Saturn

Is this the new progressive Liberal way that all the leadership candidates talked about? Seems like same old, same old Liberal way of doing business to me. Delay and pay is the Liberal way. This is what HARPER said! Don't present it as if some independent observer commented that way.

The information is scarce because it's bad and Harper would rather keep quiet than spin it and risk losing credibility as a result. The war is unwinnable and our allies are leaving us out there with our asses hanging in the breeze. We are simply the dumb ones who get to pay for it because Mr. Harper made the mistake to make Afghanistan a pet project of his and he will look bad if he changes his mind on it. That's it - we are paying billions and losing lives for optics.

The British Foreign Minister is in Canada, and dismissed the idea of a "Honourable" withdrawal. The only honourable thing to do, he said, is to stay put and do the job we promised to do. I mean, what is our reasoning for blowing off our commitment? It's too hard? So we can't blow off our commitment to Afghanistan but we can blow off our commitment to Kyoto. You are a good sport.

Just shows that democracy is too dangerous, too many fools out there that will believe anything spoon fed to them. What did Kyoto do for Canada? Increase GHG emissions by 25%. Ok, I'm against it. Bottom line, a piece of paper means dick all. Bottom line: The paper is signed already. It doesn't matter whether you like it or not.

He gave Dubya 1 billion? Yes - lumber. But that's not the point here. The point is that the Conservatives can complain all they want about what the Liberals didn't do but they aren't doing anything either. The Conservatives are running the government and they are responsible for what gets done or not done.

I'm not sure that majority or minority makes that huge a difference anyway. Harper has shown that he can rule as a king even with a minority.

I think that the Canadian dollar is trading near its actual value (more likely slightly above) but the Canadian $ was undervalued for over a decade. Unfortunately, that's what Canadian business is used to and they have trouble adjusting in such a short period of time. On top of that the Canadian dollar is tied to oil and its price, which varies quite a lot. Which is fine for oil but a currency needs more stability than that. Of course the Bank won't move a finger until something extraordinary happens, so we are just stuck with what we got.

The whole thing happened because of the RCMP. The Americans sent him to Syria since the RCMP told them Canada doesn't want him. The RCMP knew he was being tortured in Syria and even provided the Syrians with questions to ask him (during the torture). The Syrians sent the "information" they "collected" back to the RCMP. The RCMP prevented attempts by other departments to bring him back to Canada. In short: he got sent to Syria to be tortured because of Canadians and he was stuck there for a year because of Canadians. Now I don't see why you are surpised that the RCMP would resourt to having the Syrians torture people but torturing people in Canada is illegal. It is illegal in the US too, which is why the Americans torture people in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Graib and secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. The RCMP simply thought they would get away with having people tortured overseas, just like Rumsfeld did when he approved torture (and he got away). The RCMP is getting away with it too (Zac resigned but nobody is really in trouble so far).

Again, you are simply wrong. Telco's remain regulated in rural markets where there are less then 3 providers. Does your partisan clap-trap always end up getting your foot in your mouth? Are you always so obnoxious? Once that number of 3 is reached (2 for business accounts), deregulation kicks in and remains even when the 2 newcomers are pushed out or leave voluntarily. Besides 2 or 3 suppliers does not amount to much competition anyway.

Understood. Thx for the clarification. I want to add to my previous comment that deregulation does not equal competition. There can be a lot of regulation in competitive industries (like the food industry) and no regulation in industries with no or very little competition (like the OS industry). But many incorrectly equate deregulation and competition and then push deregulation under the pretext that it will result in competition. In this particular case, he devil is in the details as usual. When you look at the details, it becomes clear that the changes may benfit some consumers in the short term. Over the long term though, the changes will reduce competition and the consumer will be the loser. Big players don't benefit from more competition in their industry and they sure don't lobby and push for more competition.

Quite right! Canada is quite a failure on the environmental front. Enviromental laws and regulations are very lax and even then hardly enforced. Penalties for major environmental crimes amount to pennies and overall it's much cheaper to polute than to be clean. In the meantime respiratory disease and cancer rates are skyrocketing. Hmm, well, we can't do anything about it because not poisoning ourselves and others will be too expensive and we'll all end up unemployed and broke. So let's just put off doing anything until 2050 and pretend that we are doing something in the meantime. And we can blame previous governments for our failures. And why shouldn't we dump our crap in lakes, rivers and oceans? Do you realize how expensive builidng sewege treatment plants is? It will cost us $10/person and we sure can't have a tax raise. We are taxed to death as it is. We should just sit and wait for market forces to build treatment plants - if they are needed the private sector will provide.

That doesn't make any sense. Can you explain what you mean by this? It's surprising, isn't it? But it's true. First there are different types of sugars. Some are processed and released into the bloodstream faster than others. Processed foods are the worst offenders of all when it comes to bad sugars (many are worse than table sugar). They are absorbed extremely quickly, causing blood glucose levels to skyrocket immediately after eating them, which puts pressure on the pancreas and damages it. Since processed foods are absorbed so quickly, blood glucose leves plummet a bit after a meal, leaving you hungry and looking for more. This sugar roller coaster leads to obesity and type 2 diabetes. For more info: http://www.glycemicindex.com/

Take the example of telephones. I have a landline with Bell but I make no long distance calls through Bell. I don't know what monopoly or duopoly you are referring to. In Montreal, I have four or five potential wires coming into my house, several wireless telephone alternatives and any number of satellite TV possibilities. The city of Toronto (yes! a municipal government!) is setting up a wireless Internet network for the downtown.This is an industry where federal government regulators have no place. Face it, governments may have a role to play in an economy but broadly regulating private telecommunications firms is not one of them. Nowadays, people who want governments to nationalize or direct major industries exist only on university campuses, on Internet forums or in Cuba. ---- And Saturn, would please stop destroying otherwise good threads by clicking on reply and copying previous posts? ??? Are you saying that replying somehow damages the threads? I suppose not replying will make for a great discussion. You can always put me on your "ignore" list. In fact, the govenment created legislated monopolies, so you are darn wrong. Creating monopolies and then deregulating and letting them do whatever is best for them is not good for the consumer. It is the govenment's business to ensure that there is enough competition first and then to deregulate second. All the new changes do is remove regulations that were placed to ensure that newcomers to the industry are not shut out by the industry giants. This is why the industry giants fought and lobbied so hard to overturn these regulations. They don't want to share the industry with anyone else - they want to stifle competition before it even begins.

I think it is funny that this is getting any kind of attention at all. I think Golda Meir led Israel in the 60s, Indira Gandi, and Margarat Thatcher lead India and Britain in the 80s, many women have run and led countries, including Progressive Conservative Kim Campbell. As as the NDP had 2 women leaders prior to Layton. But running and getting elected are different kettles of fish. For one thing its POLITICS. There are more factors then the best Candidate, etc, many more factors. Regardless, if the Liberals want to play catchup , with parties like the NDP which have had policies to seek out a female nominee for each riding for over 30 years, or maybe have a female leader one day, like the Conservatives Choose in the 90s. Let them But really, is this news in 2006? I don't think the Conservatives or the NDP are actually going backwards on their beliefs past practices, so what's the big deal with the Liberals? Is this really newsworthy? I think well forget about it within a week. I think that this is just a lot of fluff on behalf of Dion. Like in the last election, the Liberals will have more female candidates and most of them will be in unwinnable ridings. I just enjoy seeing the conservative supporters having heart attacks over women taking over the world.

I'm afraid you'll have to wait a couple of years. I don't think that the big companies will be able to deal with the little guys by the spring. Put this in your 2009 calendar and when you get there note that there are just 2 (3 max) suppliers of local phone service and that their prices are higher than today (in real $). What about in rural Canada where there is only 1 provider... I'm screwed Well, in rural Canada you'll get an almost immediate increase in prices so that your provider can charge below cost in urban areas to undercut the competition. In effect, you'll be subsidizing the good deals city dwellers will get. Sorry.

Well I have the answer to that. Let's let 200,000 people settle into Toronto and find work. That really helps the situation. Instead of 10 people going for 1 job, lets have 80 people go for 1 job (true story). Ok, I found out how to put people on the ignore list

How would you do that, pray tell? and at whose expense? "Here dollar-dollar-dollar! Here dollar-dollar-dollar!" Excellent! Why would we want to DIScourage our buyers by ENcouraging a high dollar? As Riverwind said, when our dollar is low more people buy more of our stuff. This is a good thing. What's the point of selling your stuff if you sell it for nothing? It's better to be able to sell your stuff for 20% less than not being able to sell it at all and being able to buy more Chinese made junk with your welfare cheque, no?

Well I guess we will ahev to wait for Spring to see how poorly educated you are on the subject. I'm afraid you'll have to wait a couple of years. I don't think that the big companies will be able to deal with the little guys by the spring. Put this in your 2009 calendar and when you get there note that there are just 2 (3 max) suppliers of local phone service and that their prices are higher than today (in real $).

Clearly if you can ensure that women stay out of politics in the current system, you can also ensure that there are more women in politics under the current system. I don't see how the number of female MPs relates to proportional representation - or that the 4:1 men:women ratio can be explained by it. Maybe women see Belinda Stronach and think that they don't want the media to describe their clothing as the most important thing about them and they don't want to be blamed for everything that men can get away with without any notice. Shouldn't men look at male politicians and the corruption and scandal men are involved in and decide to leave politics to women? What did Bernier do to be in parliament? He didn't even run. There doesn't need to be proportional representation, just good old fashioned competition. If a woman is better than the guy, she should get party nomination and if she's a better choice of a candidate then get elected. If the guy is better, then he should win, it's all about choice, it's simple. Maybe women aren't in politics because they might just not want to for whatever reason, so what. Look at it this way, should a male MP/candidate whose doing a good job lose his spot for someone just because she's a woman? This affirmative action BS is crippling our country and this culture of being penalized because you work hard to better yourself from others has got to stop. Getting elected in politics is a bitter competition and if you don't stack up your not in. So women just don't want to get ahead - they are stupid and lack ambition. Or they do want to get ahead - but they are stupid and therefore unelectable. Come out and say it outloud.

These Belinda references make me wanna puke. How in heaven's name did BS get to be the standard-bearer for Canadian women politicians? Because she plays the gender card every time her character is (rightfully) questioned? This just shows how gullible you and the rest of the Canadian electorate are. Why can't we look at true ethical, educated and intelligent women politicians like Rona Ambrose? he uis a far classier, smarter, more educated and respectable figure than Stronach. Stronach has no loyalty, is an opportunist who shed her boyfriend and party at the first opportunity to grab power (which backfired - by the way) and has now lately been named as the "other woman" in a divorce filing. Not exactly what I would call classy A-1 role-model material. For men OR women politicians. Give me a BREAK. If Stephen Harper had done ANY of the above the Libs would be all over it - and he wouldn't be able to cry to the media and claim sexism as a defense for poor judgement. But enough about her. The point is: Women can and do enter politics ALL THE TIME. My quesiton is: why is it important to ENCOURAGE women to enter politics? Are we saying they can't do it on their own? And more importantly: WHAT BARRIERS exist today? So far all I have heard on this is that your "feelings might get hurt" if you enter politics. What a joke. That barrier exists for men and women equally. Come up with something concrete or quit whining about the "poor little women". Give me a break! Emerson crossed the floor only 2 weeks after being elected as a Liberal. Did he get called a whore, bitch, and so on? The same conservatives who called Belinda a whore and a bitch were delighted to have Emerson turn conservative. What is intelligent and ethical about Rona? Steven put her in the worst place possible, so that she comes out looking as the worst cabinet minister in his government. He pushed Belinda out and put Ablonczy in the backbenches to protect himself and his leader's chair. He surrounded himself with losers and brownnosers in cabinet, so that no one would challenge his leadership.

Because fewer women get elected. But why is that? We all know that if you ran a dog in Alberta for the conservatives, the dog would get elected. It really isn't the voter's preference to vote for men. Political parties choose to run more men which is why more men get elected. Why can't they choose to run more women? If running more men is fair, I don't see why running more women is not.

Clearly if you can ensure that women stay out of politics in the current system, you can also ensure that there are more women in politics under the current system. I don't see how the number of female MPs relates to proportional representation - or that the 4:1 men:women ratio can be explained by it. Maybe women see Belinda Stronach and think that they don't want the media to describe their clothing as the most important thing about them and they don't want to be blamed for everything that men can get away with without any notice. Shouldn't men look at male politicians and the corruption and scandal men are involved in and decide to leave politics to women? What did Bernier do to be in parliament? He didn't even run.

Well I know that Belinda has been campaigning for this so I think it might have to do with inside politics. It's also proven I believe that women don't go into politics simply due to the opposite of the sexes and nothing more. Aha, that's why half of Swedish MPs are women - Swedish women must be men.

I suppose your argument here is that women are too stupid to enter politics? They don't commit enough crimes to be in jail more often and they don't have the brains to be in politics more often? No, not at all. It's that men and women are different. Maybe women are too SMART to enter politics. Whatever the reason the rationale is this: Just as women and men have different representations in jail for any variety of unknown or partially explained reasons, so too will their representations be different in all kinds of realms of society, and to "work to rectify these unequal representations" is not only futile...it's also plain disrespectful to women. Women know they can enter politics and succeed. What's insulting is a paternalistic social engineering frenchman who rides into town claiming to be the hero for all the poor little women's problems in the world. Women and men have different representations in jail for obvious reasons - women commit fewer crimes. It is far less clear why there are 5 times as many men in parliament as women. Maybe you can suggest some that can account for those differences?