Canadian Blue

I already have a response to that: With regards to abortion and the death penalty I think you can keep dreaming. Harper wouldn't dare risk an election on either issue. However from what I hear Stephen Harper may force an election on the issue of whether or not Canadian's want soldiers with guns in cities. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMsqEph7a8I...feature=related This is of course in response to your claim that Harper has a scary hidden agenda to turn us into something akin to 1950's Alabama. Come on Jdobbin, you know politics for the most part is about winning. You can't honestly tell us that the LPC is always truthful and never puts any spin on the issues in order to get votes. Seriously, you can't honestly tell me that most Liberals weren't happy in the 90's when they realized their was no chance of any opposition party forming government. The Liberals should have reformed their party from 2006-2008, they didn't. Your party dug itself into this mess, and it likely won't learn from it's mistakes simply because many people in the party think they're entitled to power. Perhaps the Liberals should have listened more often to Gerard Kennedy who wanted to bring in reforms to the party.

Come on August, here is what politics in Canada basically entails: 1. Conservatives - Liberals will destroy the economy, we'll throw money into a giant hole in the hopes we can remain in government. 2. Liberals - Conservatives will destroy the economy, if only we'd be in power this entire global depression wouldn't have affected us; once we're in power we'll throw money in a giant hole. 3. New Democrats - I blame big oil and George W Bush. 4. Bloc Quebecois - We want to separate from you english pigs, however... if you can give us an extra billion in equalization we'll hold off the separation for a year. 5. Green Party - Hi, I'm Elizabeth May and I'm a member of the Elizabeth May [Green] Party.

I don't think he is, and that wasn't to Harper's credit it was a criticism if you bothered to notice. No, me and Jdobbin argued about it in the election thread. Keep in mind that he's a hyper-partisan Liberal meaning the LPC can never do any wrong.

Unfortunately, which is why our system will likely be bankrupt because people are more receptive to emotion than reality. Most people like yourself refuse to look at any reform of the system simply because you don't want to be "American." No, it wasn't. It was unpopular amongst the looney left, but not amongst all Albertan's. As for Jean Chretien, I think the LPC is well known for their attitude which is essentially screw the west. But I think the criticism by Chretien was fairly frivilous considering the fact many Liberals opt for US style healthcare if they require it. As well Bill 11 didn't collapse. Don't worry my friend, I think smug Liberals such as yourself should take more notice of the colonies once in a while. Liberals don't like Alberta, we're far too supportive of business. After all I believe your own party has made the effort to state that Alberta is single handedly destroying the planet earth. Because the Federal Liberals were rallying against any healthcare reform in Alberta. After all even dear Jean Chretien who I can only assume is infallible to you stated that he prefers to work with people from the east instead of western polticians. Now please I think you have to go to a Liberal Party meeting where you can discuss how to solve the scourge of firearms use amongst Ducks Unlimited members and talk about how competition in healthcare is always a bad thing.

I don't think the CPC is infallible, which is why I've stated that I don't expect much from the coming budget which will likely be Harper throwing money around the country in a futile attempt to appease the opposition. That money likely won't do much, especially when it comes to the auto industry. As for Tory supporters thinking their own party is infallible, I think that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. With regards to abortion and the death penalty I think you can keep dreaming. Harper wouldn't dare risk an election on either issue. However from what I hear Stephen Harper may force an election on the issue of whether or not Canadian's want soldiers with guns in cities. As for making inaccurate statements, I believe you were the one who argued that NAFTA was the brainchild of the Liberals and not the Tories.

You mean like yelling sociopath and saying Harper needs to be taken out like a rabid dog. But you do find the Liberals without error and do believe they are infallible. Much like when you argued that in 1988 the Liberals were for free trade and the Tories were against it, which was news to me. Or for that matter when you argue that the Tories are going to end abortion as we know it and re-instate the death penalty, which is once again something that hasn't happened yet. Like I stated before, you simply come off as shrill and hyper-partisan. Yes, you are a hyper-partisan jdobbin theirs no getting around it, that's why you blindly accept anything the Liberal Party does and believe they are always altruistic in their motives, while the people on the other side of the aisle are evil sociopaths who want to destroy the country.

Klein took such a hit that in fact that he would later win the provincial election with a 74 seat majority and 60% of the popular vote. Come on jdobbin, just admit that the Liberals like to use the west as a whipping boy but won't dare touch Quebec. As compared to all the transfer payments that go out of Alberta to Quebec which ironically enough now has private healthcare. Say jdobbin are the Liberals infallible with no error all the time? Their would still be an element of public funding similar to what the Swiss do.

Jdobbin, you're abit shrill today, no? By the way it's somewhat rich to call everyone else a hyper-partisan when you blindly follow anything that comes from Liberal Party HQ.

I myself am no Liberal, nor am I on the left as I'm sure many of you know. Eecently the Alberta Liberal Party [which tends to see success as getting more than 10 seats in a 83 seat legislature] elected left leaning David Swann as it's leader over the moderate Dave Taylor and fiscal conservative Mo Elhalsy. This came as a complete shock since I thought the contest was Taylor's to lose, especially since he seemed to be the only one who had a chance in hell of appealing to a larger share of Albertan's in the centrist mould. David Swann on the other hand is a committed leftist, one need only look at his blog to recognize that. http://www.davidswann.ca/blog/ Needless to say most Albertan's tend to feel immediate revulsion to politicians who praise taxation. That being said, we now have a situation where their are three parties which are firmly situated on the left. The parties include the Alberta Liberals, New Democrats, and the Greens. Each election cycle the end result is often a Tory juggernaught with the other parties picking up parcel support in a few urban ridings. My hope now that the ALP is sitting firmly on the left is that David Swann will talk about a possible merger of one or both of the other left wing parties. The only reason I support such a move is to help create a stronger opposition party in Alberta. Will it get into government, not bloody likely. Will the opposition be more effective, chances are it will. Simply because we would see more seats going to this party from the urban areas and maybe a couple of rural areas. However the party will still not be a viable alternative for government simply because it won't be in the mould of the prevailing political culture which is conservative. If the PC's ever go down in defeat it will come from a threat on the right flank. With the way the current government is running I wouldn't be surprised if we see a resurgence in support for perhaps the Wildrose Alliance or a separate upstart right wing party. In the meantime my suggestion to those on the left would be to put all of their collective abilities into one party on the left so they can at the very least have some kind of unified voice in a predominantly conservative province. http://www.davidswann.ca/news_issues_archi...enewal_FFWD.pdf

The factory, and gun running. However rest assured even if we were to stop manufacturing weapons in North America I'm sure some will find a way in from Russia and China. Interestingly enough I have an application in the process with a law enforcement agency right now. However their is a simple reason why, the police aren't everywhere. In my stomping grounds response time could range from 10 minutes to well over an hour depending on the conditions. I have full faith in law enforcement, however I recognize that LE can't be counted on at all times, especially if god forbid an entire community were to erupt into mass chaos. That's a decent argument, however the current situation in Canada is far different. CCW isn't even an issue, especially when the current opposition party is seeking to put bans on more and more weapons, including semi-automatic rifles. At the very least can you agree to the idea that a person should be able to own a handgun for protection of their home if they see it fit.

In that case why don't we ban Tim Hortons, Cigarettes, Alcohol, Bikes, Motor Boats, Trans Fats, Candy, and any other item that we don't believe serve a great purpose in society. The benefit with a firearm is that you can use it for hunting, self defence, and pleasure. If you don't know then why did you automatically assume that if you flipped the bird to someone you'd get shot in the head? Because people in the District of Columbia, New York City, and Chicago, have seen their share of drive by shootings. You keep on going on and on about how any person who wants to own a firearm wants to play "armed avenger." That's an appeal to emotion, not an actual argument for why all guns should be banned in society. A better question is why you think people shouldn't be able to defend themselves in a home invasion if that were to ever happen. If you're logic did hold true then one would expect that shootouts would occur on a regular basis in New Hampshire.

How many incidents happen like that in the Dallas and Houston area? They would likely happen with or without a ban on guns, and quite frankly your entire argument thus far is based on emotions and not much else.

Perhaps the thinking is that we should have taken a firm stance that the Soviets should leave Eastern Europe after the war instead. That would have been better than simply going 'meh' while the Iron Curtain was falling across Europe.

Which is odd because I could have sworn Liberals everywhere in the late 90's were talking about how Alberta was a cold hearted and evil place for Bill 11. Say jdobbin, why did the LPC bash Alberta so much due to healthcare reform yet hasn't made a peep about Quebec?

We should privatize most of the healthcare system, but make it mandatory to buy health insurance. For those who truly require the additional money to get coverage the government can simply top them off from a general fund so we can achieve 100% coverage. Let's give individuals the power to make their own choices when it comes to healthcare. http://www.reason.com/news/show/34854.html Allowing private insurance in healthcare won't be cold hearted or "American" as many Liberals would like you to believe. If anything allowing competition amongst different healthcare providers would improve the care and efficiency of our system, which is better then instead having bureaucrats who are completely cut off from the system make the decisions when it comes to funding, research, etc. With regards to the American system, the fact is that if people were fully aware of all the benefits available through government welfare the US would be nearly achieve 100% universal coverage. The fact is that America is actually a combination of all the different healthcare systems in the world, when it comes to veterans and seniors they're Canada, for employees like Germany, and for many individuals they simply decide not to get it. It's far from perfect and requires alot of work, but the answer isn't to move towards a more inefficient and bureaucratic healthcare system.

I should be more clear, when buying guns I think people should have to do a basic background criminal and psychological check to ensure they can carry said firearms, as well I would like to see a mandatory course put in place. Outside of that I do not see the need for the government to put on needless regulation about whether or not I can buy a firearm based on the length of the barrel. I never stated I would always be on the winning end of a confrontation. However in a confrontation I would hope to have at the very least a fighting chance to protect myself when defending my property.

I've lived in both rural and urban areas, yet I still think that people should be allowed to have firearms if they feel they need one to protect themselves or their property. Kind of like Switzerland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caroline...os-p1000507.jpg Once again, education is always a better alternative than more shotty regulations. One problem, by stating that law abiding citizens should not be allowed firearms, you are essentially stating that we can trust every person we see. If every person was benevolent with not a trace of maliciousness their would be no need for firearms in society.

Because it would provide a niche market for such a product. Do you honestly think the US government prohibiting alcohol was able to reduce demand. Same goes for drugs, by making marijuana illegal it simply added another niche to be filled by organized crime. Perhaps we would have been better off if the government didn't make laws against such vices in the first place. I never compared Vermont to Chicago, however it should be noted that if your theory is true that more guns cause more crime, then the Vermont and New Hampshire should be rampant with criminal activity. What I'm stating is that by prohibiting a product like drugs or firearms you are then creating another avenue for organized crime to exploit. Such an action would only further criminalize the actions of citizens who would otherwise not be criminals. I can't directly comment on that as you're simply being morally presumptuous. I do favour people doing basic courses before being able to own firearms, however I'm 100% against any bans. But I don't see how this belief that in order to cut crime in Toronto one must go after Ducks Unlimited has any merit to it. If you're arguing for a ban or more regulations, then you should atleast tell us how disarming law abiding citizens will reduce crime in Toronto. So far all the current argument is made of is purely presumptuous moral superiority.

What a load of BS. Nobody professes genetic disloyalty, we all have different genes so it's somewhat hard to be genetically loyal since we're not all carbon copies due to our skin pigmentation. I am not a product of a certain tribe, in fact I'd say that our strength in the west comes from the fact we abandoned petty tribalism ages ago.

Loyalty to race is bad, simply because it assumes that one shares a fatuous bond based on the weakest of physical traits. No, I'm pretty sure most of us realized that not every Arab loves Bush.

Our military is made up of volunteers, not conscripts. I would never support the draft as that would be a complete disgrace to the basic ideal of individual liberty which we should be upholding. As well minorities have died in Afghanistan while serving with the CF. It's not just "white Christian meat."

I was more shocked by the last couple of lines about the "white christian meat." I myself have never been to Afghanistan on tour, however I'm currently a member of the Canadian Forces in the reg force. Hardly an elitist type. Most members I've known have been extremely proud of what they're doing over in Afghanistan and believe the sacrifice is worth it. That being said their are a number of reasons we should stay in Afghanistan, which are for the benefit of ourselves and the Afghans. Leaving at this moment would essentially create anarchy in the country and we would once again see the country becoming a larger breeding ground for terrorist training camps. I also believe we are needed their to help those Afghan's who want to see their country become a successful liberal democracy. We shouldn't be there forever, but we should only leave once we're certain the Afghan's can take care of themselves and any internal threats they might face.

What?

Not necessarily. Prohibiting an item or product such as a gun will actually increase demand for it on the black market. Just because a few nancy boys in the local legislature made a bill banning the sale of guns, it does not mean that the criminals will automatically follow that one law. What it will do is make criminals of law abiding citizens. Now I currently don't own guns, however I likely will in the future; but I have no issue if a business owner of individual citizen feels that they require a firearm to protect themselves or their property. If you want to see the effects of prohibition or other idealistic legislation, you need only look at the current use and abuse of drugs in our society. It's far better to allow legitimate businesses to profit from selling guns instead of organized crime.

You guys have it all wrong, the journalist got the idea from Austin Powers.