Goldie

30% of Canadians will vote for a party with no leader and doesn't even exist than vote for the Liberals with Paul Martin, far better than the NDP and not much worse than Cretien in 1997. Why so sad springer, it a fantastic start.

Sir Riff Is it economically sound or sustainable to have a system like CPP or even the current health care system? Given current demographics won't these two programs break the country unless we have a substantial increase in immigration and taxes? I personally don't want the government to support me at any stage of my life. I would rather pay premiums to a private insurance company for my health needs based on MY health needs. My retirement is not something I want subsidized and I would rather not have to support those people that are going to retire in the next 5-10 years. No I have never taken an ecomonics class and suspect you would just like to make mention that you have. So please enlighten me on how rosey Canadas economic picture is and please explain how current social programs will not doom this prosperity. I had a professor actually tell the class that a guaranteed income supplement of $35,000, that is the government pay the difference when natural incomes fall below that threshold, was actually considered by a Liberal Government of Canada in the 60's. He stated this was a cost effective way to dish out social programs. This would have been the mother of all social programs and the only one. Imagine this liberal wet dream where everyone earns a minimum $35,000 ,wonder what a loaf of bread would cost? The Liberal agenda of the 60's 70's very nearly caused this nation to lose its shirt and we could again suffer for the past ten years. Cretien said himself the country was broke in '93, does anyone really think it was Mulroney that caused it? On a path of tolerance and progress only if it is the current trendy whim with no real value in the social fabric of this society. Tolerate the dictator, the hate monger, and silence the third party in elections. Gays can mary but banks can't merge, this is progress! how?

Craig is right, How can conservative philosophy be embraced when university professors teach us that capitalism is doomed to fail. They don't make mention of the fact that this system is responsible for providing those countries and the people therein with a way out of the wild. Look at the media and how eager they are to put David Orchard on T.V. to show how badly he was treated by deal maker Mackay. Mike Harris and his girlfriends legal battles are now news. The media even decided to shed light on a fight between Scott Brison and Elsie Wayne. It really is up to this new party to shape Canada into its views. It doesn't have to be left for some other generation of new capitalists. A population like ours should easily be convinced that less government is better. That globalization needs to occur for the betterment of all. Free Trade and demographics spurred our economy not Paul Martin. That wooing China and Cuba for trade while kicking dirt in our biggest customers face is deplorable and does nothing for human rights worldwide not to mention our own prosperity. Seems simple enough to transform this country.

Monday, Oct. 20, 2003 Assuming the Tory-Alliance merger goes ahead, what political party are you most likely to vote for in the next federal election? The last numbers Conservative 37% Liberals 28% NDP 32% Or see for your self. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/GIS...bhub=VoteResult

The PC constitution sates to ; "2.2.1 Build a national coalition of people who share these beliefs and who reflect the regional, cultural and socio-economic diversity of Canada;" Is Peter Mackay in breach of this principal when he states that he does not want to give one member one vote because it would be weighted in favour of Alberta. Tell me, any PC member, what is equal about a Nova Scotia riding with 200 members and Calgary center with 2000 members? This would be a complete injustice to tell 1800 members in Calgary that they don't count, their void in picking the leader and forming policy. This is not democratic and exactly why we in the west feel alienated. The strongest conservative base is alberta, they should a greater say in a National Conservative party . The Liberals would say this is why Ontario and Quebec have a greater say in confederation. So Mackay beleives what is good for central Canada, being heavily weighted in parliament, is not good for the Conservative Party in giving the greater ridings more or greater input into the formation and leadership choice. Just as Ontario and Quebec have the greatest say in who becomes PM. So by Mr. Mackays reasoning in dealing with Harper as applied to confederation all 10 provinces should elect say 25 PMs and what? 5 from the territorries based on the percentages of votes received in each of the 25 ridings. There sure as hell would be alot of pointless voting in Ontario and Quebec. Imagine 100,000 votes for a single Liberal in Toronto would be heading to the same place as the Conservative from Saskatchewan with 10,000 votes, But what the hell it would be equal. Really Mackay!

The conservative Party is a done deal. Will it make an influance? well, it already has . Polical reform, marginal tax cuts. If they can hit Paul Martin on the corporate welfare and continued cronyism as well as the conflicts of interest they should do well. From the little guy to the big time Ceo should help the conservatives. Martin is currently cleaning house by exposing the abuses under Cretien. This could backfire if played well buy the new party. I honestly believe the conservatives have agreed and are hammering out the details as certain toreis ponder there future as a liberal back benchers (bye, bye) So the base of Alberta is back to a solid 60% or there abouts. If they get the right leader Ontario needs to oppose the provincial Liberls, hello many conservatives. Yes things are looking well for the consevative movement in Canada and hell, Paul Martin is right of most of the tories so it is a win win situation so fret not brethren.

The charter as it stands is flawed and with the notwithstanding clause, not binding anyway. In extending the right to marry to gay couples the courts ignore the intent of marriage. No one should believe that marriage was intended to be an institution for two people to have sex. What would be the piont? Simply to say look I'm only having sex with this one person. Do people that are clearly in defiance of the natural laws, that is one man and one woman, in the duality of nature garner such protection? Is a natural law that is ignored and even broken and celebrated worthy of protection by our charter? Should cloning be protected then? What about polluters, shouldn't they also have the right to spill toxins into the water? If homosexualty is breaking the laws of nature isn't this also an environmentalists issue?