scribblet

That would be fine, except every time anyone critisizes the government or it's policy they're called "anti-American" by some idiot rightwinger. Rightwingers are the ones who need learn the distinction between governments and people. Not really. There's a difference between crit. a gov't (and a foreign one at that) and malicious intent, with the express purose of trying undermine or bring down that government.

Could this be so, would they really try to bring down the gov't over day care? http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...d1-61fcc38667f0 (subscription required) some exceprts from article ....... Child care will be the showdown of the spring as the first Conservative budget kills off the $5-billion Liberal giveaway scheme to the provinces and substitutes a promised $1,200 direct parental subsidy for every under-six child. A great divide is opening up on two fronts. Liberal leadership hopefuls are already jockeying for attention on the file, making ominous bluster about bringing down the government if they don't get their way. Fat chance, but they'll have the New Democrats as perturbed partners and the Bloc Quebecois all knicker-knotted about protecting Quebec's unique status as child-care central, so defeat is theoretically possible for a minority government. ....... The YWCA belittles the Conservative plan with unbecoming vitriol, arguing it will be a setback for women's equality and keep moms stuck in the kitchen, presumably barefoot. "The solution to this crisis does not lie in paying mothers to stay home or giving families money so that they can choose a child-care option, as the right wing has proposed," the reports argues. "Giving money to families does nothing to ensure the creation and sustainability of an adequate supply of quality affordable early childhood services." They obviously think parents will just buy beer and popcorn with the handout, but the statistics don't back up their argument that the daycare market is unresponsive to parental demand without government intervention.

Could this be the death knell of the NDP.... is this the start of a unite the left.... http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Commenta...25/1504737.html Sat, March 25, 2006 EDITORIAL: Ditching the NDP will benefit CAW -snip- Ignoring the war of words between Hargrove and the NDP, the far more significant issue here is that rank and file CAW members no longer support the NDP en masse, if they ever did. Today, the CAW has very little political clout in terms of how its members vote in elections. The main value of the CAW to the NDP is that it can supply financial support from union coffers and campaign workers from the ranks of union activists. The reality is it makes far more strategic sense today for the CAW to support parties on an issue by issue basis -- particularly since so many CAW workers don't vote NDP. Ironically, the improved wage and benefit packages the CAW has negotiated for its members over the years has steadily pushed them into the middle class, to the point that many now oppose traditional NDP "tax and spend" policies. Breaking formal ties with the NDP could actually make the CAW leadership far more politically relevant to its rank and file members than it is today. If, as we said at the outset, Hargrove is serious about this split. As for the NDP, there's no upside for it in this fight. It needs the CAW far more than the CAW needs it, something you'd think it would have figured out by now.

In Iraq With guns and Ammunition I am not making this up

Probably sue them for expenses too.....boy surely even a liberal wouldn't go for him as leader.

I agree for the most part, except I do believe there should be some temporary assistance for people who are really trying e.g. a single mother trying to get a job. It should be based on income. I sure don't agree with taxpayer funding for ALL people.

Wow, this is telling it like it is...rock on http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news...1b-2284d82b5953 Hostages were 'dupes,' Iraq says Freed peace activists refusing to co-operate with British TORONTO - Iraq's embassy to Canada lashed out at the Christian Peacemaker Teams Friday, calling them "phoney pacifists" and "dupes" after the antiwar group responded to the rescue of three of its kidnapped activists by condemning the U.S.-led military intervention in Iraq. The Iraqi embassy called CPT "willfully ignorant" and "outrageous," and accused the Chicago-based group of being on the side of anti-democratic forces in Iraq. "The Christian Peacemaker Teams practises the kind of politics that automatically nominate them as dupes for jihadism and fascism," the embassy's statement said. A British-led special forces team on Thursday rescued three CPT members, who had been kidnapped in Baghdad nearly four months earlier

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/1957421.stm sorry don't know why, try this one. I agree we need to be tolerant of others, but so far I don't see a whole lot of tolerance coming from the Muslim religion. They need to walk the talk more than any other religion.

Good post Betsy, so far Canada has a Prime Minister we can be proud of, and our Military a leader who will stand up for them. They deserve no less. The Liberals and the other opposition parties’ threats to defeat the CPC will limit his ability to bring about the changes that Canadians deserve so he has to tread carefully.

For every argument supporting private healthcare, there are at least a dozen that show why it can't and doesn't work. It will be like a hotel. Those with money will get the luxury suites, and those without the broom closet. However, this thread was not necessarily to pit private and public, but to state that while Stephen Harper is posturing about protecting the Canada Health Act - it is just that - posturing - and the dream that he and the NCC had about scrapping Medicare is now within his grasp. If he had a majority government he could take his time, but with a vulnerable minority, it will be fast tracked. The stage is set and his ducks are in a row. More journalism, CBC style? A "secret agenda of getting rid of health care" My Oh My still going on about secret agendas etc. More nonsense, innuendo and supposition, not based on facts. You have not provided your source and certainly have not been able to show the current CPC policy or platform which supports your accusations. These tactics are very similar to those used by the Dems in the U.S.. and their media allies. Fortunately, there are many reasonable people who have come to recognize that this type of nonsense only hurts their party or position when they spread unsupported innuendo about Harper and the CPC . This accusation harkens back to the 1993 campaign when unscrupulous PC cabinet ministers visited hospitals and nursing homes telling seniors that the Reform Party would take away their health care. Such tactics made many run scared from the Reform Party, (which only called for allowing provinces to run their own health care systems by the way). Not to mention it happened in my riding in 2004; not cabinet ministers but Liberals. We need to condemn the silly and libelous stories. There is no need to destroy our health care system in the name of "saving health care" as Liberals et al like to say. In time these people will be forced to try to defend their lies and they will lose the next election for sure.

Anyone else hear that David Orchard might be running for the Liberal leadership? Well, we always knew he wasn't really a conservative.

As for the CPC platform - it is the Reform Party platform, regardless of what colour or banner they are currently waving. When Stephen Harper wrote the policy for the Reform Party; according to past National Citizens' Coalition president, David Somerville, it was cribbed from the NCC handbook. The NCC was formed to fight medicare. Maybe you could provide us with a link to back up that statement, contrary to your statements the CPC is NOT Reform; nothing like it, so please provide a source and documentation to policies which would back up your statement. Harper has also distanced himself from the Manning and Harris paper. In fact, contrary to previous Conservative policy the CPC adopted support for both the Health Act and a move to prevent two-tiered healthcare prior to the 2004 election. While I don't doubt that the door may be opened to some private clinics (which I agree with) and the provinces could be given more flexibility, there is nothing to back up your statements.

I agree, they are not heroes by any sense of the word, the rescue was a job well done, no matter how they did, they got the out. What is it with conspiracy theoriests and the drive to discredit everything the west does. Interesting that so far from what I've read, there has been no comdemnation of the kidnappers, in fact, the founder Doug Pritchard chose to reiterate the organization's political stance: "We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq." Hmmmm

Great article, would the liberals be so foolish as to bring down the gov't without a leader? http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/is...59-9e1885e0b14e Go ahead, Liberals. Make Canada's day Brace yourself Canada. The Liberals are huffing and puffing and threatening to blow the Conservative house down when Parliament resumes in early April. The crime? Prime Minister Stephen Harper may not implement the former government's expensive, intrusive day-care plan -- a plan designed to gild the cradle part of Canada's cradle-to-grave left-wing ideal. But Canadians never rallied to this issue in the first place. Nor did we re-elect its main proponent. In fact, we elected a government with a very different view about how to assist families with children. Rather than creating a bloated equivalent to the health-care system, Stephen Harper thinks the government should give some money back to us and let us decide how best to spend it. What a radical idea, eh? A political leader giving us credit for being at least a half-wit. This idea, you will recall, inspired Liberal attack dogs to ridicule voters on the basis that if Harper gave us some of our money back we wouldn't provide for our kids but rather blow it all on "beer and popcorn." Liberals apparently believe that we have no wit, and it is only they who can spend our money properly. These are the same politicians who blew so many billions on ill-conceived and woefully mismanaged programs that it's hard even to keep track. And now they're making noises about bringing down the government we just elected and forcing another election. Even if it's just huffing and puffing, one has to wonder whether the Liberals have learned anything from being dispatched to the opposition benches. It takes a certain arrogance to get thrown out of power in late January and then, not 60 days later, start talking about trying to seize it back. With no leader, $4-million in party debt, no guiding political direction and lingering internal divisions left over from the Martin/Chretien wars, the Liberals would have to be utterly stupid to force an election. snip Many of us would like to finish the job and establish stability in our government by electing a Conservative majority. In the relatively short time since the federal election, Harper has done more to improve Canada's image on the world stage than Paul Martin did during his entire reign. The PM's support for our armed forces and show of solidarity by joining our boys and girls in Afghanistan has done more for national unity than anything in recent Liberal memory. In a workman-like manner, Harper is restoring the Canada we knew and loved to Canadians. The David Emerson non-scandal aside, Canadians like what they've seen from the Conservatives. A majority government would allow the Prime Minister to implement his vision, which Canadians could clearly judge come the next election. Moreover, it would finalize the message to the Liberals that they must go away, refresh their leadership and ideas, and only then come back to seek our vote. So go ahead, Bill Graham. Bring down the government. It would be the dawn of a new political reality in Canada. Just not the one you want.

What a pile of rot. Check out Harper's statements and the policy re: adhering to the Canada Health Act, and maybe you should try googling contributors to the liberals. Gawd, I need a bigger tin foil hat. Yes exactly the same as Harris, I won't cut Health care and then laid off 20% of our nurses who now work the same amount of hours but have no benefits and must work in seveal hospitals. Remember our new Health Ministers surprise when he found out during the Sars crisis that so many nurses were working part time in several hospitals. Our health care need more doctors and nurses, not cutting and promoting Private Care which most of the people in our area, average wage about $26,000 a year, can't afford. Oh yes let the old die. You know full well Harris (and previously Bob Rae) had to make cuts because of the liberal's cutting transfer payments. Your statement about letting the old die is a crock, no government has ever intimated that they would do such a thing. What they need to do is let old ideas die. They also need to open more university medical spaces, and entice doctors/nurses back from the U.S. When someone uses a private system they are not moving up in the line, they are getting out of it, enabling you to move up. No one is suggesting that the current system be abolished, all they want is choice and the ability to spend their hard earned $$$ as they see fit.

Pretty good article here about tolerance and comments by Prince Charles.m http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ed...f5-2d200b1bf9f2 I fully agree that there is absolutely NO moral equivalence between "Islamophobia" in Europe and the barbarism in many Muslim countries. "The plea for tolerance among people of faith by Charles, Prince of Wales is welcome, especially coming as it does in the heart of a region beset by intolerance. Speaking to an audience of Muslim clerics at Al-Azhar University in Cairo on Tuesday, the Prince emphasized the similarities between the world's great monotheistic religions -- Christianity, Islam and Judaism -- and spoke out against those who under the cloak of religion seek to foment hatred and division. "Responsible men and women," he said, "must work to restore mutual respect between faiths." There is no place in the world where this message is more urgently needed than the Muslim Middle East. Consistent with the Western media's penchant for civilizational self-flagellation, much of the commentary on the Prince's remarks has predictably focused on his criticism of the notorious Danish cartoons of Muhammad, and his statements regarding the need for greater acceptance of Muslim minorities in Western countries. Among them: "I think of the experience of Muslims living in Europe who are subject to varied and continuous expressions of Islamophobia by fellow Europeans." But his remarks cut both ways: "I think of Christians living within some Muslim nations, who find themselves fettered by harsh and degrading restrictions, or subject to abuse by some of their fellow citizens. And I think of dreadful acts of terrorism and violence across the world carried out in the distorted name of faith." It goes without saying that there is no moral equivalence between what the Prince terms "Islamophobia" in Europe and the cruelty -- indeed barbarism -- meted out to non-Muslims in many Muslim countries when they attempt to observe their faith. And we presume the Prince understands that. The fact is that the situation for Muslims in the West is very nearly the same as that faced by practitioners of any other religious belief in a determinedly secular society, and radically unlike anything experienced by Christians or Jews in Muslim countries. Even if faith is not celebrated, freedom of religion is studiously observed in the secular countries that once made up Christendom (and also in the state of Israel). This respect and acceptance are reciprocated in few Muslim countries. On the contrary, brutal attacks on churches in Pakistan, the outright prohibition of Christianity and other minority religions in Saudi Arabia, anti-Jewish hate-mongering and a perpetual campaign of harassment, inequality and attacks are the norm."

Until of course he has a majority? No, he won't, he may allow more private clinics or diagnostics as in Quebec, but he has made it clear he will not dismantle the health care system. He does know that it is a sacred cow to which most Canadian bow. He knows enough not to try it, majority or not. If a member of my family needed faster treatment I wouldn't hesitate to cash in some RSP's and help them out to purchase it, we should have the option to do that. We can pay for our pets to have an MRI but not ourselves. Why do others care how I spend my money, its my business and I should have the choice. I agree about the American HMO's, but in talking to our many U.S. friends they are not all bad, and they all have access to decehnt coverage.

I was wondering why it's in the Canada politics area. Thanks for explaining. Well I wasn't sure about it. I believe euthanasia has been coming up for debate in Canada, and won't be surprised to see something like this follow, although I doubt Canadians would be ready for it any time soon. Meanwhile the French are extending their abortion limits. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1360960.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1389271.stm the Dutch have a floating abortion ship, maybe their next step is a floating euthanasia ship. While its not likely to happen anytime soon, this is the first attempt at bringing the issue into the public forum. Forced sterilization or contraception would be a better choice.

Agreed he shouldn't meet with her, it only gives more publicity to these narcisstic stars, has beens or otherwise. As for the McCartneys on LK, they sounded more like a couple of illiterate 12 year olds, they should take their private jets and helicopters back to England and learn how to speak. Then maybe use some of their billions towards helping children and the poor in their own country before trying to destroy the lives of Canadians. Like you know, like, well, like ...

Harper has made it clear numerous times that he is committed to the Canada Health Act, there is nothing in the CPC policy to support your position. Trotting out the NCC to support spurious and unfounded innuendo and conspiracy theories doesn't cut it. Having said that, I support a choice in health care, I should have the ability to spend my $ wherever I please, if I want a private MRI I should be able to leave the line and purchase one. We need to start looking at other systems such as France, which support a combination of prive and public. The CPC is committed to maintain our public health care system, the holy grail to which most Canadians bow and pay homage. Never fear, Harper will not dismantle it so you can take your tin foil hat off. http://www.usanext.org/full_story.cfm?arti...4&category_id=5 Interesting link here re: US health care myths http://www.iedm.org/main/show_editorials_f...itorials_id=293

What a pile of rot. Check out Harper's statements and the policy re: adhering to the Canada Health Act, and maybe you should try googling contributors to the liberals. Gawd, I need a bigger tin foil hat.

Hmmm, I agree ithe message board thing is futile, but this is no different than any other forum, this is one of the better forums that I have come across for discussion. I don't read everything, no time, but I don't see anything as bad as your scenario. If you want left wing opinion only allowed, check out rabble, but swearing and personal attacks are allowed. I used to post in another forum which was closed down for the reasons you post, the admins. had had enough of it. Partisian politics aside, it was mainly the left wingers, the right were no angels, but honest to pete, I don't think I've come across as much hate or malicious innuendo than from those left wingers. These forums are reasonable compared to many out there.

The flames started a while ago, with the killings in Holland and riots in France. I don't believe a lot of North Amerians are aware of what is happening in Europe, the MSM here doesn't report it all, unless you go on line and read other publications it is not that widely known. Heck, I've talked to all kinds of people, and most of them don't have a clue as to what Sharia Law is....even in Ontario where it became an issue. People like Daniel Pipes who write about it and tells it like it is are accused of racism, CAIR sues people who try to talk about it. Europe has to get a grip, (and North America) maybe it is time to be more confrontational with the Imams et al and demand that Muslims integrate and accept western laws - or leave. Do you have a link for that article please.

http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/ Its addictive and kills the memory cells, it is also a gateway drug. No amount of facts or debate will change the minds of those who think its does no damage. There should be a roadside test for driving while drugged.

As for the riots being just a Parisian demo, according to Reuters report, organizers put the number at 400,000 in Paris out of a total of 1.3 to 1.4 million countrywide. The Interior Ministry reported 503,000 nationwide, with 80,000 in Paris. Let's face it. They love to riot in France. The farmers have rioted, winemakers have rioted, ethnics (MSM code for Muslims) riot, and now this riot. Apparantly they do, more so than North America anyway. They are rioting because they see their place in the welfare state is being threatened, well hell, they might even get fired for being a slacker - can't have that you know. What - work more than 35 hours a week mon dieu LE PANIER CASE (Or is that "La" Panier Case?) http://boortz.com/nuze/200603/03202006.html#panier Riot police are ready for more violence in Paris and throughout France again today. Yesterday about 1.5 million French "students" and tadpoles were in the streets destroying property, burning cars and attacking police. And why? Because their place in the great French social welfare state is being threatened. More specifically, they're rioting because they are actually facing the prospect of having to earn their jobs and work to keep them. Here's your background. France has a real problem with youth unemployment. The general nationwide rate is 23%. In some minority neighborhoods the youth unemployment is much higher. There's a reason for this. Young people in France don't have a work history to tout when they're out there looking for a job. A prospective employer has no job history to review when considering a young French man or woman for employment. If an employer decides to take a chance on a young employee with no job history, and if that young employee turns out to be a slacker, the employer is, to coin a phrase, pretty much screwed. French law protects the slacker. Job guarantees make it a very expensive proposition for an employer to get rid of a bad employee. One good way for a French employer to protect himself is to hire an experienced worker; someone with a good track record. The result? Young workers have more difficulty finding a job. The solution was basic, rational, logical and simple. Remove the onerous restrictions on employers hiring younger workers, and that is exactly what France's prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, did. Under new regulations a French employer is allowed to hire someone 26 years old and younger on a two-year trial basis. After those two years the full range of employment guarantees would kick in. Now you understand what the French "youth" and their labor union friends are so upset about. These new regulations might actually mean that they will have to prove themselves at work! No longer will these kids be able to walk into their new workplace with instant job protection. This is so contrary to the great French social welfare state! The government is supposed to protect these people! They aren't supposed to have to to go out there and actually work to earn their employment status! It's supposed to be guaranteed by the state! Your life belongs to the state and the state must provide! Personal responsibility! Non! snip There's actually a parallel to some goings-on here in the United States. The Katrina "evacuees." Those who were displaced by hurricane Katrina and who actually had a history of assuming the responsibility for their own lives have largely moved on. They've found places to live and ways to earn a living. What we have left, for the most part, are the parasites who were dependent on government before Katrina, and who remain dependent on government months after Katrina passed. Every time a suggestion is made that it is time for them to stand up and take some action to insure their own future they recoil in outrage. But ... New Orleans did have somewhat of a French culture, didn't it?