Wild Bill

Ok, just for the sake of argument let's say you're right! Harper is chortling in glee at the thought of all those autoworkers losing their jobs and starving! He now feels his life is complete! Now, out of curiousity, can you tell us anything within his power he can actually DO about it? Specific things that might work? Things that would get Ford, GM or Chrysler sales back up and their plants running full out? Preferably things that didn't involve taxing the rest of us into more poverty? Seriously, I'd like to know!

I can't of course! Neither of us can disprove a "what if" premise! How can YOU prove to me that Dion is not really a "pod alien"! Give me a break! All we can go by is their track record. In this instance Harper doesn't appear nearly as bad as the Liberals. That leaves someone like me in the same position. So far all I have about Harper are some uneasy feelings. He IS a politician, after all! With Dion and the Liberals I feel from their history I have certainties.

It's not a question of knowing it all. It's a question of whether or not a proposed plan of action makes sense! It's very expensive to just try anything, even if it obviously couldn't work! If China and India are putting out so much in emissions that ours amount to less than a fraction of a percent even grade school math shows that anything we do is pointless. The planet doesn't care about symbolic gestures, or if we "all work together and sing the Coca-Cola song!". Burn hydrogen in oxygen and you'll get water. Add one and one and you'll get two. A volt will shove an ampere through an ohm. That's why I can't respect carbon trading. Everybody can feel good making trades and spending money that will be passed on in the form of increased prices to us ordinary folks. How about actually reducing emissions? Or has Dion forgotten all about that? I've read the Kyoto Accord from top to bottom. They didn't seem to care about actually DOING it at all! All the emphasis was on richer countries getting rid of their guilt by buying carbon credits from poorer ones. At least Harper wants to make it law to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020. I'll take a 20% decrease instead of just trading around carbon credits any day.

Simply not true. The vast majority of people who have used marijuana and even cocaine have suffered no ill effects. There is a certain percentage of people who will get themselves all messed up on SOMETHING! Take away their cocaine and they will switch to Jack Daniels. They will always find something. We have cigarette smuggling because the taxes are obscenely high. That's where the criminals get their profit. Al Capone paid off politicians to keep booze illegal. It would not surprise me if we have some politicians on the take today. It's public record that it happens in drug-king states like Florida. When you state that we have thousands dying from using drugs you're not posing the real question. All those deaths have nothing to do with drugs being illegal. Those who died had no trouble obtaining them, despite all the money and resources we have devoted to stamping them out. The real question is if spending those monies and resources makes any difference at all! If people are going to do it and trying to prevent it is an exercise in futility then why spend the money? The same number of people are going to die anyway. If drugs were legal and not taxed far above the street price then no one would be pushing them! The crime would disappear and A LOT more money would be available for treatment and education! Sorry, but to me your argument sounds like a scientist who has already made up his mind and has spent a lifetime trying to find an experiment that proves his premise, while ignoring hundreds that disprove it. You just don't seem to be dealing with the world as it is but rather as you WISH to see it! This is your right, of course. I just resent being taxed for a futile effort with no positive results. Then again, as a Canadian, what else is new?

Who needs a crystal ball? If you see that someone has put square tires on his car you don't need to be psychic to know it won't travel very fast!

Can anyone name a Tory scandal worse than Liberal bag men passing envelopes full of millions of dollars OF OUR TAX MONEY! under the table in Montreal restaurants? Some people seem to have ZERO sense of perspective!

We've all witnessed Liberal reneging on promises for decades and decades. I'm old enough to remember how the Liberals campaigned against price and wage controls against the Tories to win the election, only to have Trudeau promptly impose price and wage controls. Then there was Joe Clark's famous 18 cents a gallon tax on gas. Again, after they won the Liberals raised taxes MORE than 18 cents! And the Chretien GST renege, free trade and a host of others. Now, you imply that we can't blame Dion for all those years of broken promises. You're right. We can't. We have no idea if the man will keep his promises because he's never been the prime minister. Are you seriously saying that is a good enough reason to trust him? That although his party has a bad record we should totally give the man the benefit of the doubt? That's like saying if you have a used car dealership that has ripped people off for years we should trust their brand new salesman 'cuz HE has no bad history! More than that however, not only is Dion a liberal but his ideas frankly sound loopy! How on earth can he shift taxes from income tax to carbon with no pain? Even if the entire plan was "revenue neutral" (which would be the first and only time that's ever happened in our history, from ANY party!) how many of us can afford to pay more for gas and home fuel all year and wait for a tax break the next April? Only those who have always been well off could be so naive. It's like the statistician who says that if a man has one foot in the fire and one foot on the ice on the whole he should be quite comfortable! Sorry, but I just can't agree with your reasoning. It runs counter to an entire long lifetime's experience. Some of us voters DO have memories!

Nothing wrong with putting ideology first! As long as you understand the role of ideology. Ideology is not a catechism. It's not a rulebook that you quote very literally and apply even when you don't understand what's going on. It's a philosophy, a manner of thinking. It's a tool to help you decide what's positive and appropriate as a reaction to any given situation. Again, it's not a "lookup table" of instructions for the simple and ignorant to dodge having to make an intelligent decision. However, it can be a great tool in the hands of the intelligent. That being said, I will admit that perhaps Flaherty is a bit challenged...

No....Bull? Sorry, couldn't resist the pun!

UN inspectors had been quoted as saying that being denied access made them suspect the worst. Perhaps a simpler explanation might be more likely true. Saddam was obviously playing a game with the world to make them THINK he had WMD's! He was too good at his own game and his bluff got called. Bush was not the only one to believe Saddam's bluff. He was just the only one with the resources to call it. The fact that no WMD's were ever found doesn't mean just that Bush was wrong. It also means that Saddam was too effective at bluffing for his own good.

Maybe. If they did "clean up their act" others would probably stop buying it! Perhaps enough to THEN put it out of business! It's like with newspapers. I never buy the Toronto Star. I simply find it boring and predictable. Every news story has the same slant: "Liberals always good! Everyone else is bad!". I know what I'll read before I even get to the story. That's just MY tastes! LOTS of people LIKE the Star! People choose for themselves. Isn't it easier just to let magazines do their own marketing and see who sells enough to survive?

I think you might be confused about the actual goal of the original poster. It's NOT to get John Tory to leave! That wouldn't make sense to someone who would never want Tories in power anyway. As you've implied in your post, the Tories keeping an unelectable leader is a much smarter idea. No, the real goal is to have a Tory party that is indistinguishable from the Liberal Party. This would ensure that only the values (such as they are) would be available as a political choice for the electorate. At that point it wouldn't matter which party got your vote. Conservative values could never be chosen again, no matter how many citizens wanted them. Once that was achieved, within a few generations the very idea of values different from the Liberal Party would be forgotten. A worthy goal to some but to many of us (perhaps most) it would be "doubleplus ungood".

Really? So you're saying that the province should duplicate the testing of the municipalities? That the province should assume that municipal governments are no more trustworthy than a dirty restaurant and need to be policed? Man, what a concept! Hey Toronto! Sure you inspect all your own restaurants but your inspectors might be corrupt so we the province are going to periodically investigate you! As well as any other thing you inspect! Putting aside the horrendous costs of such micro-managing, how much support do you think any such provincial government would ever again receive from municipalities? Man, your idea of good governance seems kinda fascist to me! If you were to belong to any party that tried to govern in such a fashion I wouldn't count on being re-elected...

This doesn't quite make sense for ANY politician to do! After all, they want to get RE-ELECTED, don't they? Then again, perhaps you're partially right. Polls over the years have consistently shown that Canadians favour the death penalty as an option, at least when there's no longer any reasonable doubt, as with Paul and Karla. So on 1 out of 3 they would gain support for the following election but on the other two they would likely lose, big time! So I guess it depends on whether or not you believe that the Tories have a "scary! scary!" agenda that they would fulfill first chance they got and damn the consequences or if they would be pragmatic and accept the will of the majority of voters. In effect, do you believe that the Tories would commit political suicide to fulfill your "straw man" premise? Seems a bit of a stretch to me, although I will admit if Stockwell were back as leader he might be dumb and naive enough to try. Not very many others in the Tory party, I would think. Or any other party, for that matter.

You know, if the Tories had committed the fraud we would likely never have heard the end of it! It would have been considered a crime against the Universe and the CBC would still be running it as the lead story every news hour.

Oh, I don't know! I'm considered rightwing in many circles and I couldn't care less if someone's gay. However, I do blame all gays for some really bad disco music and for the idea of men using hair spray. I also refuse to eat quiche. I can get along with almost anyone, as long as he doesn't try to tax me for his OWN pet hobby horse! One might note that Brison left the Tories because he was a bleeding heart, not because he was gay. Or maybe because he was in a snit for not winning the CPC leadership...

He did do an outstanding job in Ontario! Ask any of us who lived it! Except for Torontonians, of course, who firmly believe the sun shines out their butt. I remember folks walking around with T-shirts saying "I survived Bob Rae!". I tried desperately to find one but somehow never got around to sourcing one. Ontario when Jim took over was like Calgary when the NEP hit.

Your point is totally moot, considering that Dion would not oppose a confidence motion anyway! It's a waste of time to even argue!

Who says I don't also agree with keeping the sites open? That's not the point! I would go further and legalize ALL drugs to wipe out the profit for organized crime and free up zillions of tax dollars for more such sites, education and treatment! All I'm saying is if it's done by an unelected judge over-ruling a government elected by the people then the time will come when a judge rules AGAINST something you believe in! If the government is supreme then you can at least try to vote them out. If you disagree with the judge there's nothing you can do! He's got his job for life! The system is flawed. You got the decision you wanted only by a lucky fluke. It could just as easily bite you on another issue. I wonder if you will be so happy at that time to abide by the same system. Sauce for the goose can leave a bad taste in a gander's mouth. How's that for a loopy metaphor?

Perhaps you should keep some perspective. I too voted for Harper and now notice a bit of a smell but it would have to intensify by quantum levels before it stank as bad as the Liberals! Bernier is chump change compared to Adscam!

Well, isn't that the argument? How do our laws evolve with our present structure? Do the changes represent the will of the people or the values of judges? If we have a conflict, what can we do about it? Particularly if our politicians are too cowardly to get involved. This was one of the major criticisms of abandoning our former system of British Common Law in favour of a codified Charter of Rights. Our amending fomulae are such that in the real world amendments are almost impossible. In effect, the way it was first written is carved in stone. We better hope that it always stays perfect! We do have the "Notwithstanding Clause" except governments have been too scared to ever use it. Except for some Quebec provincial governments, who have used the nothwithstanding clause of a constitution/charter they have never signed! I'm saying that the baby steps you cite this judge as taking are his values. As far as I've heard there never was any referendum or plebescite to read popular opinion. You can't claim that democracy has been exercised through our elected representatives when the judge has ruled against the federal government! It may be a minority government but it democratically is in power. The judge was appointed for life. If you think he was wrong in his decision well... tough beans! Again I say, just because you happen to agree with this one should not mean you think the system is just hunky-dory. If one occurs that you don't agree with I'm afraid you're in for a disappointment if you think that most folks agree with you and you can get the law to "evolve". It wouldn't matter if you actually got unanimous consent of every other citizen in Canada! There's no easy legal lever to exert their collective will.

I'd agree with you that nuclear power reactors have a sad history of mismanagement and cost over-runs here in Ontario. That doesn't prove ALL reactors would be over budget and mismanaged, just the ONTARIO run reactors we've had so far! Screw 'em! Lot's of other folks make reactors with as good or better safety records and much better financial credentials. So let's buy from one of them.

My understanding is that America has not drafted soldiers for a long time now. That means today's American soldiers must have been volunteers. I don't support a soldier picking and choosing what conflicts he wishes to fight in. He's either in the chain of command or he's a civilian, by definition. He should have understood that before he chose to enlist! If he leaves the army he's a deserter, by definition as well. Any conflict he has is with his country's army and has nothing to do with us. Canada is not here to "rescue" someone who wants to desert. As for a refugee hearing, we used to define a refugee as someone who fled his native country out of fear for his life. It's been a VERY long time since America shot its deserters! For that reason I would deny them refugee status.

Here's another anecdote! However, it's personal experience as I was there when it happened. Back in the 70's "fuzz busters" were just starting to appear. Here in the Niagara Peninsula a lot of American cars were caught coming across the border with radar detection units. There was also quite a black market selling them to Canadians, mostly salespeople on the road, it seemed. In those days I was a passionate ham radio operator. This is the hobby of radio experimentation. To participate you needed to pass an exam in radio laws and theory and receive a federal licence to build and operate a radio station. Hams were and are licenced to operate over a wide range of frequencies, including microwave. One of the long-standing traditions was to scrounge commercial gear and rip it apart to modify it for use in ham radio applications. Now at that time police radar units were operating at a frequency of a bit over 10 gigahertz. This was so close to an assigned ham radio frequency range that radar detectors could be easily modified into transceivers capable of communication at this microwave frequency. So my good friend "Ralph" is across the border one weekend at what we called a "Hamfest" in Rochester, NY. This was a weekend event for radio hobbyists, complete with a flea market of parts and gear. "Ralph" spots one of these radar detectors for sale and buys it on the spot. So on his way home across the border "Ralph" has his box of radio junk purchases in the back seat and cheerfully declares it to the customs inspector. There's no duty on used junk so he's waved through but the inspector had noticed the radar detector. Sure enough, 10 or 20 miles up the QEW highway an OPP cruiser pulls "Ralph" over and proceeds to give him a ticket for possession of a radar detector. Now "Ralph" came from an affluent family, with several lawyers on retainer for the family business. He thought this charge was going to be great fun! You see, there were a lot of factors that didn't seem to have been considered in the provincial law. "Ralph" was licensed by the federal government to build and modify radio apparatus, which included radar detectors, by definition. The radar detector in question was not even in a functional state! It was in pieces, recognizable only by the case with the mfgrs labels and logo. It was not capable at the time of detecting police radar and besides, "Ralph" never had any intentions of using it for that purpose! To add more technical factors to the issue, the state of technology at that time meant that both the police radar and the radar detectors were relatively crude, broadband devices. Even after the unit would have been modified for ham radio communication and experimentation it would still have detected police radar, as it was too crude to reject it. "Ralph" believed that there was an obvious conflict here between being federally licensed to be a radio experimenter and the provincial radar detector law. All of us, not just his personal friends but any folks who were also ham radio hobbyists were very interested in how this could turn out. We were disappointed! When our friend's lawyer filed his "motion of defense" or whatever you call the intent to fight the charge and the basis of your argument."Ralph" was asked to come see the Crown Attorney. The charge was dropped, with the understanding that "Ralph" was to keep quiet and the Crown would leave him alone. They also returned his radar detector. So we never did find out how the issue would have been resolved. I've always been curious. It was obvious that whoever phrased the provincial law likely had never heard of ham radio operators and also likely was not technically educated in how police radar and detectors actually worked. Perhaps someone in this thread like FTA Lawyer might enlighten me on how these conflicts are legally resolved.

"There is nothing so popular as telling your neighbour how to live his life, except taxing him to pay for YOUR great idea!"