risk for depression, drug and alcohol use, and suicide attempts? Homosexual adoption puts children at risk b. Or if the ACLU sincerely worried about children being "victimized" by social bias/prejudice, how come the ACLU has not sued all the academic facilities that published skewed research in recent years, which hid risks posed to children raised in homosexual parenting environment, due to fear of PC thinking backlash that could result in loss of research grants? U of Southern California study says that previous pro-gay parenting research is seriously flawed c. If truth be told, Hardner, you know as well as I do, that the ACLU could care 2 hoots about children being "victimized"...be it at home, in school, in church, at Big Brother/Big Sister outings, whatever... unless the ACLU sees political advantage in a case to enable it to marshall a legal assault on one of society's institutions. IMHO, the ACLU has devolved into a cruel joke at the expense of the average Joe/Josephine Taxpayer. The ACLU is becoming more an anarchist, special interest agenda driven organization with each passing day, and the noble goals on which it was founded in 1917 have been subverted. I feel the ACLU should have its non-profit tax free status summarily removed as of yesterday. The ACLU is not looking out for the civil rights of ordinary Mr/Ms. Everyman...it's looking out to protect/promote self-serving "agendas." d) Fyi, here's the other side of the case, not that you're interested, but others on the forum might want to read further. According to the school this 7 year old was disciplined for ordinary misbehaviour and that the student was not belittled nor victimized because the parents were gay. The parents' "gayness" was incidental to the child acting inappropriately. URL=http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35936]School victimized by ACLU?School spokesmen says they disciplined 7 year for ordinary misbehaviour[/url] Hardner, the day that the ACLU starts prosecuting NAMBLA for promoting pedophilia and starts taking NAMBLA members to court on behalf of minors INSTEAD of acting as NAMBLA's defence, is the day I will begin having a modicum of respect for the ACLU and the cases it takes on that are allegedly defendiing the welfare/rights/ best interests of children.

KrustyKidd, I think you're dead on about the potential for nasty consequences by allowing Muslims to live by sharia law in Canada. What were the boneheads in Ottawa thinking? The following is a depressing article in National Review about what's happening in European countries when Muslim immigrants practice sharia law. It isn't pretty. Europeon dishonor: sharia on the Old Continent, Nat'l Review Dec. 03/03

SieRiff, I apologize for taking your criticism of the entire discussion/thread personally. But I still think your comments are lacking in substance. Michael Hardner, The Liberals are no different than the Democrat Party...both have shifted dramatically left over the years. Zell Miller is likely older than than you and I combined and he's seen the left change so radically that he cannot identify with the party anymore. Harper and Bush are both moderate centist leaders. The right has moved left as well, but they're still called conservatives because they're right of the "other guys." Your obtuse crowing about the "mainstream" electing Chretien and Clinton and soon Martin is a reflection of what I quoted you from Alexander Tyler. He saw democracies as going through cycles. He said the danger of democracies is when people realize they can vote in their own benefits.That realization starts the decline of a democracy. As KrustyKidd pointed out, politicians have responded to that "realization" in their voting public, so they race to offer more benefits/entitlements. Eventually the fiscal burden of these self serving decisions cause a democracy to come undone. Alexander Tyler had studied the Greek civilization closely when he came up with these observations. Going down the road of liberalism means there will be a "bust "eventually. In Canada, we're seeing it sooner than the USA, because socialism has been in place longer. Look at the failing military, the failing health care, the failing education system, the general moral decline. Everything is frayed at the seams and there seems to be a malaise in the body public. The good thing about same sex marriage controversy in Canada is that at least the issue has people's blood boiling when previously they seemed asleep. If an NDP government is ever elected federally, it's as good as putting this country on a life support system.

I see this as a theoretical discussion about Oscar Wilde's quote, yes? So I don't want to be raked over the coals for how I interpret Wilde's naivity. Oscar Wilde lived during Victorian times, a period that experienced alot of change and prosperity but also took a tremendous toll on the laboring clases. Though Wilde was a member of the upper class, he was a socialist and the quote you posted from him is in keeping with Wilde's duality-he was born to gentility that required a lower class to do the labor and run the machinery, but his sympathies were with the laborers. So he hoped that eventually technology would become so efficient that the lower class would be freed from doing the tedious work and all humanity would live happily ever after singing Kumbaya. I think Wilde was mistaken re: machinery contributing to a Utopian classless society. Technology is a double edged sword. Indeed, efficiency in technology has freed up people from doing tedious repetitive tasks. But people are not created equal in skills/abilities. What do you do with a growing displaced underclass of people who are not trainable to handle more sophisticated jobs? I believe that as technology is refined, a "slavery" of a different kind is created...the middle class becomes enslaved with the responsibilty and costs of "carrying" the lower class whose productivity has been greatly diminished by technology. I'm seeing happen now.

Righturnonred, Though your post about Nader was said in jest, I'm not sure if you are aware that Nader is an Arab-American. This fact, together with Nader's green voters, could make Nader's stock even more valuable re: the 2004 election. Do the Democrats dare ignore Nader again? Here's a leftie article re: Nader and his appeal to Arab-American voters in the 2000 election: Nader says Gore is cowardly re: the Middle East

My point in posting Nader's "exploratory website" is that he could end up acting as the "spoiler" left wing candidate in 2004 like he did in 2000. Or perhaps this time round, Nader has no intention of running as Dwarf #10 and is presenting a veiled threat to the DNC that he needs to be "accomodated" before the 2004 election. I think Nader still has a constituency of "green" left leaning voters. Interesting possibilities. I agree with you, Derek. Hillary plans to run for President in 2008. Argh!

1. Hardner said: These 3 men are standard bears for the left...what else do they represent? Oh, I remember now! Based on the misguided comments of your previous posts, you probably believe these 3 three leaders reflect "mainstream" America/Canada, maybe even a tad right of centre??? yuk, yuk, yuk. If you can't see McKay as the Red Tory he is[ie. liberal], there's no point in debating you any further. 2. SirRiff said: You must have dropped out of basic Science 101, which requires sequential thinking, no assumptions without proof, good command of English to present facts or hypotheses. You show none of the above. Your post consists of criticism with no counter argument. To wrongfully assume that my reply to Hardner was off topic demonstrates a profound lack of diligence in reading through the thread and thereby jumping to an inaccurate assumption. To lecture anyone, much less me, about basic 101 Science, all the while showing an inability to express ideas in proper English is ironic indeed. Listen up, Riff. The general topic under discussion was how social liberalism in the course of the past 30 years has contributed to a general decline in various spheres of post modern society. Hardner's specific post to which I replied was his claim that greed was an equally weighted factor for the decline but he linked greed to conservativism by using a pseudo-conservative political leader as his example. I replied to Hardner by saying that "greed" was part and parcel of social liberalism...the slippery slope, the non-judgmental approach to life, the moral relativism mindset. Then I used 3 examples of left wing standard bearers in the political arena, as he tried to do with a pseudo conservative, to symbolize my point. I used a quote from Mark Steyn, who said it best about the duplicity of liberalism. I'll repeat part of it since it's obvious you missed it:

Look-ey here...a Trojan Horse is preparing to enter the political arena. Me thinks this could cause problems for the successful Democrat Presidential candidate,whichever Dwarf it is who wins the leadership ticket. "Exploratory"...is this candidate fishing to be taken on by the Democrat Presidential candidate as the Vice Presidential choice? Kiss of death, IMHO. "exploratory effort is coming online soon"

CBC crows that Paulie Wallie will win the next election hands down, eh? Maybe and maybe not. Here's what will happen before election day, that is sure to bog down the Prince of Wales' march to the throne... How Paulie Wallie handles the highly controversial issue of same sex marriage that Monsieur Chretien has left behind as his "legacy" for his arch rival, will determine the election outcome, IMHO. 69% of Canadians don't want same sex marriage legalized. We'll see if Paul keeps his 57.5% popularity in the election booth, if he says he will pursue the implementation of same sex marriage. This is sure to be an election campaign hot potato issue which wily Paul can't continue to stay dodgey on. 69% ...sheesh...that represents a huge meatball election issue! Poll shows support for gay marriage down to 31%