bradco

"They wouldn't approach within a ballistic missile shot of UNSC with anything even remotely resembling "regime change"." Correct, because pro-democratic intervention has absolutly no chance as an internaional legal argument. But that doesnt discredit it as their actual motivation.

There wont be an election until at least the budget. I honestly believe this government will go until april 2008.

-if someones intelligence only allows for them to be able to vote if it only requires marking an "X" they obviously dont have the intelligence required to make an informed decision. Built in comptency test is a good thing. "The size of the ridings under MMP are smaller than STV thus MPs would represent a much more specific area." The STV riding would not be significantly large enough to be any worries. In an urban area 4-7 ridings might merge into one because of their proximities. Rurally the maximum would be three which I dont think makes it significantly large enough to be a problem. I would advocate possible two MP ridings in especially sparse areas (ie the north). One benefit from STV you dont necessarily get from any other system is the increased likelihood of true representation. When an MP wins a riding on 30% support 70% of the riding does not have a representative that they truly feel represents their interest. In cases like this the ridings would split between parties so that a much larger proportion of people have meaningful representation. To me it will always be unacceptable that a party list chooses the MP's. Granted you could have a system where the MP's taken to make the results proportional are chosen in order of how many votes they got. But this leaves the problem of how these MP's would be spread across the country. In a country as diverse as Canada regional representation is tooimportant to risk the negative effects of list top up systems. -Im not convinced that this system is more open to gerrymandering. The fact that it is proportional and ridings elect multiple MP's makes it harder to gerrymander for specific partisan advantage. The results, since they are roughly proportional, will end up pretty much the same no matter where you draw borders. One MP ridings are easier to manipulate by drawing borders that keep some groups that are prone to vote for a specific party always in the minority. In an STV system even if they're always in the minority they are likely to get an MP. -under an STV ranking system if you dont want to support a party at all you simply dont rank them. You have the option of not "transferring" your vote to anyone.

"Actually, liberalism is concerned with the freedom of individual people, not protoplasm. To pretend pro-forced-childbirth is a liberal position is fallacious." -Its all a different opinion on when something is considered to be a living person. The pro-life arguments, whether you find them incorrect or not, are put forth in a liberal manner by arguing for "rights" for the fetus. Im more inclined as you are to give rights to individuals that are l"iving" but you cant argue that the manner that pro-life people make their argument isnt inherently liberal. "Opposition to daycare can be premised on a person's view that 'proper' families have a mother at home which is a social conservative position." -You would have to prove thats what he believes which would be very difficult. Especially since he moved on giving rebate cheques to send kids off to daycare. "I don't know what writings of Mill you refer to there, but it would be necessary to demonstrate some substantial level of harm inevitable harm resulting drug use to cause a true liberal to think the state should prohibit peaceable private use." -From Mill's On Liberty: "That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection........the conduct from which to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to someone else". Arguing that drug use causes harm to others and society in general isn't all too difficult. Granted that marijuana, specifically, is a little bit trickier. It is up to society as a whole to make the determination of harm and if they do so with a decent amount of evidence prohibiting marijuana is not in opposition to the liberal tradition. note he argues that, "those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others ("young persons the age which the law may fix as that of manhood or womanhood"), must be protected by others" -As far as marijuana and anyone not of the age of the legal majority Mill would say prohibiting things that harm them is good. Marijuana kills braincells and isnt good for the lungs. "The law would exempt religious expression from laws that would otherwise apply if it weren't religious." -I haven't read the bill, just reports on it. Please elaborate with specifics. "I am a classical liberal." Do you support publicly funded daycare, a large sociel safety net? If you answer yes you might want to rethink defining youself a classical liberal. Classical liberals are in to "small" government. "1. Branded? I thought they were happy to be social conservatives!" -maybe a bad choice of word, why is anyone happy being intolerant? "2. Social conservatism and liberalism are NOT the same thing at all, in the least." -"social conservatism" is a relatively new term. I argue that if you look back at the liberal and conservative traditions you will see Harper fits into the classical liberal tradition. Society has evolved so that a large amount of liberal thinking exists in present day "conservatism". Contemporary conservatism in Canada is really classical liberalism.

a few comments: -I am a big supporter of changing to PR but even I realize that more than a 50% plus 1 threshhold is necessary. You cant make fundamental changes on low thresholds because you could be changing the fundamental way we operate our democracy every year or two (two fundamentals in the same sentence....reminds me of someone). Major changes to constitution, electoral system etc need more than 50 plus 1. Yes, this is a practical argument. I remind people though that doing something solely because it is "democratic" is a little silly. -Seen some love for the German mixed system in here. I dont support such a system since some MP's would not represent a geographical location. Regional representation is a good and fundamental part of our system and we shouldnt deviate from it. Check out the proposed BC-STV system. It cant be beat . The failure of it in the lkast referendum was because nobody knew what the hell it was (I worked the election so trust me this is true).The next time around the yes/no campaigns will be funded. The campaigns were non-existant last time around. I never once saw a yes or no sign during the campaign. Statistics show that people who know the system overwhelmingly support it. -The argument that any party would be disadvantaged by PR rests on the fact that they are currently advantaged by our system. PR is about correcting current advantages. -Why couldn't conservatives work with another party to keep a government going? The liberals and conservatives could work just as good or better than the liberals and ndp. -Generally I see majority governments as a problem. They are nothing more than elected distatorships that completely ignore usuallymore than half of our population. Minority governments aren't necessarily a bad thing. The reason they dont function well in our system is because politicians are concerned about posturing to win a majority next time out instead of cooperating to govern effectively. Take away the hope of getting amajority and see how they act. Cooperation, not competition is what the true meaning of democracy is.

Maybe he is taking a stand on principle and not partisan politics? That might be hard to believe from a politician in this country though. A lot of people in politics are begining to realize the electoral success that will be had from environmental policies. Not this election, maybe not the next but eventually this will be one if not the most important issue to a lot of people. Having a history of fighting for this portfolio is going to be big.

"-pro-forced-childbirth" Pro-lifers are not necessarily socially conservative. To argue that killing a fetus restricts its right to life is an argument based on liberalism. The abortion debate framed like this is two liberal arguments stressing different sides of a case where rights conflict. It is a myth that pro-lifers are socially conservative. Even religious arguments are moral based arguments and not religious ones. At least I dont think abortion is mentioned in the bible? (for the record I sit on the fence in the abortion debate) "-anti-daycare;" Nothing to do with social conservatism. This is a "small" government arguement which fits perfectly in the classical liberal tradition. -anti-gay; This is the one area where he becomes socially-conservative and not liberal. However, as I argued in a previous post it would probably be consistant with a lot of old-school liberal thinkers. Basically, it would make him a classical liberal who failed to evolve with society. "-pro-drug prohibition;" Maybe a non liberal stance. However, if we are to follow Mill than maybe drug prohibitions are in place because their use harms society. Such a stance is therefore consistant with a liberal tradition and not necessarily social conservatism. "-a member of a traditionalist church;" Theres a difference between choosing to believe a religion and its morals for yourself and trying to impose those on others. You can privately be socially-conservative but still subscribe to liberal ideology by not forcing it on others. "-leader of a government that proposes to enshrine religious privileges." Protection of the right to religion. Sounds like a liberal idea to me. All this makes him not all that much of a social conservative. The broader point I make here is that even those that are branded as the social conservatives in Canada are truly liberals. They just dont know it. Liberalism already won as the superior and acceptable ideology.

Canadian coast guard ships over the last week or two just recently made trips through and around the northwest passage that had never in history been conducted in october. The global climate is changing, that isnt up for debate. It is dishonest to talk about daily events not changing to try to distort the issue that the longer term trend (as opposed to daily events) is one of large scale warming. The vast majority of scientists believe that this warming is at least in part caused by humans.

I disagree with anything that moves away from "one person, one vote". None of the things listed that would result in an extra vote guarantee someone is more informed. It is arguably likely that the people who meet these requirements are more likely to be informed but thats no guarantee. It is also entirely possible and likely that many very well informed voters dont satisfy any of these requirements. As far as Im concerned there isnt a problem of uninformed people voting. Those who dont care and are not informed usually just dont vote. There is really no way to measure how informed a voter is, therefore,we ought to stick to one person, one vote. "And it doesn't solve the fundamental problems of a democratic vote: One voter's research work to discover the best candidate provides a free ride to non-voters." How can we counter the free-rider problem? Im not sure there really is anything that can effectively stop this. Mandatory voting is the worst solution because the winner is pretty much chosen randomly by those who dont wish to become informed. As far as Im concerned this isnt much of a problem anyways. Someone free loading off my knowledge doesnt bother me cause Im getting what I want. In fact the more people who freeload the more power my one vote gets. The effort involved in voting that results in lower turnouts is a way of weeding out those who shouldnt be voting because they arent informed enough or care enough to become informed. Lower turnouts arent inherently a bad thing. They are only troublesome, for example, if its because there arent good candidates. "A single ballot does not allow an expression of intensity of feeling."" I encourage you to learn about the British Columbia single transferable vote system (its a type of PR). It was recently proposed for use in BC and failed by just 3% to reach the necessary 60% in a referendum (we will be voting on it again I believe....with this time money being given to both yes and no sides to run a campaign which will likely result in its passing). Under this system ridings consists of multiple representatives. This allows for the system to automatically make itself more proportional. It is important to note that the system does not result in exact proportionality but is close. This system is superior to other forms of PR because all representatives must represent a geographical riding which is an important principle of our democracy in my opinion. It also has a built in "5% clause" because it is not directly proportionate and by its nature requires a certain level of support. Therefore, fringe parties are left out which is in my opinion beneficial. Basically the ballot allows you to rank candidates in order of your preference. The ballot consists of more than one candidate for each party which offers voters more choice (this is allowed since each riding elects multiple representatives). Where intensity of feeling comes in is that instead of only one vote you get to rank candidates using numbers, 1 meaning your first choice. This eliminates the "wasted vote" scenario of our current system as if your first choice is not selected or does not require your vote to be elected all or a portion of your vote is "transferred" to your other choices. Note, you can ensure that a candidate cannot recieve any of your vote by not assinging a number beside their name (you can rank as few or as many candidates as you wish). This system is complicated which is a good thing. Its like a built in "test". If you cant bother to learn how to vote you clearly are not bothering enough to be informed.

Technically Harper matches up pretty good with the Classical Liberal tradition.....probably along the lines of Locke to Friedman. Same as Paul Martin would be considered a "reform liberal" if you tried to match him into the liberal tradition (I wrote a paper for a political science course that made this argument...it got an A ). "You can't be a classical liberal and a social conservative." As this quote shows, peoples understandings of what is "liberal" vs. "conservative" have changed so significantly in the 20th century that they dont realize how contemporary politicians would fit into the ideological tradition. No politician in Canada could stand a chance if he didnt adhere to at least the classical liberal tradition. I bet someone like Locke would have had his ideas on liberty constrained by social conservatism (dont forget Locke was a major investor in the English slave trade). The fact is we have evolved in western democracies so that classical liberals are now conservatives and reform liberals are now just liberals.

Not sure, it would depend on whether or not the "Canadian interests" matched their own political and economic concerns. Can't say for sure.... try google.

While generally I have a high regard for your posts, lumping Israel and the US with NK and Iran is a tad over the top, don't you think? Not in this case. I can go through with you all the international humanitarian treaties that these four states are all consistantly non-signatories of. Of importance I will point to Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. Pretty much everyone has signed on except these four and a few others. In this sense these states are "rogue" as they willingly deviate from, refuse to be controlled by and answer to the accepted norms in international relations. In the way they conduct their international relations and their attitudes towards norms and laws they can all be lumped together quite nicely. Unfortunatly it isnt over the top.... thats the problem and US and Israeli citizens should question their governments why their views of international treaties are so similar to states such as Iran and North Korea.

1. the main religions want the world. Always have, always will. They might not even think that they do but their actions speak louder than their words. However, I shouldnt generalize to much. There are religous people who recognize the value of freedom and tolerance. 2. Religion as defined by wikipedia is "Religion is a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen being, or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought." Atheism does not fit this definition since an atheist would reject the "object,person,unforseen being,or system of thought considered to be supernatural". Atheism is more of a philosphy than a religion I guess. Maybe Im just splitting hairs...dunno. Of course aethiests try to exert their will on others. However I would argue that an aethiest is more prone to accepting religious beliefs than a religious person is to accepting aetheism. Aetheists will usually recognize that it is still a human that holds religious beliefs and accept their rights to do so. 3. No because aethiesm disputes the very existance of the gods that religions depend upon. The only neutral ground can be a recognition of each faiths right to exist. As far as public policy goes religion should not be considered and the inherent value in each person (regardless of race, language, religion, sexual preference etc) should be what determines freedoms. 4. Well what is the other option? No neutral ground means the inevitable clash of civilizations that has already begun. Am I talking too much like Samuel Huntington? 5. Lets look at all the religious governments currently existing today. Are any of them "right"? Ill let you answer that yourselves. Religous governments will never be able to provide true freedom because they will always be prone to forcing others to follow their religious way. Now some conservative folk are bound to respond that religous people are forced into being secular in our society. So I will preemptively call such comments rubbish. Freedom of religion is in the charter and is widely respected so dont play the poor oppressed religous card.

Did we not do our homework for monday morning? -I would assume that Canadian lumber companies lobbied for their interests. -I believe that some consumer groups in the states may have supported Canada's cause as softwood lumber tariffs increased the costs of american goods such as houses. However the lumber industry in the states is very good at lobbying. Zhang notes that "a small but concentrated softwood lumber industry can successfly lobby their elected officials such as Senators and demand protection from foreign competition, despite the fact that protectionism harms the economic welfare of the nation as a whole" (Zhang, From senators to the president: Solve the lumberproblem or else) -The NDP supported Canada's cause by whining like an immature child -the provinces: "Canadian provincial governments concerns for employment and stability of forest dependent communities, an industry attempting to secure immobile investments and reduce uncertainty objected to fundamental reforms involving a move toward a market system pricing of timer, a move at which at least would challenge the basic legitmacy of US trade actions" (Nelson and Vertinsky, The Canada-U.S. Softwood Lumber Disputes, 2004). However they note the difficulty for provinces to agree amongst themselves and therefore lobby more effectively. Consensus within provinces and the ability to reach a compromise with the US is also difficult. The general rule is "provinces with abundant but undeveloped resources are not interested in restrictions that stop the development of their resources, while provinces that have reached the limits of their wood supply may welcome restrictions" -As far as natives go Nelson and Vertinsky argue "First Nations communities see it as an alternative means to press their political concerns". Thats all they argue so not sure what exactly that means about the native position. Either way it adds to the complexity of the situation and further handicaps any chance within the province for consensus. -"How did the interest group advocated to both the federal and provincial governments?" Not sure but I would imagine from my reading here that most lobbying would be done on the provincial level. Provinces have jurisdiction over natural resources and are quick to assert it (Hoberg and Harrison,Its not easy being green: The politics of Canada's green plan, Canadian public policy 10(2), 1994). Although the federal government obviously has control over international trade it is reluctant to lead in areas of natural resources. sorry cant give any good definite answers. I actually have a lecture on thursday in international political economy on the Canada-US dispute. Might know more by then if its not to late.

"Can we all agree now that race definitely buys you some significant perks? Why aren't more Canadians upset at this?" Because the mere suggestion that Indians receive extra benefits will get you branded a racist, regardless of its factual accuracy.

Yes. There were highly abundant and vocal demonstrations, some verging on riots, against that process. Or are you conveniently forgetting about that? the current violations of international humanitarian law in Iraq get very little play by mainstream media compared with violations by insurgents. -numerous attacks on Fallujah were incredibly questionable. Outside of the more rogue non signatory nations such as Israel, North Korea, Iran and the US... most states that have signed and ratified Additional Protocol I of the Geneva convention would consider these actions to be illegal. This is due to the very indiscriminate nature of such attacks. It was made worse by the fact that the US army discriminated on the grounds of sex and age not allowing males between 15 and 45 to leave the city before the attack. The attacks on Fallujah could not be legally justified even as a belligerent reprisal. -the refusal to count and document Iraqi dead is a violation of international law. (article 16 of the first geneva convention which is binding on the US, UK and Australia as they have all signed) I have personally not heard one mention from any media source about this violation. -the use of depleted uranium as well as cluster bombs may not have been illegal for the US as non-signatories of additional protocol I but British involvement may be questionable....however such weapon choice is immoral by any civilized standards (these weapons are not chosen out of necessity or because they are highly successful weapons....they are chosen for being relatively cheap. Any civilized morality does not put price tags on innnocent lives)

Afghanistan and Iraq are completly different battles fought for completly different reasons. Clearly are not the same battle and should not be treated as such.

I think theres a few people in here that failed to read the entire article... ""Arshad Misbahi's comparison of same-sex relation to adultery is nothing but ignorant and utterly irresponsible rhetoric, manifesting the wrong teachings of Islam. The media should . . . not take it for granted as the general view of the Muslim community all over." Way too many people like to generalize. Not all muslims are freedom hating, women and jew hating terorrists. Just as not all Christians are intolerant bigots. "I find it sad that those on the left who responded to this thread for the most part(except for Liam) chose not to be critical of the Muslim cleric in question" Its pretty much impied that nobody on the left agrees with anything some nutjob like this says. Radicals like this have absolutly no desire to see the middle east become a civil and free society. The reason "leftists", I believe, are usually quicker to go after radical Christians is because they claim to want a civil and free society yet consistantly oppose minority groups. Radical Islamists, for the most part, never claim to want anything other than a religious state. As a liberal (which is not a lefitist) my concern is with those who believe that intolerance and racist thinking has any place in our society. Radical Islamists like this nutjob dont believe in free and civil societies while right wing religious folk claim they do.

This will be my final post in here because talking with you is not only like beating me head against the wall but it also affirms negative sterotypes of natives that I do not wish to believe true. Im going to leave and assume you are only an exception. "Besides, creating policies that allowed for Native children to be raped for decades at residential schools, and then purposefully taking them away and scattering them across north America in adoptive homes doesn’t give me the impression that Canada is nicer." Im talking present and you bring up the past. I never denied that there haven't been regrettable policies in place in the past. Im talking about the now. These things are awful but were done well before I and most Canadians were born so your comment saying we supported them by electing that government is rubbish. I could go and look up all sorts of stuff that natives have done in the past and say you support that kind of stuff. But I wont because I refuse to debate on your level of ridiculousness. "No, you only imply it. Give me a break. Why don't you speak of Native successes? Where are those posts Mr. "Oh-I-care-about-Natives-my-heart-bleeds-for-them." Besides, I clearly explained that your country has not lived up to its treaty obligations, and the policies and laws they set (without Native input, btw) have put my people in a hole that yours never had to deal with." Native successes are implied as well. At least I think it is implied that their are of course successful native people. Do you care to argue otherwise,and be careful what it means if you argue it isnt implied. Im only making an observation that on AVERAGE natives have a lower standard of lving and lower levels of employment. That is nothing more than a statistical fact. I suggest you look up the word average. I said,""desperatly want to see natives better off and support land claims in the hopes that it might help the native populations ". I realize that there were policies that put natives at a lower starting position but there also policies now that allow them extra benefits to climb out of that hole. Some of these are warranted some less so. Your unwillignness to even recognize the facts of the preferential benefits that are in place to try to right the wrongs of the past is dishonest. "Oh, I see. I disagree with you, ergo, I'm ridiculous." Your ridiculous because you assume my beliefs align with your preconceived notions of how "white" canadians are just because I question the extent of preferential policies. "Yes, and the other clear difference is that my THREE examples all speak to the fact you’re your people have a penchant for breaking the law, and then whining about Native rights." You cant use three examples and say that that is now the entire population of 30 million. Now if we want to talk about law breaking we can bring in crime statistics. I wonder which group has the highest crime rate? "What is the difference? Natives are exercising their rights in the public domain, while Cauco-canadians go around breaking the law with impunity? What kind of argument is that, Mr. Spin-a-rama?" One is government sanctioned! Its a point I make right in that post. Since you cant comprehend the meaning Ill explain. The government is sanctioning , making legal, allowing, promoting irreresponsible behaviour. It would be like your exmaples except adding on that the government sanctioned them. "What….one spoiled fish constitutes environmental waste?" First of all it wasn't one it was numerous and their dead bodies littered the river and banks. So yes that is environmental waste and irreresponsible that is completely UNNECESSARY. It isnt waste that is a necessary byproduct of the industry rather an avoidable waste. The main issues, however, is that it was during spawning. All the environmental groups had warned of the negative effects of not letting those fish spawn but apparanetly constitutional rights include the right to fish even when doing so will have a negative effects on the stocks. The thing is if I had gone and killed one of those fish I would have been arrested yet the antives were allowed to masacre the whole river. And then after this you have the balls to argue that natives are discriminated against in fishing policies? "Funny…there are Native-owned businesses in downtown Toronto who are operating in a fair environment, or do you to just prefer to ignore them…or better yet, you had no idea these businesses even existed? I’ve seen these businesses in every major city in Canada, and they do quite fine." I dont deny their existance I am arguing about the fishing industry specifically. That I am doing so would be recognized by anyone with half a brain. Yet you choose to ignore that fact and start talking about businesses in cities that have nothing to do with fishing. "All you are concerned about is Canada taking away any treaty rights without giving the land back that those rights were traded for. I know that this “something for nothing” principle has long been a facet of your people, but I’m sorry, that is not how reality works. At least find comfort in the fact that neither of us are satisfied by the current arrangement." Really its a desire for native people to live in Canadian society alongside other Canadians acting in a fair and equitable way. I believe the native population is completely capable of doing so. Do you deny that they are? Do they need preferential rights to succeed? I argue that they dont yet I am the racist. "If I just started on recent oil spills in Cauco-Canadian owned businesses in Alberta alone, I’d have so many fine examples that we’d have to start a separate thread." You cant see the difference between intentionally being irresponsible and accidents. Obviously accidents will happen and those companies pay for clean up when it does. Intentional practises, such as fishing during spawning season, are avoidable. "You live in B.C? Well, you should know better than questioning an Ontarian like myself. You know damn well that you can’t even fart without an OK from head office in Toronto. In fact, you should be thanking me for all the Ontarians that we send out there to run your government for you." lol what? Which ontarian runs our government? I cant fart without an ok from the Head office in Toronto? You mean government in Toronto? How does the provincial goverment of Ontario have any power over me? "I disagree. Most complaints come from Cauco-Canadians who don’t like the fact that they don’t get their own way anymore" None of the complaints put to the government of BC took this as their argument. It was based on unequal and unfair rules. Im not going to deny that racism probably played apart in some peoples opinion on native fisheries but no native rights today would ever be revoked on racist arguments in this country. "Your people’s idea that natural resources are infinite is not only foolish, but irresponsible." Well I provided a good example that it is apparently not only "my people". The only ones left with these beliefs are the hardline crazy conservatives. "it wasn’t Native policies that made the cod disappear" But would native policies have been different. Doubtful. The cod fisheries was a classic tragedy of the commons example which the government didnt have the balls to regulate effectively. "In the grand scheme of things, I’d prefer to look like a homeless person than a serial killer, mass murderer and a rapist. That doesn’t sound too dumb to me, now does it." You really missed the point. The point is I dont look like a serial killer, mass murderer or a rapist just as you dont look like a homeless person. The higher percentage or likely prevalence of something in a group doesnt make everyone else automatically like that. If that were true all natives would look like they were unemployed which I hope you agree is not true. Im starting to think the problem is you just dont like "white" people. "All I know is that I hear many people here talking about what “Canadians” feel, and it became obvious at the racist march that the “Canadians” that share your feelings happen to be entirely Cauco-Canadian, whereas the “Canadians” at the potluck were a mix of many races found in Canada. This tells me that your views represent a small portion of the population, whereas mine are far broader than I thought previously." Well Id point out that you have incorrectly interpreted my views so you dont have a clue about what I believe. But I cant convince you otherwise because its easier for you to just assume falsehoods then come to grips with reality. "Correction…Cauco-canadian public opinion may turn. I’d like to see a bit more representation of people of colour in your ranks before you get all “Canadian” on me" In my ranks? There are lots of "people of colour" in all sorts of positions of power. My MP was born in China. How many non-natives have positions in native governance on reserves? The Korean strip mall to the extent that peoples leases were voided on the grounds of their race was actually the Korean owner with racist policies. Either way I never played any race card so what are you talking about? You generalize so much about "white"people. A few white people were upset that they lost their leases because of their race so Brad must also feel the same way. "Buddy; you have only told me that natives need to be steamrolled into submission." No I said if they increase their demands the government ought to say no because this country belongs to everyone. "You’ve offered no argument on changes to laws (unless it helps steamroll Natives), or changes to policy (unless it helps steamroll Natives)," Policies are already in place to help the native population and they shouldnt need anymore. If they cant do it with the hand being held out as is then there is something wrong we need to address. I for one believe they can make it without any additional preferential programs. "you tell me that you want negotiations when your own government tries to sell the land in question before negotiations are even complete" When there are natives who refuse to negotiate fairly and refuse to recognize the governments efforts to help them then what can the government do? In negotiation, unfortunatly, it is necessary to show your power if the other side refuses to recognize it. That just the way things are. "you expect me to thank you for allowing my ancestors to be raped as children" Yes because I said that. Dont be stupid. "and to top that off, you tell me that whites breaking the law with impunity is OK, while Natives using their treaty rights are bad" I didnt say that their breaking the law was alright but of course Id expect no other comment from you as you have proven yourself to be utterly dishonest. Please see my point above on the difference between illegal/irreposible behaviour and that behaviour being encouraged by the government. "and that one spoiled fish is the moral equivalent of the damage done to our lakes and rivers and our natural resources by Cauco-canadians since your ancestors first arrived." No. Polution is an evil of industrialization for an increase in standard of living. It is different when the pollution or waste is completely avoidable. You have no problem with enjoying the benefits of industrialization that the "evil white man" brought though. "The day I hear one of you say “Oh…did you hear about Dudley George, that poor Canadian fellow killed by the OPP at Ipperwash?” is the day I’m Canadian." I thought you didnt want to be Canadian? "say that I preach the removal of non-Natives from the land" I apologize for this it was actually Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne' who said it and you responded to a post that I made in reply to his comments. My bad. Doesnt refute the fact that you dishoenstly interpret everything I say. Its either you do it dishoenstly or lack the intelligence to understand it properly. Take your pick which it is. Good day

"should the Canadian government treat Canadian lenders any differently than foreign lenders? Does it matter to a Canadian taxpayer whether her agent - the Canadian government - has borrowed on her behalf from a foreigner or a Canadian?" It just seems to be better for national interest to pay interest to Canadians rather than foreigners. Therefore it seems to make more sense to pay down foreign debt first. Obviously that is complicated by what the agreement is for the repayment. Im of the pay down the government debt crowd. Im not saying that having debt is bad but its at an unreasonable level. When the government shells out billions in interest payments a year we're missing out on a lot. For me there are moral implications as well. It is the younger generations who have been shafted by the debt by being forced to pay interest on a loan they recieved no benefits from. Individuals willingly took loans out because they decided the benefits of doing so outweighed the costs of the interest. The government debt should be paid down so that people who gain no benefits from it dont have to keep paying a ridiculous amount of interest on it. Either way, putting this money to paying down the debt was a political move. Harpers hands were pretty much tied. If he cut taxes he would have the left screaming, if he spent it the right would be screaming. If he split it neither side would be happy with how much they got. Solution: nobody gets it.

I love how when anyone ever tries to discuss a minority group someone always plays the race card. In fact my posts have argued against racist preferential policies. Accusing others of racism when they have made no such comments is dishonest and used far to often as a diversion method. If one does feel the need to accuse another of racism they better damn well be specific and have proof instead of making blanket accusations against all people participating in a thread. Your post has the effect of lessoning the seriousness of racism.

A few questions that maybe someone can answer: 1. What portion of the national debt is financed domestically? I see little problem in having debt where the interest is paid to domestic actors. But if the interest is going to other countries, IO's etc is that not a net loss? Does it work this way? 2. A few people in here are arguing for a tax cut with the surplus. A tax cut of $6.7 billion would increase consumption a large amount, no? How much effect would this increase in consumption have on inflation seeing that the economy is running near its potential level if Im not mistaken. I think we can all agree that keeping inflation within the BOCs target range is an important factor to consider.

from the site you provided: "was found guilty of beating her husband to death with a steel hammer as he slept." Obviously there are questions of whether or not she was guilty but if she is then she received the same punishment she would have possibly recieved in texas. Just without all the appeals that are present in the US system which more than just a few conservatives argue against. (for the record Im against the death penalty in any country) Although I would argue on intervening to protect people's lives I see that as much different than imperialism.

"The USA, the world's first non-imperial superpower needs to change its ways and start IMPERIALIZING!!!" I wonder what Latin America would have to say about this comment. Their intervention policies were a new form of imperialism in my opinion.

Your opinion is based on an assumption that religous people dont ever break the morals laid out by their god. Since they undoubatly do, morals derived from god are no more stronger than those from any social contract. Morals in a social contract are still just as "real" as any morals from a god. Both are created, one by humans the other apparently by some higher being. I would argue when an individual has a say in what they personally believe to be moral and enter into a contract with other individuals to form a society where each respects and accepts the others morals they are both more likely to not break the contract than they would if the morals were dictated to them (ie by a god). There is little incentive to break the contract since your morals are respected and not dictated to you. You already get what you want and all you give up is allowing others to enjoy the same freedom of choice as you. The problem with religious folk is they see moral sets as competing in a zero-sum game. The more one set is accepted the less another is. It is this mind set that is one of the reasons that religions have and will always lead to conflict. Additionally, you have failed to realize something about god derived morals: there is not only one set on this planet. There are many religions and many gods all with different morals, and even within the same religion interpretations vary. How can you then claim that there is an absolute set of morals? I never said that people who believe in God dont break their own standards. But when you remove absolutes and have a social contract, you can no longer say that what Hitler did was wrong, because the part of the standard social contract he violated was never created by him but only by another human and he apparently didnt agree to it. So he faced the consequences of renegging on the contract, and cannot be said to have been wrong, if there are no absolutes that is. Put differently, if there is no absolute then the social contract is not really morality at all, but just a deal. The most interesting point that comes into my mind in response is that Hitler could have easily claimed that his morals were god derived. His claim to god derived morals would be no different in terms of legitmacy than the original claims of I guess Jesus (my religious knowledge isnt good lol). Either way his actions are still morally wrong on the grounds that they go against the limitations of what you are free to choose is moral. In a liberal society you are only free to choose your morals as long as they dont harm others or restrict others people rights. Clearly Hitler is then considered immoral. I would think most ethical aetheists prescribe to the harm principle.