Moonlight Graham

I will definitely agree that "brain drain" is a big problem for developing countries.

Uh-oh, someone drops the F-bomb again! (as in "fascist"). Shady i think you mean authoritarian or totalitarian, not fascist. Or better yet, thugs.

Incorrect. Before the Harper gov ran a budget deficit in 2008-2009, the last time any federal government, including the Harper gov, ran a deficit was 1997. Stats are your friend: Dept. of Finance Canada

I am tired of continually hearing easily refuted nonsense about the Harper government's economic policies regarding the current rescission. This nonsense is based on 2 myths: Myth #1: The policies of the Harper government kept Canada's economy relatively strong amid the global recession. Truth: The vast majority of the regulations that prevented Canada's banking system & economy from suffering a similar fate to that of the U.S. and other countries worldwide were already in place before the Harper gov came to power. Myth #2: The Harper government is leading Canada's economy into dire straights because of the large deficits/debt this gov is racking up. Truth: If one knows anything about economics, countercyclical fiscal policies aka deficit spending during an strong economic downturn is Keynesian economics 101, and is meant to stimulate the economy with the idea (ha!) that the debt will be repaid with surplus during better economic times. This has been done internationally over the past 70 years, and 30 of the 33 OECD countries (including the UK, US, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark etc.) posted deficits in 2009 with this similar idea, and there is little doubt the Chretien/Martin Liberals would have done similar. And as you can see with the link i just posted, Canada's deficit as a % of its GDP is well below the OECD average, and looking at the estimated 2010 budgets, Canada is ranked with the 5th lowest deficit-per-GDP% among the 33 OECD countries. This is not to say one can't criticize the way the deficit money has been spent, but a deficit in itself is not a bad thing. But feel free to spin this along partisan lines as you wish

Oh, and the 3rd major political meaning of "liberalism" would be as a theory of "international relations". I don't like the term "liberal" or "liberalism" because of its multiple meaning, which is easily confused. I see the OP using the term "liberalism" to mean the classic Locke/Rousseau/Hobbes variety, ie: "individual freedoms and equal rights". Some seem to be confused.

True. However, Harper put the fate of the Afghan mission to a vote in parliament in 2006 and 2008. So why not now?

Seriously? How many Jews in Canada have planned to execute violent attacks against the state in recent memory? Or have declared war on the West and Canada specifically? I hope you know the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist (of the offensive jihad variety).

The OP wasn't taking about all Muslims, it was talking about Islamists. Islamists are radical fundamentalist Muslims, ie: the group that has tried to carry out terrorist attacks within Canada. Islamists are, i suppose, guaranteed freedom of religion and belief under the Charter, yet their teachings, including jihad, threaten the Charter rights of "life" and "security of the person" of other Canadians. So who wins? Islamists who believe in violent means can kiss my big western ass.

yuppers.

There is a distinct difference between different political meanings of "liberalism", the 2 most common being that the liberal/conservative variety, meaning "progressive, open to new ideas, tolerant of others etc.", and the more classic meaning of "liberalism" of the Locke/Rousseau variety, meaning literally "liberty", or "individual freedoms and equal rights".

True enough. 2% of Canadians are Muslim, and a much smaller portion of that would consider themselves Islamists. "Islamists" can do as they wish, but if they break the law they will go to jail.

Liberalism is about equal rights, but it is also about individual rights/freedoms. There is a dichotomy within the ideology of liberalism, a struggle between the equality of people vs protecting individual rights. We live in liberal democracies, and we must decide the rules we live by and what rights to protect. At some point, we must chose which rights go above others. Does the right of a person to murder whomever they want go above the right of people to be free from violence? No. We take away a murderers rights, and lock them in jail to protect other people's rights which we judge as more important and more to the benefit of society. We have a problem today where many people do not see that we still must judge other cultures/religions that value actions which infringe on an individual's liberty/rights which we have already established as vital to our society. Liberalism is NOT about believing that every culture/religion should be equally tolerated. I would think it's clear for those living in Canada or the US that freedom of a person to practice a religion/culture that believes in raping one's own babies and grandparents, and then eating their genitals, would be against other individual rights we would judge important to the betterment of society. But this doesn't seem clear to many. ALL rights cannot be protected under liberalism because some contradict each other, as they always have. We who live in liberal democracies must continue to make judgment calls on which rights trump others. This is not always easy, but it must be done.

well that would certainly be one big flaw of strong socialism (and citizens were allowed to move freely), that all the skilled people would leave to get more money elsewhere

Uh oh, a Nazi blast!

No. But a major policy that is voted on by parliament is more democratic, and hence generally more legitimate, than a policy that is decided on by one human being aka the PM/executive. I am of the firm belief that most policies should be voted on by parliament whenever practically possible. The powers of the executive in a democracy should be limited as much as possible, and the executive should only make policy decisions by themselves when it is entirely impractical or may weaken national security etc. if it were to go through parliament. I don't mind a few extra powers going to the exec in the name of checking the powers of the other branches of gov't, but even these should be carefully given. Harper making a major foreign relations & national security decision which could easily go through parliament is bullcrap.

well i'm not sure it's quite 2 to 1 yet, but it's getting close, Wiki says about 400,000 Jews, 700,000 muslims in Canada. No, this doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of votes. However, lobbies, and the money that comes with their support, is different beast than raw pop #'s.

Ridiculous. Make it a vote in Parliament, for the sake of legitimacy.

Well, we'd probably all die because nothing would get done. Who would grow our food? Or drive the trucks to transport it? Gov'ts around the world would collapse due to non-production, and the meek with erectile dysfunction would inherit the earth. And of course over-population would be a problem. The kids wouldn't get fed by their horny parents, so they would die, and their rotting corpses would spread disease and further destroy the human race. Mother nature is a smart lady (i'd probably bang her too).

I've been thinking the same thing since i was 12 years old. Sometimes i wish i could have a nice rack just for a day. What a wonderful day in the bathroom that would be!

This is what i thought at first too, but after some thought I'm really a bit skeptical. Politicians, especially those on our Hill, don't often take tough/controversial "principled" stands on issues unless it is somehow to their political gain to do so. I'm honestly torn. And when it comes to politics, when in doubt, err on the side of politicians being lying power-hungry sacks of crap.

thats impossible. i never make mistakes.

The U.S. must invade both Iran and N.Korea then.

This was clearly launched by Iran in a show of aggressive force. The US must invade Iran now.

Bah! The vast majority of people don't smoke because its "dangerous", they smoke cuz its makes them feel good. Peer presure does play a part, but peer pressure is the same for legal drugs such as cigarettes and alcohol.

I say we give full scholarships to anyone who wishes to become a medical doctor, provided they stay in Canada to practice medicine for a given period. In this sense, scholarships alone wouldn't work because its not practical to prevent people from leaving the country. Canada would need to give a monetary incentive for doctors to stay in Canada.