old_bold&cold

I have not read the book and I am sure it will make many accusations from a bitter man who is now without any power or influence. The same can be said for Mulroney's book as well. I think they will both be a waste of paper, but many will not let that stop them from buying them. But then again the news will tell all the juicy things any way, so why waste the money.

You see this is what still makes the Liberals such a bad party by example. They can not stand to see someone who may like the deals that were made with other parties, even though their whole ideas do not ammount to anything, they still forcefully try to portray any deal made, as being wrong headed. It si just the Liberal venom that keeps showing itself each and every day. That is why they will get no where in the next election. They are justa mean miseable party who needs to wait a decade or two, before anyone takes what they offer seriuosly again.

This is all well and good but just what measures would you put in place to keep our population growing? Do we pay tax free moneys to people who have more then three children, or is there some other way. in other words what you say is a complaint, but what is the platform that would address that complaint.

A debt reduction formula would also make up a good point in any poitical platform, and once again I am hoping for some input from the more accounting types to say just how workable this would be and is there a forumla that would be viable?

I would also say that tax cuts would be a good thing for a paltform, but what would you consider tax cuts to be. How would we determine this? Would we use a calculation that says 60% of all surpluses are to go to tax cuts, or are we just going to wing it as time and events allow. We all want tax cuts, that is a given, but it is the mechanisms that need set out.

If they had criminal trespass charges, then they did break the law. Evidently they decided to go on private property and disrupt things there, which is not their democratic right, now isn't it? If you are going to have marches or slow moving blockades then of course you need to get a permit. Yes they do issue permits for this. Like when the farmer came with their tractors on public roads to parliament hill, did in order to be compliant to the laws. The state or in this case municipal government, will issue permits to protest, within the guidelines for those protests. They will not allow Blockades, but a slow moving march to get from a to b will be permitted and then be legal. These permits are issued every day and anyone who says they are with held just does not know what he is talking about. I think this is lost on you. Have you ever attempted to geta protest permit? If so then where and why was it turned down, if it was. I would bet if it was refused it was because your protest was going to break some laws, as they will never turn downa legal protest, as long as it stays within the rules.

I am just thinking here, that maybe the members here would like to make up what we would see as a proper Election platform. With all the things that we all could agree are the right way to go. We would have to after enough things are put forward, maybe then vote to see just would be the majority on each. But in the end it would be interesting to see just how ours would develope as opposed to what the governments would be like. So take the same issues that we see today and try to make each issue a seperate post if possible, so later voting on the issues would be easier. Anyone want to take a stab at this?

I am talking income tax cases. When I finally had to give up mine after $80,000.00 in lawyers, I simply filed bankruptcy. The 95% was the same figure quoted by all the lawyers I spoke to and even the CCRA themselves. There answers to this were we are not here to win but to rather make sure we have all the taxes required. I can tell you they lost against my wife long before court and had to pay her $25,000.00 + interest, but only after 3 years of arguing. I could have won mine, but I only had maybe $10,000 of personal assets left after paying $80,000.00 in lawyers fees. So since I would not allow my wife to put her money into this, I just did the bankrupt thing. They were trying to get Near $500,000.00 from me, from offshore companies etc.. They ended up without a penny, and I was $80,000.00 poorer here in Canada. But that was years ago. I now make sure that they can never again bother me and I am on a set retirement income, that is beyond their reach. Oh and by the way, in the stats I stated, the fact that the Crown asks for millions or thousands and gets hundreds instead, is a loss, not a win at courts will report. It took 4 years of arguing in my case before they would admit that the offshore companies, were not to be included in there case, but after that and seeing what I had left here in Canada was not a big deal, that Bankruptcy was by far quicker and more ending in this matter. So yes in a way I won, if you can say paying $80,000.00 in legal fees, for government stupidity, winning.

Dion's lack of leadership skills, and ability, aside, one would think that he knows that as soon as he loses an election he is done, as leader of the party. Now, I can see where that might be something he would be willing to do, as even he must see that his floundering around, is costing his party big time. Does he want to be replaced as leader of the liberal party? By now I think he would have rather stayed on the side lines where his acedemic powers were better serving the party. Just for arguments sake, could he run an election on the idea that as soon as it was over he would resign as leader, and then let IGGY do most of the electioneering? Could something like that actually happen, and would it make a difference, or just take out Iggy as the next possible leader. Forgive my twisted mind on this one.

As it has already been said, protesting and blocking roads and the general flow of people and things, is not a democratic right. One would only have to see what you have a democratic right to, is not what protesters want. Your right to protest can and is done every day here in Canada and through out the USA. You see them carrying signs and walking with the flow of the pedestrians and they are there protesting, but not interfering in any way. But as I am sure you know, that is not the purpose of most demonstrators. They believe that to interupt the natural flow of traffic and pedestrians, is the best way to get on the news. And yes, it is because now that they have broken laws, and arrests are made, the news carries their story and they get all that free advertising. But among all those arrested will be the few who get charged with inciting civil disobedience or organizing an unlawful gathering, etc.. This is where you will see criminal charges being laid. Of course they then scream loudly about how unjust it all is. Lets face it, there are right ways and wrong ways to do things. You can legally give someone a push to save them from getting hit by a car, but you can not push them for no reason. I do not know about most of the members here, but when I see a peaceful protest done with out interrupting people and traffic, I take that extra bit of time to actually read the signs and see what it is all about. Now I am not saying I will agree with them, but rather I do give thema chance to convince me of their issue. The others that seems to want to interupt and block everything, I do not bother reading the signs or give them any chance to explain. I will make sure that any police officer I see, knows that I am making a foraml request that he make the protesters obey the laws and stop the blockages. Which is my democratic right. In my time I have been on both sides and yes it did not take me long to see the people who organize all these disrupting protests, are never the ones who put their freedom on the line. They are cowards who think they have a cause, but are not willing to put their freeom up to that cause. I am much older now and yes I can see that we were wrong back then. Not because the cause was wrong but our methods were wrong.

Elizabeth May is a very poor example of a party leader. She in her attempts to fill the voids where candidates could not be found willing to run, has accepted candidates that run roughshod over any common sense the party could have had. Her ideas are not something that we would call primisterial and she seems to not be in control of what her candidates push as being important party policy. This make her a loser, in more ways then one. The Green Party support has been mostly one of where people throw their vote in protest of the other parties. That will change, as we are once again seeing the people getting more in tune with what is happening, and they will align themselves more to the parties who actually make the rules and laws today. I am sure that some where there are some serious Green Party candidates that actually talk sense and speak of a platform that they might see a realistic and possible. They would never bring this issue of legalized drugs into the talk and yes, they would rather make clear issues on things that are mainstream, and forget about all the fringe in the party's mix. But that is hard to do with those who insist on shoting the party in the foot, by bringing all the fringe stuff to the fore front. That is just plain sad.

The senate was to be a place where sober second thought about the things parliament passed were then examined for flaws. That was great back when those types of issues were easily tampered with. But today we pretty much have totally open debates on these subjects and the media are also there to make the public aware of each and every thing and how it will affect the people as to their lifes in just about every area of Canada. So the second thought to find flaws is not really an issue today. While myself, would probably go with deleting the senate completely, I would have to say that the majority would be, to go with elected senate and have definded terms, instead of the post for life, that is todays way. That way we have a say in how we have these people actually work and the mechanism to get rid of them when they do not work. Although it would be interesting to see just how this would be handled. I would also think that if the Senate were from elected people, who have never been in political life, that would cause a large hue and cry from all the parties, but it would most likely be the best working senate of all. I just have a view that even an elected senate will be filled with pork barrel politics, just as it is today. That is why I still say do away with it completely, but as I said earlier I think the majority will say elected senate.

Lets face it, most protests have an upside and a down side. For every good thing that these people wish for, there are many bad things that their protesting will cause. The fact that they were charged with criminal charges, says that these people did things beyond peaceful protesting. So yes, it gave them the criminal record and yes the fatc of that being restricted travel to Canada. It should not have come as a surprise. And especially today where you can pretty much expect a records check happening when you cross the border, whether into or out of Canada. I am amazed that these people do not realize that we here in Canada do not want their types here, and more then the USA would want them there.

The car companies are all trying to save face and their pricing on cars in Canada, but they know that is a mugs game and will have to capitulate soon and drop prices big time. I would say give it to mid winter and you will see that they will begin pricing that is comparable. The companies like Honda will try the old, "put more options in it and keep prices high trick ", but in the end that will have to also go away. These guys will try every way to never reduce prices, because for them it means that they are saying the cars are worth less, and thta is never good for them. I am now noticing that a lot of used same year cars are now coming in Canada at the auctions etc, so this will also start to force the new car prices to balance out asap. Which ever one bites the bullet first will grab market share very quickly, bit the rest will notbe far behind.

Please this jousting back and forth about the thread on list of jews, is bad enough there, let alone here in this thread. Can we not just drop that, as everything has been said and rehashed many times. Now that the Polls have Harper gaining ground, and is entering majority territory, does anyone think that there still will be a vote to bring down the throne speech? It also seems that Harper is getting all his ducks ready for an election just in case, but how stupid would Dion have to be to pull the plug? Also if he does go ahead with it, anyone want to predict the outcome ?

The CCRA loses 95% of all cases that go to court. That is a fact and they will not deny it. I have screamed myself silly about this fact before and the basic answer is so what. The very fact that this is the case, one would think it would be changed, but it has been that way since I can remember and I have been paying taxes for near 5 decades. Wait until you get audited once and then you will see the stupity machine running, and you will understand why it is this way.

The NDP and even Layton are at least coherrent in what they do and say. I do not agree with their views, but I can respect their right to have them. The Green on the other hand are just way too out there in their thinking and yes, with there candidates. I can not even give a moments serious consideration with a party that has members the likes of Shavluk and his sensless ranting on the drugs and the rest. At least the NDP make sure their party is on one page mostly, and where there are differences they are straight forward and presented in a easily understood fashion. They do not use the shock and confuse positions that we have seen here. This can be seen by the question put to Layton in that thread by Shavluk. Does anyone think he will answer that? Or for that matter does anyone think Greg will put it forward to him? If that is the type of candidates the green allow in their party, I do not see them ever by anything but fringe at best. Do not get me wrong, I am probably one of the more outspoken types and yes I at times go well beyond what others say is good taste, but I do know and recognize limits, and will admit when I have exceeded them. Most of what I have heard here for the Green Party, has made me more then ever want to be sure they never get any power at all.

I also can remember this happening and yes I thought even then that it was very sick thinking on the judges part. So do not go making any bets on this, as you would be wrong. I do not think it was that sodomy was allowed from where they came from, but rather children are property and the parents can do what they will with them . The sodomy was not something done due to religion but then again it was not against its teachings either. Whenthe judge did state that the parent had shown regard to these girls virginity, that was what sickened me. It was a sad day for our justice system that day.

I would say yes, but with the cavette that also says no harm to be preached or organized against others, as well. The trouble with a quick brush, that most of the Islamic and other religions have some pretty insidious things allowed in their teachings. Even though most of the followers are smart enough to tell the difference, along will come those who will not see the difference. I have no problem accomadating the moderate ones, it is the more hadcore that I say we need to be specific about, and I am sorry to say that we seem to find these ones well after they are here.

Please, not another pile of land settlement stuff. It will be settled but it will not be infavour of the natives, and then it will go on and on. there are threads already on this forum for that kind of thing. Lets not pollute all threads with this same issue.

I am not so sure how I feel on this. while I think that they probably could get into some sort of trouble up here, protesting etc.. I do not see that keeping them away is a problem either. As they have criminal records, yes they are unwanted here. Just as anyone caught with a DUI would be refused entry. But is it a mitigating factor that they are peace activists? No not really. While their cause may be ok in some minds, it still is protesting, while an armed conflict is in progress that their soldiers are in. So it is not all black and white as to say this is a small thing. Were they coming here to rally's and protests. If so then deny then entry for sure. We have enough home grown protesters here, without taking in foreign ones. I guess it is a good thing, that when we are in doubt about how to go on this, it is better to refuse entry, then grant it and be sorry afterwards.

Personally I think Harper has done a very good job of ruling just right of center and yes he has gained respect for doing so. Contrary to what some believe, he does not have plans to turn far right, and we all know that is just liberal gibberish. We need the right of center policies for some time, to take back the left wing policies that the Liberals took while in office. The voters can see this and yes they are doing a correction at the polls. If an election were to be called this fall Harper will move ahead and get many more seats at the cost of Liberals and Bloc. Will this be enough to get a majority? Well maybe, but it would be a small minority at the least. The election campagne would be where this would be decided. I do not hold out much hope of Dion being a good debater, and as for thinking on his feet goes..... well I find myself almost breaking out in laughter. The voters I think are seeing that Harper has been very good for the country, and they will be more willing to give him more power to do what needs to be done. The Liberal senate that stalled the many bills, will be seen as obstructionist, and that along with Dion as leader, will make the CPC look much more inviting. I do not see this getting in any way better for the liberals, bloc or ndp, so they may well choose to have an election now, and maybe hold the CPC to a minority, then wait till spring and probably give them a majority. But I feel the voters will see this as well, and that is the wild card in all of this.

Does the religious act of female castration, an act decided by the parents before the child is of an age of majority, one of thise things that you feel does not harm anyone outside if the religious bief's of these people, one of the things you would allow? How about the seclusion of women and their not going to school to get an education? Are arranged marriages something that you would be interested in accomadating? We have a charter of rights and freedoms, but many things in their religion go expressly against this view. So do we then accomadate? Just how far do we go, to give these people their right to religion. If they are not ready to accomadate to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then why are they coming here? There are many places they could go where their religion and its laws are accepted. When these people come here, it should be expressed upon them that we have a much different way of law, and that this law will be confict with their religious laws in many ways, and they should be prepared to adjust their actions to the lnads of the land and not religious law. If they can not do this, then they should search for a better fitting place to settle. We are not forcing people to come here. We live in more lenient times then we did just a few decades ago, and for the most part that is a good thing. But when we change any of our core laws, to accomadate religious law, then we deminish ourselves. The kirpin accomadation is a fine example of going too far to accomadate. Since we have now allowed a child to come to school armed with a dagger, this then infringes on all the other childrens rights to do the same. The next thing you know we will be having knife fights in the hallways. It was wrong to have accomadated this, and I would not ever vote for anyone who did this. Accomadation of dress and harmless things of that sort are fine but when the line even starts to go past that then we must say no.

My my, another Green party candidate, that wants to legalise marijuana. Elisabeth may seems to be desperate for people to carry the green banner. But yes I can take solace in the fact that there is no real hope of any kind of green surge happening in the next couple decades or so. It is a shame that the green party has this type of agenda, as it really does nothing to make the average person want to take them seriously. Hell even their candidates admit that they will not even come close to a win, and use this as they say "a public awareness lesson"

Mr Layton, your position of Afghanistan and the call for immediate withdrawl of all troops, leaving the afghanis people to fend for themselves. How do you justify this position and its letting down our promises made to NATO? Also, explain how this would not be letting the Taliban just come back and take Afghanistan by force and again driving it back in time? Also how do you say to the troops who lost their lives and some limbs, that they should not have been there in the first place? I hope that is polite enough because yes, I would have been more inclined to slant it otherwise.