daniel

Of course there is a right-wing conspiracy. Whenever I look at policy, I first question in whose interest it is in. Privatization of health care certainly is not in the interest of the general public - not even the rich. The poor don't have access, the rich become bankrupt with long term illnesses. The only ones who really benefit are the owners and investors of the privatized institutions - the campaign donors of our governments. There certainly is a limit to how much governments can tax, yes, but in Canada the burden has been dramatically shifted towards the individuals from corporations. Corporations admitted by themselves benefit from a well educated citizenship from which it gets its employee-base. With just-in-time delivery, citizen paid highways become the warehouse of industries. And the last I checked, the 40hr workweek hasn't devasted alot of the economies of North America. How would you like to work 60hrs averaged over consecutive four week periods before overtime is paid. Yep, Ontario under the conservatives. And the brain-drain? What's not reported are those that return. We do have a shortage of doctors and nurses fed-up with the right-wing cutbacks of health care institutions . Admittedly, the rate of those returning are not high but those who do prefer the Canadian system inspite of the conversion towards the American model.

Answer: Tax-cuts, budget cuts, social re-engineering forcing people (like you) to believe privatization is the holy grail.

Power struggles since time immemorial hasn't changed one bit. All politicians the world over are cut from the same cloth (just that some of their ideals vary from person to person).

Eight years ago, whenever a person supporting privatization and deregulation would state to me "Can the government do any better?" I would be silent as we all know the compentancy and service level of government agencies. Today, after having lived through eight years of the Common-Sense Revolution, and the Paul Martin budget cuts I can confidently state "Yes, and the government can do no worse than private industry." We need government regulators, and inspectors. Government run utilities and insurance may not be a necessity but the benefits are clear when comparing provinces that do have them vs those that don't. The economic theory of competition doesn't apply in these cases so private corporations run up prices while driving down services. I would then gladly pay a rate of taxation fairly shared between individuals and corporations so that essential services can maintain a good level of security for us all.

Here's another pattern: Martin is to Chretien as Chretien was to Turner. Martin better watch his back...it could be Rock or - Copps?

I'm sure you would be all over the President if he were a Democrat.

Taxation is only a portion of one's expenditure. In terms on how much overall tax Canadians pay in comparison to other countries, sure it's high. Compare how much a Canadian pays out of pocket to visit the doctor, it's low. Same with the rising cost of University too. That's because the cost of the visit and much of the tuition is already included in the taxes he pays. The real comparison should be made is with the overall cost of living. Several years ago, a study indicated that the most expensive Canadian city to live in was ranked 78 in the world in which several more expensive cities were US cities. So our taxes may be proportionately high, but the trade-off is that even in the most expensive city it's still cheaper to live in Canada than several US cities. Want another example? Everytime I visit the US, I take note of the price tag of several common items such as toiletries, gasoline, clothing, toys, etc. You know what? Except for gasoline, the price tags for all these items are the same. So taking into account the exchange rate, Americans pay about 50% more for their items than Canadians do. The famous Tilley Endurables hat costs in Canada about $55Cdn. In the US the same hat costs $55US. Now let's get to the gasoline. When I was visiting San Fransisco two years ago, my host dropped by a gas station. I had a glimpse of the price of unleaded in USD per gal. In my head I roughly converted the gallons to litres and then the currency. Final result? Same price in San Francisco as we pay in Toronto. So is tax high? Sure, but if you look at the big picture. It's better in Canada.

If and when pot will be legalized, the first to jump on the bandwagon will be cigarette companies. They already have the connections to smuggle cigarettes across the border. So I wouldn't doubt they would have connections to existing pot growers.

And also living in denial.

Future, past, and present of conservatism: Lies, broken promises and deceipt.

The Rocket Scientist that designed one of the servos in the Chinese Rocket that's orbitting Earth right now is working at Cinnabon located in the Sheppard Subway station in Toronto. Talk about investing in your employees!! There are PLENTY of jobs out there all right.

I wonder if the Canadian public will recognize that this "new" Conservative party was born from a lie. Anyways, we've all been lied by the Tories many times before, so this would be just keeping up with tradition.

I'm sure you right-wingers will find some way to disagree or to state that I am making an "apples-to-oranges" comparison but let's compare Georgie's handling of the economy with Bob Rae's. The economy for Bush was pretty bad last year. Bob Rae inherited a recession from Brian Mulroney - or just the business cycle. Bush turned a surplus into a deficit. Bob Rae turned a deficit into a bigger deficit. Into Bush's 3rd year, the Dow is roaring (stock markets are forecasters so let's say investors are predicting good times six months from now). During Bob Rae's final year, the Ontario economy was growing at a rate faster than any other G8 region. Is Bush going a pretty good job? If yes, then Bob Rae did an excellent job.

I'll break the rule here and will make references to the USA, but not to put them down but to illustrate that despite all the criticism some people throw at Canada for not carrying its own weight in international affairs, I can't recall how many times Canadians have come to not only the aid but the actual rescue of Americans in trouble. 1) 9-11 of course. Where else did all those US-bound flight land? And those travellors were welcomed into the homes of ordinary Canadians, no? 2) Seven hostages in Iran. It had to be a Canadian to do what Ken Taylor did - nobody from any other country could or would. 3)April 2001 - rescue of US Scientists from the Antartic; 4) September 2003 - rescue of US Scientists from the Antartic again.

Well, we certainly learned what Harris did when faced with adversity - he quit.

Chances are the government funding for public schools in your area is so meager than the school(s) are forced to look for corporate funding. In return, corporations look for endorsements of their own products or even to hold a monopoly to be the official supplier of some products students may need. In one case, Pepsi funded a certain school so only Pepsi vending machines were allowed on school property. A student was reprimanded by the school when he showed up wearing a Coca-cola t-shirt. (Or was it the other way around with the Coke sponsor and the Pepsi t-shirt?) Folks, this is one happens when governments deliver tax-cuts they can't afford. Our kids and parents end up paying for them for generations to come. And privatization is supposed to give you more choice?

Synon: Never mind about Read. I read his postings just for a chuckle. (or an upchuck) Hugo: The political will was there. Every human that Westmoreland had asked for was granted and in doing so President Johnson would announce to the public a figure about half that amount. The people in his inner circle recognized this as an outright lie to the public but played along with it. When Nixon campaigned for the Presidency, he pledged for an all-out bombing of Hanoi to bring the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table. When questioned about this tactic because the previous President's pledged the same, Nixon replied "Because this time we will do it." not acknowledging that it had already been done without public knowledge. So there you have it: manpower and all-out bombing. The only thing missing was a full groundforce invasion of North Vietnam which the Presidents didn't want to do because that would bring China and the Soviet Union into the war too. The US only wanted to stop the domino effect and to a full blown nuclear war with the USSR.

Spare me the sorrow you bunch of bleeding-heart Tories. There's always been media bias and it depends upon who you read, watch or listen to. When the NDP was in power there was criticism from all the newspapers - I can now hear you all thinking to yourselves that they were all justified. Maybe if you would all start reading the National Post you'll get the "balanced" reporting you are craving for. God knows they need the readership. But consider that if someone from the Toronto Sun is claiming media coverage is overwhelmingly Liberal-leaning then that must include the Sun too. There's got to be something wrong with the Tories when even the Sun turns away from them. Maybe it's just too much for the Sun that Mr. Taxfighter-1, I'm-the-only-honest-politician-around-here, cut-corporate-welfare Harris is still porkbarrelling from the taxpayer tough with his so-called Ontario Promises foundation office in Queen's Park.

Right. And ketcup is a vegetable.

War-time President? Just dawned on me. Perhaps this 9-11 thing has unfolded exactly as the terrorists had planned. Maybe the rest of the plan is to sucker the US into a drawn out war, battling with people they can't find (like in Vietnam) meanwhile exhausting all their capital doing so.

Probably a bad choice of words but unfortunately I would have to agree. It's like a being in a bad relationship where one domineering partner abuses the other. Well, maybe not in 1945 or '46, but eventually American super power got the better of itself and now we see that spinning out of control with a vigilante President too drunk on power. OK, I'm getting ahead of myself again, but back to the relationship analogy, it's extremely difficult to get out of it because it threatens the power and control of the dominate partner. There are no battered-women's shelters for countries too dependant on US Aid. So they are forced to join the coalition against Iraq or "suffer the consequences".

Who's forcing you? I thought you lived in a free country? You compare the current situation with something that happened 60years ago. Isn't that soooooo long ago it's no longer revelant - as some of my critics have pointed out? They (or you) refused to even look back 30yrs. No progress in sight: where have you been in the past three weeks? Weren't you the one to state this? Sept 2nd "Bush looks to UN..."And you're the one who thinks $1billion a week is chump change, right? A lot of starving kids could be fed with that money but some people would rather point missiles at them. Maybe you don't read any newpapers outside of the US, so you wouldn't know that on Sept 10, 2001, Bush was both the laughing stock and the outrage of the world. Drop a couple of bombs and any US President can stake out a 90% approval rating. Now even though the bombing has stopped, the US soldiers continue to do so, he still can't get international support and his approval rating is fast approaching his norm. It's too bad for Bush that 9-11 occurred a year too early. So what does your crystal ball say? What date and time will democracy be instated with the last US soldier peacefully leaving Iraq? I don't see any progress at all. Can you? False pretenses: Can you say "Weapons of Mass Destruction"? Can you say "imported Uranium"? Can you say "within 40minutes"?

Hugo: Good analogy, so can we expand that to include Bush? During most of his term he has been preoccupied with sending US troops somewhere - Afghanistan, Iraq, Liberia. Though 9-11 is an event beyond his control, any other President would still provide a balanced agenda so as to look after domestic affairs too. He is being paid to run the country. And as an employee he is spending $1billion a week with no progress or end in sight, who has torn international relationships within the first nine months of his term, and most importantly, his ventures have been promoted based on false pretenses. What would you do with an employee like that?

Statisically (sp?), the incumbent has the advantage. In cases of the undecided, (sometimes as high as the mid 20 %), they are so out of it the only politician they can name is the Premier. During this past election, I've already asked three people where they had been in the past eight years. Where were they during the Walkerton tragedy? Where were they during the amalgamation debates? Where were they when the Tories were creating the crisis in education? During the 60hr work-week legislation? During the flip flop of Hydro-One? These were all headline issues. For people who aren't affected by any of the headline issues, they can probably get by with their heads in the sand from election to election. And then when it comes to decision time, they say to themselves, "oh, things weren't so bad. He's seemed to have done a good job." You've got to have done a pretty crappy job to lbe an incumbent and lose an election. Politics is the most important thing in our lives that people care the least about. It affects us from the moment we are conceived to well after we are dead including everything in between.

It's both.