Wild Bill

Perhaps "the thing" was the chip on your shoulder! Drea's words didn't seem accusatory at all to me when I read them! Just some simple observation, advice and a "smiley". If you're THAT sensitive I suggest when you're looking for a "better forum" you stay the heck away from the "babble.com" bunch. I've never met a more rude, crude and intolerant crowd.

My feelings towards it are irrelevant. The politics are the same. If the positions were reversed the Liberals would be doing the exact same thing towards any other issue that was popular yet not scientifically proven. Don't insult the people, even when they're loopy. Not if you expect to get their vote anyway. If the Tories "came clean" as you demand they would likely lose the next election. While that may be your hope I don't think ANY politician would be THAT stupid! As for smoking, I'm not a smoker so my opinions are based on observation. While it's obviously an unhealthy habit I tend to think many of the dangers, particularly that of passive smoke, are deliberately trumped up as a ploy to force smokers to quit. To me, a citizen is either legally an adult or he's not, as far as governments are concerned. I guess I'm Libertarian enough to consider the success of the anti-smoking movement in this country as a tragedy for individual rights. I would have supported owners choosing what type of customers they wished to attract with signs over the doors stating Smoking, Non-Smoking or Mixed. Those bothered by smoke could not have been better protected than that. The present system obviously is not designed to protect non-smokers but rather to force smokers to quit by removing any venue for them to practise their habit. However, I'M not running for office! Anti-smoking is another non-scientific issue. There is nothing so popular as making your neighbour do what YOU think is good for him! Except maybe taxing him for your OWN pet hobby horse. If I appeared in a political debate about smoking I would lose the election, period and end of story. It would make no difference if I won the debate with iron-clad logic and irrefutable evidence. The majority of the public has chosen to view the issue from an anecdotal standpoint and not from considering it by scientific method. People are the way they are and there is no point in fighting it. If you want to get their votes you sometimes have to compromise yourself. The only important factors are how much you have to compromise and how much integrity you actually had to start with.

See my post immediately before yours!

You're quite right! The Tories SHOULD sue the author as well! Perhaps they were more upset at the allegations coming from a political opponent using them for partisan purposes. By themselves the author and his book are small potatoes. When the Liberals air the allegations to the world that's something else. The author is either telling the truth or he's just an opportunistic shill. He should be sued so that a judge can ascertain guilt or innocence. I don't care for all these lawsuits either but I find it interesting that so many feel that it's Harper's fault for making the charges rather than the Liberals at fault for breaking laws. With Cadman, if the Libs had just been smart enough to keep such charges within the walls of Parliament there could have been no lawsuit. The issue of the GreenShift company name didn't have to happen either. It makes the Libs look like arrogant, self-centred bullies. These things are bigger than just Liberal/Tory feuding. I don't want to see public slander and libel between parties in the media everyday. The Law of Parliamentary privilege was written for good reasons. If Harper dropped his lawsuits would the Liberals likely stop provoking them? Not likely, it seems. The present crop seems to feel that somehow they are "special". I wouldn't respect this attitude if the party positions were reversed, either. Somehow 'though, I would expect the same Liberal apologists in this forum to come up with some convoluted argument as to why the Liberals would be in the right. Some folks it seems can only see evil through their "right" eye...

I guess if you live long enough you'll see everything! Here we have a long series of posts defending LIBERAL fiscal accountability! If you had asked people about this subject in 1997 or so the very idea would have been inconceivable for all but the most Liberal partisans.

Not me! Although of course I have an opinion. Still, Geez Louise! Of course the Tories must think it libel or they wouldn't be suing! I can picture the situation now. Harper wakes up one morning to read on a liberal website that he said some things to an author that implies that he knew about an unethical attempt to bribe a dying MP, an MP that he had known personally for years as someone for whom bribery attempts would be a waste of time. The claim is being made on a Liberal website for the whole world to see. Now, he knows he never said any such thing. He's also pretty upset at the accusation. However, he decides not to sue them since after all, since they haven't been convicted yet (a very hard thing to do before you make your charge) and so he can't be sure if it is indeed libel! I didn't understand Visionseeker's original argument and I don't understand your defense of him. Perhaps you both just got a little excited... This is just nuts! There's partisanship and then there's thinking that is just nuts!

It's called politics! They ALL do it! That's why they're called politicians! Are ya new? GW has become very popular. It has become embedded in the public consciousness as deep as astrology and UFOs. If you want to be elected you better at least pay lip service. After all, if you're the only atheist in a town of Baptists you'd be smart to keep your mouth shut.

You're confusing me again! How can we know ANYTHING is libelous until proven in court? That's WHY we go to court! I mean, who else is going to define the act as libel? You? Anybody who's NOT a Tory? Your post makes no sense to me. I suppose if you hacked someone up with a chainsaw you should not be charged, because since you haven't been to court it hasn't been proven to be murder. I guess I'm just a partisan for thinking we need courts.

Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that if someone printed a book that libeled you and then I or someone else repeated the libel on a website to the world, that only the author should face a lawsuit? That I or anyone else should get off scott free?

Does this point really matter? Police chiefs support any and all laws and tools as possible aids to their jobs. They couldn't care less if a tool is cost-effective. That's not their problem. If the gun registry was useful one time in 10,000 that's a plus for them. Suppose a check shows no record of a gun in a house. That just means that there likely is no LEGAL gun in the house! The police on scene still would have no choice but to treat the situation as a possible firearm available. After all, criminals are notoriously lax about registering their guns. I mean, police chiefs seem to believe they are actually effective in waging the war on drugs! They would never call for legalization. They just ask for bigger clubs in the form of more laws. As if it makes any difference. I read an article today stating how the human mind evolved to accept anecdotal evidence and that scientific thinking is only a few hundred years old. If the police chiefs support the gun registry then I can well believe it.

If this were a real world example and not just a joke, the fellow from whom the leftist stole the rope would drown. The leftist would blame Steven Harper and globalization.

Perhaps you've forgotten some of the "wars" with the provinces during Chretien's reign. Much of that deficit slaying was done by offloading the debt onto the provinces. Since each taxpayer has only one wallet there was precious little benefit to be had from such a policy, except perhaps to obfuscate as to who was the pickpocket. I particularly remember the health care war, where some provinces were allowing changes such as private clinics against Ottawa's wishes. The situation was much more difficult for the Liberals because when they took over the federal portion of health money was something like 80% and they had chopped it to maybe a third or less. Provinces such as Quebec and Ontario reasoned that if the feds no longer put in so much money then maybe it might be more efficient to go it alone and not have to provide services as per a federal mandate. By drastically cutting back on health care transfers to the provinces the Libs left themselves in a position of little financial clout to force provinces to toe the line. To tell the truth, at the time I thought it looked good on them! Perhaps you are too young to remember those headlines. Not that I'm challenging you about Mulroney's rule, mind you. He did indeed do little to help the debt or the deficit. To be fair, I'm not sure if he had the vision from his ivory tower to see the effects of free trade with the conversion to a poorer paying warehouse instead of manufacturing economy. Or the savage recession that hit just after he instituted the GST. Perhaps if these factors had not occurred he would have left the country in a better financial situation. Also, Chretien didn't adopt his fiscal policy because he truly believed it was better for the country. The gnomes in Zurich told him flat out that they intended to pull the fiscal rug out from under Canada by downgrading our credit rating, if things weren't improved with the amount of debt and deficit. Chretien had no choice and its certain he would never had changed his philosophy of governing otherwise.

Well, I'd respect 50 +1%! I believe that if you have to force a country to stay together then you've already lost. That being said, I would expect whatever party is in Ottawa to look out for the rest of Canada's interests in the separation agreement. Once you're out, you're all the way out. No currency, no passports, no old age pension. However, I don't see much positive in debating with you. Frankly, you sound to me like a western version of a Pequiste. You lead with your heart and not your head. That's your right and I respect it but when you talk about the entire population of a province like Ontario as if they are all of one mind and intent I no longer credit your argument. When you include ME as a Liberal supporter you come across as a simple zealot. It's also my right to refuse to debate with those who I find to be overly emotional. So I'm going to add you to my "ignore" list and wish you a good day. Good Day!

Even simpler: There is a man drowning 100 feet from shore. A rightist happens buy, throws him a 90 foot rope and tells him: "Hey, work for that last 10%!" A leftist comes by, throws him a 100 foot rope (which he took from someone he thought didn't deserve it) but just before the fellow reaches the shore the leftist drops his end and rushes off to do another good deed.

Bull fighting? And bull running in Pampalona? Excellent point! Now you've raised my suspicions. We have no end of GreenPeace activists, McCartneys and even Richard (MacGuyver) Andersons to attack the sealers. Yet these same people never say a word about Spain and its bull sports. Almost seems contrived, doesn't it? Or maybe I'm just too suspicious.

I'd be very surprised if the NewGST sells in Ontario. Only because Ontario is hurting economically more and more. When an electorate is hurting they usually don't calmly weigh pros and cons. They are rabidly against any new costs like taxes and not in a mood to discuss tax "shifts" and tradeoffs. Governments historically have lost any confidence in doing anything but tax grabs excused by bafflegab, if they ever had any confidence from the voters, that is. Especially Liberals! No, if Dion pulls off a miracle I'll stick my neck out and predict that it will either be because of some other unforeseen issue or a major stumble by the Tories, a la the Liberal Adscam. It would have to be a major scandal. A few hundred thousand or even a few millions in campaign money or possible bribes to Cadman won't cut it. Not in the same league. Voters are still looking to punish Liberals. It is the election AFTER this one that will be the real battle! Harper will be the incumbent, and being the incumbent has both advantages and disadvantages.

Sonuvagun! Someone who actually COULD give up his car because he had access to public transit that actually WORKED! Not in my town! It just isn't there. You remind me of how when I was a kid there were ads in the back of comic books advertising a "$50 Jeep!" from army surplus mail order outfits. This appeared to be a mythical item, as no one had actually seen such a vehicle, despite all the advertising.

Mr. Hydraboss, I do hope you are blaming Ontario in general and not myself in particular when you make accusations about voting Liberal. I am most emphatically NOT a Liberal voter! You speak as if every single Ontarioan voted Liberal. As if they received 100% of the votes. True, a majority of seats consistently did but in terms of the popular vote it was hardly so one-sided. A huge number of us lived through those years in helpless horror. Thanks for the sympathy! You are obviously a strong Albertan separatist. I can understand your point of view. I still have perhaps the very first Reform membership cards issued to Ontario. I've talked with many folks of your persuasion. I also watched Calgary HQ run some of the most inept, inappropriate and downright ignorant campaigns in Ontario, riding roughshod over local people who knew better. The by-election fiasco against Sheila Copps damn near made me cry. What a stupid waste of time and effort by arrogant Calgarians who knew less than nothing about what worked in that riding. We actually LOST ground! Anyhow, you're entitled to your opinions. If enough of your neighbours share them then who knows, the status quo may change. Personally, I wouldn't miss Alberta. I have little or no connection to that province. Others have family and friends involved so mine might not be the majority view. Or yours, for that matter. As long as you don't support arbitrary over-ruling the majority wishes of the Alberta electorate I can respect you for your beliefs. Still, one word of caution. It's too easy to accept the status quo of today as all that matters. Nations prosper better if they take a long term view. Today it might be better for Alberta or Ontario to go it alone or sign up with the US of A. 100 years ago or 100 years from today that might not be true. It can be impossible sometimes to retreat from a major drastic change.

Very good point! Most voters don't care if a party had successive majority or minority governments. They simply get used to having a particular party in power. The longer the Tories stay in power the more comfortable Canadians will become with them. As long as they don't pull something really stupid (like Adscam!) they could easily displace the Libs as the Natural Governing Party.

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/...eal_hunt_080723 If European politicians take a cheap shot at Canada would we be justified in retaliating? Maybe closing our ports to European fishing ships? It's common knowledge they just overfish and ruin the fishing grounds with their drag nets anyway. Perhaps we should make them understand that picking on our sealers can have a price.

I wouldn't crow too loudly. The time is rapidly approaching when Uncle Sam is going to be desperate for our freshwater. We have enough America-bashing yammerheads up here already. Comments like yours only feed them. You get more flies with honey.

I remember back in the 70's I worked for a newly opened branch of an electronics distributor. We were pleased when we won our first government quote for some integrated circuits, until they rejected our shipment. Turns out we hadn't noticed the packaging instructions. They specified packaging methods that were the original industry method, which had long since become obsolete. We were forced to manually package each individual IC to satisfy the government's obsolete requirements. It was a good lesson. We quickly realized that most major sources refused to quote on government requisitions, as the paperwork and packaging burned up all the profit for what was usually a comparatively low value order anyway. Those few who would quote did so at a sky-high inflated price. Why not? Often you would be the only one who bothered to return the quote! So you could make a great margin. Now, the official reason for government purchase and requisition methods is to protect the taxpayers' monies. In practice it did nothing of the kind. Their methods actually inflate their costs. What else is new?

Quite right! It's Alberta's resource and they should get whatever price they want for it! It's your right. Of course, we in Ontario have rights as well. If Alberta is just another of many world sources of energy then we should return any loyalty (or lack of it) from Alberta in kind. Perhaps Alberta SHOULD separate! They would be rather landlocked so we would have to be careful with how expensive we make borders and tolls. Too much and Alberta might join up with the States. Still, that's the spirit of competition. If the Americans offer Alberta a better deal... I'm NOT suggesting that Alberta owes the rest of Canada some ridiculously high discount on energy! We common folk would never see it anyway. Ottawa would gobble it up and leave us little or nothing. It's just that comments like yours encourage us to think of Alberta as about as friendly a family member as Quebec. Couldn't you just throw us a LITTLE bone so we wouldn't hate you? Remember, it wasn't the little guy in Ontario that imposed the NEP. It was Ottawa! Manning taught us that Ottawa is and has always been our real common enemy. Nobody wants to belong to a club where your major function is to just pay all the dues so that other members can gobble up all the beer and doughnuts. You think Alberta feels gouged? Suck it up! That's what living in Ontario has ALWAYS meant, clear back to 1867. Now Ontario is becoming poor. Another big Ford factory cutback hit the news this morning. We're in an economic freefall, despite the pollyanna crap coming from Harper and Dalton. Yet there is zip all talk from Ottawa or anywhere else about maybe giving us some transfer breaks. Perhaps Canada SHOULD break up and petition the Americans to join up! I'm just not sure that with such an entrenched system of entitlement and Ottawa brokerage politics the Americans would feel it a good idea for THEM!

I've run into these "some pigs are more equal than others" situations before. My wife is a dental hygienist and when we first started dated in the early 80's I approached her about some plans for a forthcoming long weekend. She surprised me by saying that she wasn't sure if she was going to have the extra day off. "What do you mean?" I asked her. "It's a stat holiday. You HAVE to get the day off!" She explained that sometimes she did and sometimes she didn't, totally at the whim of the dentist. It seems that folks like her were specifically excluded from the Ontario Labour Act! I didn't believe it but she pulled out a small book citing the Labour Act from Canada Manpower and showed me. Right there on the first page, about 2/3 of the way down was a paragraph that stated how staff and assistants to dentists, lawyers, doctors, engineers and other "professionals" were specifically excluded from the provisions of the Act! They weren't covered for excessive overtime or even overtime pay! Everything was up to their employer's whim. I don't know if things have changed but I still remember thinking at the time how it was not surprising that the professional class ran the system with some benefits to suit themselves.

So what's your solution? Vote Liberal? The party that invented such sleaze?? The NDP, who if they were lab rats couldn't run a maze with their shoes off? Marilyn Churley as the minister in charge of Canada's contribution to the Space Station? I say again, we get no perfect choices.