Black Dog

Alberta. NDP

Because you Liberals try and bait him with it, heck I could list 65 Liberal scandals and you would simply ignore them for Harper's stance on the war and vote the Liberals in again. Your a bunch of bloody hypocrites That doesn't answer the question. If Harper, as it was indicated, supported participating in the Iraq was and is "proud of his position", why is he hiding it? It's a fairly straightforward question. Versus the right-wing types who nod along with the right-wing punditocracy of Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Miller, Savage, O'Reilly, etc etc.? Of course, I'm sure these people would never paint their own picture, ignores or distort hard facts in exchange for heart-wrenching stories and 'facts' that feed the right-wing lobbyist flame... Yet, if someone would trot out a Bush/Hitler comparison, I'm sure you'd fall all over yourself with denunciations of "anti-Americanism". As to F9-11's effects on the Canadian election: they will be negligible.

Gay Marriage: old topic

I like it, but it doesn't go far enough. Someone pays $50,000 a year in taxes should get two votes, $100,000/ year: four votes and so on.... Of course I'm kidding. What a dumbass idea. If fear of jail were an actual deterrent, then the nations with the largest prison populations should have the lowest crime rates. That is not the case. Look at the States, which has a more people incarcerated per capita than any other. By your rationale, it shoul dbe a crime free paradise. Obviously, thet's not the case. Prison is primarily punishment, nominally as a venue for rehabilitation, but quite useless as a deterrent.

You continue to demonstrate a remarkable blindness to the implications of the acts of abuse themselves, as well as the appparent knowledge of such actions by some of the highest authorities in government. Either you can't see a problem with these authorities placing themselves and their subordinates above the law, or you approve of it. Either way, the point is that America's actions to date may not have been as bad as Saddam's (though there's an argument to made as to whther or not such comparisons are even valid), but, by all apperances, they're slowly but surely, marching in the same direction. Finally, the simple thrust of your hysterical screed seems to be that I "hate America" because, unlike you, I'm unwilling to accept at face value and with the child-like faith I mentioned before, that America's intentions in Iraq are pure. You accuse me of not caring about the Iraqi people, while conviniently dispersing with historical evidence indicating the people you claim are Iraq's Great White Hope were the same ones who, for decades, turned a blind eye to Saddam's worst atrocities, if not outright abetting them. That may seem like a minor historical detail to you, but I believe it is very significant to the curent situation. Perhaps you believe that Rummy, Cheney and the rest of the former Saddam Hussein fan club underwent some sort of grand epiphany, but I do not. Simply put, you expect Iraqis to be granted freedom by the same men who helped Saddam keep them under his bootheel in the first place. Such naivete would be amusing if the stakes weren't so high, both for Iraq, and the world. But I guess I, as an anonymous poster on an internet chat board, are to be held to a higher standard of moral conduct than the top officials behind Iraq's "liberation". To conclude, I don't know what else to say,a as you've buttressed your straw man quite well in your mind. If flailing away at that fictional creation makes you feel morally superior, by all means continue.

The fact is, we pay for people's "oopses" all the time. But deciding who "deserves" publicly-funded health services such as abortion is dangerous in that , as I said, just about anyone can be found to bear some measure of responsibility for their misfortune. For instance, my tax dollars pay for medical treatment of SUV drivers who are injured when their vehicles roll over: why should I pay because they choose to drive dangerous vehicles? You see what I'm getting at? Once you start splitting hairs, where do you stop? And I wanna see a cite on that repeat abortion figure. The Bible also has teachings against eating shellfish and wearing blended fabric clothing. What's your point? Gotta run..see y'all next week.

Statistsics show that low-income people are more likely to have unplanned pregnancies and less likey to use contraceptives. Funny, but I didn't say that. Funnier still how asking people for understanding and compassion for the fellow man is greeted with such scorn. Wouldn't have anything to do with, oh, not becoming or getting someone else pregnant, would it? No I say it should be a balance that recognizes the limitation sof personal responsiblity as well as ackowledging its importance. You just can't stop trying totwist my words, can you. What I said was: "how many of you have personally had to deal with making the choice of having an abortion". So yeah, I was involved, but ultimately the chhoice wan't mine. Which, really, was my point all along.

Equal before the law refers to the treatment we are accorded by societies legal bodies. However, those laws aren't absoulte: f'r instance, judges often recognize mitigating circumstances when deciding case outcomes for individuals. Society recognizes the limits of these circumstances. It also recognizes the limitations of personal responsibility and attempts to strike a balance when formulating policie staht affect us all. I don't see how this is such a radical concept. But then, I see things in grey, not black and white. Yes.

Since it seems you are in dire need of an education, let me help you out Definition of democratic socialism. of Social Democrats of communism. of liberalism. Assumptions based on sheer ignorance tend to be dead wrong. This is no exception. The NDP Socialist caucus is but one of many independent organizations that operate under the broad umbrella of the NDP. Others include the Women's Caucus, Aboriginal Caucus, Environment Caucus, Labour Caucus, and the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgendered Caucus. I support the NDP, but am not a communist hippie gay, lesbian, transgendered, bisexual aboriginal woman. Here's a little hint, kid: any time you see the words "war on something or other" its usually a right-wing agenda at work. The war on drugs was a Reagan (right-wing) initiative. The war on terror is a Bush (right-wing) initiative. Right wingers, it seems, like to wage war on things (even concepts). Social democrats prefer finding solutions.

Because we have a duty to help our fellow citizens as best we can and not punish people for mistakes. As one prominent philosopher put it "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." It's a little concept called society. And a "devil take the hindmost" system social organization where in people are punished and reviled for being human and erring is not the kind of place I want to live in. Abortions are most common among low income women, who also have the least access to birth control and sex education. And self-righteous people like you are happy kicking them when they're down. The trouble with this notion is it assumes all things are equal: that all individuals have the capacity to make 100 per cent informed decisions and that every decision is uncoloured by social pressures or economic circumstances. Which is seldom the case. It's unrealistsic and, above all, mean-spirited. And I wonder how many of you have personally had to deal with making the choice of having an abortion, or have never made a mistake that society has covered for. I'll wager none of you are so pure. Fair enough. But i don't see a lot of harper's proposals as being "barely adequate". A 52 per cent increase in the size of the military is not an upgrade: it's a complete revamping.

Some quick points: there's been much discussion over the costs of Harper's military platfrom, but no one here has articulated why we need a bigger military. Better paid, better equipped and better organized? Perhaps. But bigger isn't always better, and I for one would like to know what role Harper's expanded military is expected to play. In light of the changing nature of 21st century warfare, how many of the new gadgets proposed by Harper are actually necessary to prserving our soverignty and protecting our citizens? To what degree does Harper wish to align our defense and foreign policies with those of the U.S.A? This is, after all, the same man who once said: "The time has come to recognize that the U.S. will continue to exercise unprecedented power in a world where international rules are unreliable and where the security and advancing of the free democratic order still depend significantly on the possession and use of military might.", the subtext being that Canada had best get on the U.S. bandwagon. So, I think it's fair to question where Harper wants to spend our tax dollars and to what end and whether or not its something Canadians can agree with. To do so, we need a clearly articulated strategy and direction for teh military, not vague talk of "enhancing security" and "working with our allies". How much do publicily funded abortions cost us? How would those costs compare to a national child care program and a national mandatory program of comprehensive sex ed? Hey, while we're at it, let's get smokers to pay for their own cancer treatments, car accident victims to pay for their rehabilitation, people who eat fatty foods to pay for their own heart transplants, and pretty much let everyone fend for themselves. From a social perspective, survival of the fittest ultimately leads to survival of none. So abortion costs each Candian about $2. Sounmds like a bargain compared to, oh I dunno, $500 million or so on new tanks. And in 100 per cent of cases, it was the woman's decision to have an abortion. As far as I'm concerened, that's the only stat that matters.

It is crazy. Crazy and stupid. The idea that gay marriage would somehow open the door to bestiality is an reductio ad absurdum fallacy and a scare tactic devoted to making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. It's bull, of course. There's no evidence gay marriage would lead to legfal besitality or incest or any of the other bugbears anti-gay types trot out.

Don't waste your time on AF, Reverend. He doesn't have any real political opinions or capacity for critical thought, but is just a vessel for quasi-right wing rhetoric.

Debt, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. People go into debt all the time to finance major purchases (mortgages, car payments, home improvements and repairs, etc.) Similarily governements can manage debt to maintain quality programs and services or upgrade infrastructure. However, debt and defecit reduction has been the main objective of public policy at most levels of government over the past 20 years. This has come at the expense of the countries social programs and infrastructure. Future generations will be forced to pick up the tab for athe vital programs and services that were cutback, eliminated or reduced in the name of deficit elimination. It's not as if Harper's ideas are new. They're the same policies that right of centre governments have been pushing for many years across the western world and have consistently failed to deliver the promised returns. Harper is a slash and spend idealogue in the same vein as Mike Harris and Gotrdon Campbell. Social services and taxes (especially for well-to-do) will be slashed, while spending will be amped up for pet projects like the military. Transporation where? What wars are we going to be fighting that will require such services? As for costs, well, the Italian navy paid $2.3 billion in November 2003 for the Nuova Unità Maggiore, a hybrid helicopter carrier like the kind the Conservatives propose. That's $4.6 billion for a pair which would break the bank of the Tories' proposed $5.5. billion defence plan. What about the tanks Harper's talking about? The going rate on a Abram these days is about $4 million a pop. Jets? The U.S.'s proposed Joint Strike Fighter has a sticker price of $35 million, while th elarger, upgraded FA-18 Super Hornet is around $5 million wach. Those, of course are estimates. Military expenditures, more than any otehr, are prone to cost overruns. The pouint is that that's a lot of money for a bunch of new equipment that we don't necessarily need. No one would argue that the Forces need upgrading: however, is there a concrete reason we need a 52 per cent increase in the size of our military? Because the NDP is realistic in its prohjections, unlike the Conservatories, who expect to pull giant surpluses and "cost savings" out of thin air (without cutting services: yeah right). Hell, the NDP platform is proposing a conservative platform at a net cost of $61 billion, versus the Tories' $89 billion platform. No offense, AF, but you have no clue about NDP policy or social democratic ideals whatsoever.

May I direct you to this: In other words, Martin followed the Reform/Alliance playbook on economic policy. If you expect Harper to fix Canada's social programs, you're dreaming. Harper will fix 'em the same way vets fix horses with broken legs: with a bullet to the head. What would the hybrid carriers be used for? How much would they cost? Honestly: why do people expect the Cons to be any better? Because they say so?

This thread should be called: "Martin vs. Harper: Evil vs. Eviler". Has any national government ever succeded in cutting revenues and improving services?

Just thought I'd toss this in to address the claims that it was government mismanagement that brought on California's power woes. In fact, private sector manipulation of pricing and power supplies wa sthe biggest culprit. Power ploys Enron tapes

If I read the words "love fest" one more time, I'm gonna scream.

And the remaining $6 billion will come from...where? The $50 billion figure is from Cons' claim they will cap the rate of spending increases at 2.9% per annum over the next five years. Of course, that doesn't account for increasing program costs (like health care, where costs are increasing across the board), increased spending and decreased revenues that a Conservative government would bring in and is based on a wildly optimistic surplus estimates. And Harper has an economics degree?! Anti-French bigot! Harper would have had Canadian soldiers coming back from Iraq in metal boxes. He'd turn our military into a U.S. proxy force, loaded with expensive gadgets that will enhance our ability to jump when Harper's masters say so. This has nothing to do with "anti-Americanism" (whatever that means) and everything to do with Harper's idealogical alignment.

There's nothing in the ND's platform to indicate it would bypass the provinces when providing funding for cities. Now, there's no mention at all of what kind of role the provinces would have, but I think it's a sin of ommission rather than one of malicious intent towards the provinces. Perhaps not. But that doesn't change the fact they are a "special interest group" lobbying for policy changes that will affect all Canadians. August, you make these kinds of assertions without any statistical proof at all. Anyone can tell you taht municipalities need sustainable funding. The provinces simply can't provide that alone. In areas like the fuel tax, the GST, infrastructure, housing, transit, it's the feds that are in the best position to help.

I don't think the debate changed many minds. The core support for the parties has long been shored up, a few previously undecideds will decide, and most Canadians will vote with their feet: by putting them on the coffee table and staying home. On the debate: Harper was, well, Stephen Harper. A suit and a plastic haircut. No emotion, no conviction. certainly did nothing to dispel the fears around him. And he got creamed on the Iraq issue. Martin: defensive, but scored some good shots (Harper's $50 million black hole and his admission that he could have swept the sponsiorship business under the rug). Layton: wild and energetic, which he had to be in what the media is framing as a two horse race. Good work on pointing out the essential non-difference between the Liberals and Cons. Duceppe: I like this guy more the more I see of him. I wonder if we could get a BQ/ND coalition together... Under Harper, we'd not be a whore, but a slut: giving it a way for free. Duceppe's line about not droppping to our knees for our allies was gold. Harper might not run a defecit, but he'd slash the hell out of social programs to fill the massive holes in his budget. Harper, it should never be forgotten, is from the school of economic "thought' that would" make government so small as to drown it in a bathtub.

Is anyone actually advocating this? Harper's one to talk of interest groups, having fronted one of the biggest special interest lobbies in the nation. But as for municipal politicians, the 90s were an era of unprecedented spending cuts at all levels. The feds cut transfers to the provinces and downloaded many responsibilities on to provincial governments, which had a trickle down effect on Canada's cities. The meager increases, both federally and provincially, haven't come close to restoring municipalities to their former strength, despite the fact that municipalities are the level of government that has the most impact on people's day to day lives. I don't think there's anything wrong with exploring creative solutions. Both Martin and Layton have called for a new deal for municipalities, and I'm sur emost provincial politicians would argue. What they would argue about is how big a cut the provinces pocket. That's why we need Proportional Representation.

You consitently downplayed the severeity of the allegations: When viewed in the light of these statements, your condemnations come across as less than sincere. The policy is, as one U.S. officer put it: "do what you must, grab who you can." I don't believe it when, by the Army's own admission, at least 70 per cent of detainees are innocent of any wrong doing. I don't know how long it's going to take you to grasp this. But torture and torture-lite do not produce reliable information. Torturing Can't be Defended, Doesn't Even Work As I've said before, you maintain an unquestioning and impenetrable faith in the intententions of leaders and the system as a whole. Anything more than half-assed, mealy mouthed equivocation is, apparently, irrational "frothing at the mouth." You're missing the big picture: the U.S. is heading down a path whereby its leaders are unaccountable to anyone, and unbound by conventions of international or domestic law. Or perhaps you do, but you seem untroubled by it. Look at the document the Pentagon cooked up: on the face of it, is a charter allowing the US president to abuse human rights and ignore domestic as well as international law. According to the Rumsfeld document, detainees can be tortured at will in Bush's global "war" on terrorism. And, as history shows, occasional torture leads to more extreme, systematic torture. Nope. I just think your faith is misguided. U.S. Troops Said to Mistreat Elder Iraqi/Rode Old Lady Like A Donkey

Well, American involvement with Afghanistan's mujahadeen rebels is well-documented. Those same rebels morphed into the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Declassified Documents Relating to the Military Coup, September 11, 1973 Friends in Deed: The United States and Iraq Before the Persian Gulf War

Interesting response. This report was touted (notably by you) as an indication that the Bush administration's terror war policies were working. Subsequent evidence shows the opposite is true. This is a major mistake, and yet the very same person who trotted the report out in the first place now trie sto dopwnplay its significance and deflect attention elsewhere. To wit: Of course, anyone with half a brain would know that U.S. policies (like those pushed as part of the "war on terror") have greater significance and a far greater impact, both domestically and globally than those of any other nation on earth. For example, America's crusade against terrorism has led to numerous abrogations of commonly accepted precepts of international law (notably the widely understood principle of using force only in self-defense and repeated violations of the Geneva Convention). These have very serious consequenses and set very serious precedents. So, when evidence comes to light that these policies aren't working, you're damn right we'll point the finger where it needs to be pointed, regardless of feeble equivocations from apologists.