theWatcher

A merger is not possible as long as the PC's hate the Alliance more than the Liberals. Here's one for you Gugsy. Liberal tory same old story. We know what you really think of us. "Radioactive Bastard Westerner"

How many of those 10,000 votes came from PC supporters do you think? There are a whole 20,000 of them left in the country that spend a lot of time "Wishing the Alliance would dissapear". You better get all the mileage you can get out of the 3 month old polls. Care to make a bet about the next set of polls? The PC's lukewarm fence sitting hide under a rock stance on same sex marriages isn't going to raise there numbers. So crow all you can now. You might just be eating crow very shortly.

Here's a link for you Gugsy, looks like these people are already evaluating each riding to suggest the best small c conservative: Progressive Conservative Tory Democratic Representative Coalition Back Room

AA can go to far though. I don't think it is right to be prejudiced against the majority now, to make up for past injustices to minorities. For example, if your a white male forget about applying for the RCMP. Minorities only please. A fair society would make sure the best person got the job, not the best minority. You'll know when it has gone to far when they drop testing from the schools completely. Right now there are claims that certain minorities have been disadvantaged through society and shouldn't have to write tests. And failing tests is bad for students self esteem and shouldn't happen anymore. Check your kids report cards and see if it is possible for them to get an "F" grade. You'll find the legend on the back of the report card.

What names are the Alliance calling you Mike C.? The PC's have called us every name in the book. "Radioactive Westerner"

The entire premise of the last 40 years of our government is that the population must continue to expand to create more taxpayers to pay for all of the programs that have been created. We have created a behemoth that must be continually fed. Since our population is not increasing quickly enough we are forced to increase immigration levels to accomplish this. Since all of our social programs are being treated as sacred and untouchable, we are not even allowed to reform them. The only way I can think of to handle the situation fairly would be to scale health care fees based on the numbers of years you have paid into the system. So the first year of fees would have a high cost, and every year after would have a discounted rate. A senior who has paid into the system for their entire life would have to pay no fees at all after say, 40 years (working years), whereas a 60 year old immigrant entering Canada for the first time would start right at the beginning and pay the full rate. But even this theory is flawed as it would be hard to sustain with an aging population. I have been involved with the immigration process lately and it is very rigid in terms of the requirements needed to immigrate here. One important distinction to keep in mind is the difference between immigration and refugees. You are hard pressed to immigrate into canada without a lot of education and/or work experience. Bringing in an immediate family member is easier though. I do agree it should be tightened up with perhaps some form of "points" system to make sure we have people entering the country who are better qualified. I feel that the government wastes our money much more though. A billion dollar gun registry, HRDC mismanagement, Advertising scandals, etc would buy an aweful lot of healthcare for everybody. The immigration paperwork i looked at last year required the family member to sponsor the immigrant for a ten year period, and the sponsor is forced to sign a contract. The contract states that the government can go after EVERYTHING, including CPP, paychecks, savings accounts, it looked very ominous. You alos had to fill out tables listing your income and expenses with calculations that determined if you were financially able to support the person. These were quite detailed and factored in child support, alimony, and even the relationship of the potential immigrant. Spouses were given a bonus for costing less than other family members for example. According to the paperwork, there is no way someone making 30K could support 10 people, something else must have been involved. Maybe they made 10 separate applications listing only 1 person on each, who knows. The total immigration paperwork was 80 pages long and ended up costing almost $2,000 dollars in government fees. Refugee's of course, have much lower eduction and work ability (in general). I am not sure of how many refugee's we take in per year compared to immigrants.

Denying an immigrant healthcare services based on age is just adding another tier to the system, as well as being discriminatory. Who would decide what age would be the cut off point? It's not fair to let them into the country then deny them access to a universal system. Might as well cut off smokers, and overweight people too, or mountain climbers.... If the politicans were forced to use the same system we were and wait in the same lines as the common person you would see very rapid reform of the system.

I believe the concept of Christianity is sound, bit I think many of its followers are too literal in quoting the bible. The bible wasn't written by god. Or Jesus. Or even by a single person. It is thousands of pages with tens of thousands of sayings, many that contradict each other. It becomes a tool where you can find any sort of viewpoint expressed by just looking at different chapters and finding a quote to support what you want. Now I am not just criticizing Christianity. The other religions do it too. The first commandment of the bible is “Thou shall not kill”. Now, this is a very good thing and in my mind the most important rule. But all over the bible there are commands to kill. God commands you to kill your son, your wife, your husband, your goats, sheep, pigs, etc. God commands you to kill your enemies, adulterers, or paganists. Killing during war is ok, if god tells you too. This is with just the first commandment, there are lots of examples if you work your way through each one.

I think there is a difference between public and private life. I think it is a very sad day right now because our leader is a liar and a hypocrit. Our health care system has been dismantled and tiered long ago. We don't have to worry about the Alliance destroying health care as the Liberals have done quite a nice job already.

You could always do what our own prime minister does: From PM proves health care not equal for all Canadians

Note the name "LiberalDem" agreeing with this. Hating americans is almost a prerequisite to becoming a Liberal member. But thats not racist, or hypocritical at all now, is it.

Another reason is that being around for a while builds up a habitual following. In Alberta I have worked in the polling stations for the last three elections and its very disheartening. Upwards of 100 voters will ask me which one is the Liberal? Can't you just mark it for me? Can you point it out to me? Yes, I can read, but the form confuses me. One or two voters ask the same questions about the PCs. But no one ever asks about the Alliance or NDP. If someone can't decipher an election ballot, how would they ever be able to read information, and make an actual decision?

Moderate Centrist asked to look at portions of the act specifically and comment on them. Having looked at it, I think you need a law degree to make any sense of it: Bill C-7 something called "presumtive offense" for all of the really bad stuff that could be done. This is just a definition at the beginning of the document. "presumptive offence' can still be reported, as mentioned later 6 year max for 1st degree, 4 year max for 2nd degree somewhere in the range of 14-16 to be tried as an adult, depending on the province, for the heavy crimes. It appears that names can be published for presumptive offences if they were tried as an adult, not sure about the youth sentance part, i think it means if they tried to impose an adult charge, not sure. After having read through the document, I feel that it is better than the Young Offenders Act. The silly, non threatening crimes are still protected, heavy stuff can be punished. Names can be released under certain conditions. A tiny bit of thought has gone into the victims.

From Stats Canada Stats Can - Persons accused of Homicide, by age and sex Persons accused of Homicide by age _Year_____1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Male______ 440 _464 _437 _413 _422 ( total Accused) 0-11 years 2 0 1 0 0 12-17 years 44 54 36 38 25 Female 75 65 48 56 63 ( total Accused) 0-11 years 0 0 0 1 0 12-17 years 11 3 9 5 5 Note: Includes murder, manslaughter and infanticide. So for 2001 there were 30 kids under the age of 17 accused of murder, out of a total of 485, about 6.1% of the total. In many years it was as high as 10 or 15%.

Marriage Scenarios The same sex marriage issue is one of the most divisive issues our country has ever faced. Putting aside the emotional side and just thinking logically, what possible sequences of events could happen? Scenario #1 Same sex marriage bill is passed. The Liberals force the bill to pass by threatening their own members with expulsion or enough MP's vote for it of their own choice. It might be presented as an open vote, with hidden threats or reprisal. This results in the courts determining that individuals are free to marry. The courts uphold the rights of churches to refuse same sex marriages. The rationale here is that an individuals rights can not be used to infringe upon a groups rights (can’t force a church to marry gays), but also that the group cannot infringe upon an individual’s rights (gays can still get married outside the church). Scenario #2 Same sex marriage bill fails or the PM withdraws it The Liberals declare a free vote and the motion fails. They withdraw the bill. The courts decide the same thing as Scenario #1. This is where it starts to get nasty. It becomes a major issue in the forthcoming election, or an election is immediately called to resolve the issue. If the Liberals are returned to power the country is left with the status quo. But if an opposing party comes to power…. Scenario #3 New party is given a mandate to squash the same sex marriage bill How would the new party go about doing this? If they draft new legislation the Supreme Court can declare it unconstitutional. Are the courts lords and masters of us all? Is there any recourse if the majority of Canadians decide that they don’t want this? I see this as a very tough issue unprecedented in Canada’s history. Does anyone have any views about the mechanics of what could happen? I’m trying to discuss the procedural sequence of events as opposed to the partisan/religious angle of things.

Do you think you should have the right to know that your 12 year old neighbor killed his neighbors in the last house they lived at? At some point anonymity starts contributing to the kids problems instead of protecting them.