Wild Bill

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm simply pointing out inconsistencies. Myself, I favour electing judges. That being said, I would NOT vote for Toews! In my mind he still stands for the social conservative wing of the old Reform Party. That was the part that held us back! I would be happier in a system where we elected judges, especially to the Supreme Court. Not as appointments but as regular elected positions, subject to re-election every 4 years or whatever's considered practical. Also, despite how weakly citizen power filters through our Parliament I would rather see Charter issues decided in Parliament and not from a judge's bench. So I'd want a judge to follow the law but I'd like to feel that as a citizen I have at least some influence on that law. I guess that also makes me unsupportive of a Charter of Rights in the first place. I had far more respect for the old system of British Common Law. But hey, I'm an old guy with archaic ideas, I guess! As long as disco stays dead...

well, you have to understand that through most of our history we've been ruled by Liberal governments. The Liberal Party has always believed that increased taxation is a Canadian citizen's normal and rightful state. Take every cliche uttered by your Rush Limbaugh when describing the Democrats, square it and that would be a good description of the Canadian Liberal Party.

Ah, now I see your argument. At first glance, I can agree with much of it. Where it seems to me to break down is where you say "she should look to the democratic process to revise the YOA ". That only works if you have a responsive demographic process. Here in Canada we don't elect our judges at any level and our MP's represent their party before the wishes of their constituents. She could take her concerns to her MP but it would be a waste of time if the idea was not part of the party platform. Come the next election it's likely that NONE of the parties will be offering her issue as part of their platform! Or, if offered, she will have to take the entire platform to get support for her one issue. The choice will be to abandon one party where she agrees with most everything in favour of another, where she agrees with only a few things. Forgive me, but your advice strikes me as rather glib! In effect, you tell her to quit her bitching in favour of a particular action. Only your suggested action can never work! I'm beginning to wonder if at some time in the past you may have stood for public office...

CPP and medicare are vastly different than paying for documentaries slamming the Americans, funding horrible sitcoms like "The Trouble with Tracy" or paying for a feeble attempt to make Ralph Benmergui "cool"! Your answer presupposes that the CBC is equivalent to an old age pension or children's education. Are you serious? As for involuntary taxation, that was not my target. I was arguing against someone advocating INCREASED taxes to pay for what only a minority consider a good idea. If you think that this is a good idea I have a whole raft of ideas that few other Canadians would support that you could fund. Talk about elitist!

And Dalton's has been "Ontario is now and will remain the most expensive province to do business!". Business is leaving. Go figure. What's the old line? "A recession is when your neighbour loses his job. A depression is when YOU lose your job!"

House flipping is where you buy a home in an appreciating market. In a short period of time the home's market price is higher than your original purchase price. So you sell it to buy another home, pocketing the profit from the first as increased equity into your second, and so on. As for mortgage interest, Canadians can't get a tax break on this in any way, shape or form, at least on their principal residence. You can make some claims if you borrow to buy a property for investment income, such as a house to rent out. On your own home you get no percentage on your mortgage interest at all.

Just because you don't like him doesn't change facts! I've never liked Dalton but I would concede that he must have done a few good things. It might take me a few years to think of one or two but nonetheless there must be something... Meanwhile, it seems to me that Mike actually acted as a true Liberal in the Walkerton situation. He didn't HANG the Cable brothers who poisoned the town, including those poor babies! I would have, in a heartbeat! It was criminal negligence of the most horrific kind. Those who keep putting the blame for Walkerton on Harris seem to be saying that somehow Harris knew all about what was happening in that town and put a gun to the one Cable brother's head and forced him to poison the water! Their argument seems to be that Harris was totally at fault for not funding sufficient inspectors, rather than blaming the men who actually committed the crime! I guess that's the true essence of modern liberalism. No individual is responsible for anything, unless he's our political opponent, in which case he's totally evil and responsible for everything we can think to throw at him. If he's one of ours, then we will forgive him any sin and blame the aforementioned political opponent instead. Frankly, I find this attitude disgusting and one of the likely sources for many of our social problems today. It's just "bread and circuses" all over again.

Interesting. Unless I misunderstand you, you are implying that the judicial system should NOT reflect the popular will of the people, as expressed through some form of democratic process. Popular will might be conservative or it might be liberal but at least it would be democratic. I fail to see how in any but the most tenuous stretch leaving it up to judges can be construed as democratic. Of course, this only bothers democrats. If I've misunderstood you please correct me.

Why don't you start a movement to VOLUNTARILY donate to the CBC? If you care so much and are confident there are enough others who feel as you do then they should end up with more than enough money! In effect, what you are championing right now is for OTHER PEOPLE to be INVOLUNTARILY taxed for YOUR pet hobbyhorse! Anybody can yell for more beer when someone else is paying the tab...

The problem is NOT that there's GST applied to gasoline! It's the way it's calculated! When Mulroney first instituted this unpopular tax we were told that it would simplify taxes and be more visible by removing the compounded tax situation often found with some products. When it was applied to gasoline it became a unique exception. With gasoline GST is applied to the total after federal and provincial taxes. In effect, it is a tax upon a tax. This puts gasoline in an enviable position for any government. No longer do they get a fixed tax revenue regardless of market fluctuations. If the price goes up, the net tax revenue also increases! This gives the feds a clear incentive to allow the price of gas to climb through the roof! To be a fair tax, GST should be calculated BEFORE the other taxes are added! This of course would be a much lower take and one that would not vary with changes in the pump price. It's a gouge, plain and simple. Any and all taxpayers who understand it resent it! Governments get away with it because both major parties will not change it. So when you vote you can't make an alternate choice. If you think about it, there are a LOT of such issues where we are not given a choice...

Ah, that explains much! Did you know that in Canada we can't deduct mortgage interest from our tax returns? It can make house "flipping" a bit less casual.

I guess the natives never had their Aristotle... I suggest we pay the Indian Affairs Budget with an imaginary cheque.

If I recall, CUPE started violence and the OPP responded. As for Ipperwash, do you have proof that Harris ordered the OPP to attack the protestors? Perhaps you'd be kind enough to share it with us.

Good for you! Someone else who has had his eyes opened! Once you start thinking in terms of personal freedom and liberty, you start to realize that the lack of it is often the root cause of so many issues that offend you, such as drug and lifestyle laws. It may take longer but I've always believed that if you ignore the symptoms and deal with the root causes you can be more effective. If you can get a spirit of personal liberty flourishing in governments a lot of other problems will likely evaporate by themselves...

Well, if it were true that Harris' time had simply passed and all those folks who had voted for him had changed their minds and become Liberals, then perhaps you're right. I'm curious however as to why Dalton hasn't then gotten majority wins to compare with what Harris had gotten? I think it's quite possible that while the public sector was being quite vocal against his Tories the rest of us weren't that unhappy. Harris was so successful because he appeared to do what he said and be willing to take a firm stand, instead of holding a finger to the wind like the usual politician. How can someone make the argument that the Harris style of conservatism is unpopular to the majority when we so rarely get offered the choice? Usually we get the two major parties fighting for the middle-left. Our choices tend to be red, pink or rose. When Harris retired Eves had none of the reputation of Harris. He seemed like just another old guy run by backroom boys who felt that the road to success was by appealing to the widest and lowest common denominator. No wonder he lost! That wasn't an campaign fought on political philosophy. It was an exercise in boredom! The Ontario Tories have always had an internal struggle between the blue and red sides of their caucus. So far the only time they've been successful in recent memory has been when they are blue. Miller lost, Eves lost and Tory has lost. Why not? Why vote for a red Tory? We've got a whole party of red guys called the Liberals! I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm just saying that in the absence of clear choices who can tell?

Are you implying BM that having so many Harris people in Harper's PMO means that Ontario will mostly vote against them? If so, I don't quite understand. Harris had TWO thumpin' big back-to-back majorities. SOMEBODY had to like him! After he retired it was obvious that not nearly as many folks were impressed with Ernie Eves. Whatever. For someone to imply that there is no support for Harris' political principles argues with the reality of what happened. The left believe it but they believed it before Harris blew them out of Queen's Park. If I were a Dalton supporter I wouldn't get too smug. He won last time 'cuz John Tory blew it, not because he had impressed the majority of voters. If he were up against a star candidate like Harris I don't think he would have an easy time of it. If the provincial Tories stop trying to fight the liberals for the centre left and just be conservatives Dalton might end up very, very sorry.

Actually, I see this as a healthy trend! The very soul of science is skepticism! Besides, I don't see it so much as doubt for science as no longer accepting ANYTHING said by someone in a white coat! People are slowly realizing that many institutions that purport to be scientific are actually political and therefore deserving of the same skepticism given to politicians. When David Suzuki was quoted as saying that anybody who disagreed with Global Warming should be thrown in jail he "jumped the shark", taking much of his movement with him. Perhaps it's still too early to hope that the average Canadian would at least understand how a light bulb works, it being a simple invention over a 100 years old. However, skepticism is a good first step!

That would be a total waste of time! GW has become a religion. You can't attack a religion debating facts. You're up against faith. You can cite study after study that refutes the IPCC and it won't matter a whit. As a mass, people just aren't scientifically educated enough to understand these matters. Look at the divide between Greenpeace today and Patrick Moore. People base their opinions on what makes them feel good! Politicians must at least appear to give lip service to the religion of the day or they will face a backlash. It makes no difference if the religion has facts behind it. The only thing that will dilute the popularity of the GW religion is time. We've had 10 years of no temperature increases. As people see more rain and cooler springtimes GW will gradually fade away but it will never disappear. Religions just don't do that! Younger folks today will likely live till the next "mini Ice Age" in 2050. The GW fanatics looking for money and power will not have to face the embarrassment of being wrong. They will be in expensive coffins.

Perhaps not. Still, it was Manning and the Reform/Alliance that brought denim wearing folks into their party. The Liberals still appear to be the party of the 3-piece suit!

Geez, and we used to call Liberal backbenchers "trained seals".

I'm not so sure it is "a major weakness for the Tories." The circles where so much of these ideas are popular seem mostly to be circles that would never vote Tory anyway. I don't think "mainstream" Canada buys into it that strongly. That being said, I AM certain that if any idea even smells like costing Canadians even a pittance extra from their paycheques they will turn against it. People are strapped more than many politicians realize from their comfortable, insulated ivory towers. Harper announced here in Ontario yesterday that his government can't and won't do anything about gasoline prices. It may have been a truthful thing to say but I'm not sure it was a smart thing politically. People are well aware of the tax portion of the price of a litre of gas. Of course, Dion has even less credibility about enhancing people's disposable income. The mere idea of offsetting carbon taxes with income taxes shows he's out of touch. Carbon taxes will be paid every day while income tax refunds might be a year away. Many Canadians could not survive the wait!

What does a government gain by allowing heavily subsidized foreign food into Canada that puts Canadian farmers out of business? Every year I see strawberries from Yugoslavia in the local grocery stores, cheaper than local product, after what was obviously air freight to keep them fresh! No government that I can remember has ever seemed to care about such issues. No government seems to care that they can ban a chemical that works from Canadian crops while letting foreign food loaded with the same chemical across the border. It only means that our farmers are at a competitive disadvantage. This is all so simple that surely even a politician can understand it. The fact that it goes on must mean that politicians either don't care or have a vested interest. There used to be dark rumours in farmer circles that Chretien would allow lots of subsidized food into Canada as part of deals to get the originating country's support for him at the UN. Personally, I find that a bit of a stretch even for Chretien but it does make a nice conspiracy theory. I think the key to understanding your question is to stop thinking that any government is motivated solely by the good of its citizens and think about any and all factors that would benefit them PERSONALLY!

Bob Speller held a great deal of personal esteem in a riding that traditionally would be conservative. He lost last time mostly because of revulsion against corruption in his party. I talk often with people in that riding and Bob's name keeps getting mentioned favourably. Comments like "Bob was one of the few who understood us." and "We should never have voted him out!". Now it's well known that I am NOT a Liberal booster but frankly I just can't argue with these folks! I could point out that an MP of a ruling party has more power than one from the Opposition but it would be pointless. The immediate answer would be that ANY MP would be a better choice than one who does NOTHING for you! She's toast! The only question is whether or not the PMO is aware of the situation. If they think her loss is worth it that would be strategy but I suspect it's simple ignorance.

I would assume that you don't live anywhere near the farmers in question. I do and I can say with certainly that they ARE down and out and losing their farms! Anyone within a few hundred miles of that part of Ontario has been watching the situation for years, except for 416 Toronto of course, which is on a different planet and so is not relevant. You are dead wrong! No ifs, buts or maybes. If you claim differently I would invite you to head into downtown Tillsonburg Ontario and proclaim your view in any coffee shop. I would be interested if you made it out of town alive.

Doesn't matter! Again, you're being rational. I'm talking about perception. With politics, perception is often reality! The common man doesn't listen to the reasons why the prosecutors may or may not have been forced to take a specific approach. They simply see a horrific murderess being given a light sentence. Worse yet, after the infamous deal was made new evidence in the form of a videotape of killings is produced by her lawyer, a tape that the police failed to find when they searched the house. The tape would have made her conviction a slam dunk. In the eyes of the public, BOTH the courts and the police were found wanting! We can pick at my model all you want and I don't think it will change the validity of my point in any way. People lose faith in the "system" because of conflicts with their "gut" feelings and will not change their opinion with arguments to their "head".