Wild Bill

Topaz, have you ever heard of defending your country? If you have no military, what do you do if another country takes military action against you. It doesn't have to be an invasion of your country. What about taking over your fishing waters? What about seizing your oil rigs in other countries with which you have treaties and conflicts? Your military is like your Furnace Repairman who lives in your basement, like the old TV commercial. He is there so that he can come out when you need him! Or do you think any aggressor will agree to give you a few years warning so that you can have time to build a military from scratch? SHEEESH!

"Does our economy run on oil?" I sure hope its running on something! Living here in Ontario its blatantly obvious that it doesn't run on manufacturing anymore.

Why are you bothering with this guy? He's obviously just a refugee from "rubble.com" where being rude and profane is the standard method of what they call "debate". He's rude! Turn him in! Lodge a report, let the mods handle it and move on to people more civilized in behavior. Life is too short for such sophomoric antics as this guy displays.

There you go again. If I don't agree with you, I "just can't take it then". You wonder why we have threads about the left being more intolerant of other views? What people did you talk to? People attending the meeting? You don't think they may have been just a teensy bit biased? Now you say "one of the candidates". Didn't you tell us Fife was the only name on the nomination ballot? You are entitled to your opinion but you must be prepared to defend it if it doesn't make sense, at least in some respects. This IS a debating forum, you know! Or do you think we should all just shout out whatever opinion we hold and wait for some one to agree with it, even if it contradicts their own opinions. "just can't take it"? Why do you always respond to disagreement with a personal attack? I didn't think I was being snide in my responses to you, unlike your tone with me. It's human nature not to keep talking to people that are not civil towards you. I had thought we were all here to thrash out ideas, in a search for truth. I guess we don't share that view. Whatever, that is your right but my right is just not to keep participating. As for Fife, we shall eventually see who is a better prophet, you or me. Rest assured that if you are right and I am wrong I won't carp at you. I hope you will feel the same if things prove reversed.

Eyeball, could you possibly stretch it any further? Giving ridiculous examples that would likely cause a revolution from the people just doesn't make any sense at all! I'm surprised you didn't include mandatory church attendance and forced voting for the NDP. You could maybe include UFOs in there somewhere. When you start arguing "what ifs" you can throw in any cockamamie thing you want!

Squid, forgive me but do we both live on the same planet? Native reserves are the biggest channels in Canada for illegal guns. This has been documented in the MSM so much and for so long that it is truly common knowledge, like the sun coming up in the east every morning! For Pete's Sake man, don't you read much? At least do a google! Why don't you ask the mayor of Cornwall about it? Native smugglers shot up his house! You just got your "politically correct" button pushed by a perceived slur against Natives and you spit something out like a slot machine! Not all natives are involved in such things, of course. However, it is only prudent if you are a native on such a reserve to keep your mouth shut! To ignore such problems in the name of political correctness means you can never solve them.

Manny, punishment is SUPPOSED to rest with the State! It has to do with the concept of "consent to be governed". Once law and justice were individual matters. It didn't work that well. Those rich and powerful could run roughshod over the poor and weak. Eventually British law evolved to where justice lay with the King. The people consented to this because while the King might not be perfect he did have far more resources to nab and punish evil doers. Eventually even personal duels became outlawed. However, we now are at a point where the State is perceived as sometimes unwilling to punish those who have hurt us. We are not allowed to take things into our own hands but the State doesn't seem to do its job very well. This only cheapens the injury to the citizen. It then breeds disrespect for the Law and the State. It's all very well for the State to adopt what it considers "progressive" attitudes towards punishment but if it does so without the consent of the people then friction MUST occur! Many if not most of the attitudes in our justice system today have evolved from a relatively small group within the system. Changes are never done by referenda or a plebiscite. They are never even seen as campaign planks in an election platform! I submit to you Manny that the present situation is already having its effect upon our culture and it doesn't seem to be a positive one!

Where is the common sense in believing that gun bans actually cut down on armed crime? Or make law-abiding citizens any safer? If I am in a shopping mall and some wingnut starts a shooting spree, I am likely dead! You and your bans can do nothing for me! Or for my family, if they are with me. If I have a gun of my own, or at least if there are armed and trained guards in the mall, there is a chance they might be able to shoot the wingnut before he shoots me. If I am supposed to just wait until the police arrive then I might as well find a more painless way to kill myself before the wingnut gets me. That is just common sense!

I would agree with you, Argus. What is a fair sentence for simple theft or fraud? To me, 3 years sounds about right!

Of course not, WWWTT. Still, an objective viewpoint is always more accurate than simple hype. This forum is not a campaign debate meeting. We are debating what is likely to happen in the real world. I respect your passion but passion doesn't win poker games. You have to understand the odds first and THEN you add your own style! Otherwise, it's no longer an informed debate but simply different church choirs trying to drown each other out.

Maybe you're right, Waldo. Still, some folks would need less of a pretext than others to make the claim that Canada is becoming some kind of a warmonger nation. Perhaps the true explanation is a bit simpler. There is no denying that there is an upswell in public pride for our troops. For the first time in decades many Canadians are paying more attention to Canada's military and its capabilities. That being said, anyone who starts to pay attention cannot help but get a bit distressed. We read in the papers how our troops are sent to Afghanistan with Arctic cammo. Worse yet, they have to come up with desert cammo themselves, at their own expense! There were actually little old ladies in church organizations holding bake sales to raise money for cammo supplies. They hear of rusted out rims collapsing on army trucks. The list goes on and on and on. These things can be argued here in MLW by experts, both real and self-appointed. However, the layman has a simpler perspective. He is appalled by how poorly our troops appear to be being supported and embarrassed that Canada would do so! If a body bag comes back to their town they cannot help but make a connection. Remember, with politics perception trumps reality, every time. It would make sense for Harper to want to play to that demographic. More than that, he has a vested interest to make increased levels of support seem larger than perhaps they are in reality. What his government has spent may seem absolutely necessary to many voters but again in reality, it will never move Canada UP the list of militarized nations. To use my favourite term, the extra budget is still mice nuts by comparison. So the situation is, Harper's critics will call even a $10 increase in budget for the military a giant step for making Canada a warmonger nation. At the same time, Harper will try to make every $10 increase look like a $100 one, to cater to those voters who are demanding increased support for our military. It's all just politics. What else is new?

Your post reminded me of something I read about Lee Iacocca, the guy who saved Chrysler from bankruptcy in the 1970's. He was talking about all the junk bond dealers and investment managers and held them in contempt! From his POV, they did not create wealth so much as simply played with money. They did not actually make a product or a service. He believed that respect came from mining, or farming, or manufacturing - doing something for a real world result. Buying up companies just to shut them down for a tax dodge disgusted him. I think today's corporate disrespect for the law and for the market at large is only a symptom of a deeper problem, CC. I think it has to do with a decline in the character of the average citizen! Think back to the first half of the 20th century. Zenith Radio Corporation was one of the largest employers back then and one of the first to invent profit sharing, managing to keep their workers on staff through the Depression when so many other companies dramatically slashed their payrolls. How about all those "One dollar a year" businessmen who rallied to FDR when America was dragged into WWII? What about all those "upper crust" young lads in Britain who volunteered to fly and when necessary die in Spitfires and Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain? Fast forward to the Viet Nam war, when so many lads of privilege had their fathers find ways to exempt them from the draft, to serve in safety with the National Guard or some other domestic role. It's character! A level of character that cut across economic lines. It was a universal cultural thing that affected the behavior of ALL citizens within a country! A Rockefeller might be ruthless in business but still felt obliged to set up charitable foundations. He would use his wealth and resources to help his country in time of war. He would never think of using his position to keep his sons out of the fighting. To such a man in those times it would be considered shameful. As I said, business was just as ruthless in those times but there seemed to be more honour. A man was considered only as good as his word and a handshake was a contract. How much of that do we see today? It almost seems as if Simon Legree has become a role model! There are a myriad of reasons for this change in our culture. I think that "railing against the rich" is but a bandaid approach. If we can do things to regain that sense of character in our society perhaps some of these problems in business and other areas would go away by themselves.

Well, I'm just going by history, WWWTT. It's not as if the NDP has traditionally lost by a nose in this riding. I find that changes of the scale necessary to give Fife a win are very rare in Canadian politics. Still, I would never say never. We have seen big waves of change before. The fact that the NDP swept Quebec is proof of that. As far as this riding, however, I would equate an NDP win to be like filling an inside straight.

The Tory candidate, Tracey Weiler, has an impressive history. More important, she ran against 2 other candidates for the nomination. The NDP candidate was acclaimed - no one ran against her. To people of my persuasion, to get acclaimed for a nomination is kind of a cheap win. Bothers my populist streak. I can't see Ms. Fife taking this riding. It has always been strong Tory country. What will be more interesting is how well the Liberal candidate does. So far they haven't come up with even one candidate, let alone enough to make it a nomination race. Still, voters have done some pretty unexpected things before. I wouldn't want to make any prediction just yet

Topaz, can a drone see down through the roof of a building? Or a car? Hell, all criminals would need to protect themselves from a drone would be an umbrella!

Squid, you do realize that there are very few gun stores in Canada compared to the USA? That NO pawnshops can sell handguns? The retail market is very tightly controlled and thus much easier to track. You are comparing apples to oranges in that area. Also, the numbers of firearms stolen from the homes of Canadian citizens is mice nuts compared to the volumes of such weapons smuggled across the border every single day of the week. Again I ask, why should we attack the tiny portion of the problem. We have ALREADY forced criminals to buy from a black market, for decades and decades now! What's more, that black market is entrenched and developed to where it would be the envy of a WalMart. This is why I questioned you. Frankly, I think the reason why some folks focus on the more trivial areas of a problem is simply because its easier! Pissing off law-abiding citizens is a cheap trip. It looks good despite actually DOING little good! Anti-gun advocates get a feeling of accomplishment and some ego-boo. Changing laws and sentences against illegal gun users is far more difficult. So it never seems to happen, because advocates keep chasing cheap and ineffective copouts.

Well, if you feel this strongly about the issue why don't you BLOW ALL THE TORIES UP? Is this down the road by Topaz? I have just used EXACTLY the same logic as you! You ascribe a ridiculous over-reaction to a problem by the Tories and then imply that is what they eventually will do. Jonathan Swift has nothing on you!

Soon? Not likely. Still, never say never! For me, it all depends on just what the NDP does with itself over the next election or two. I could never even consider voting for a Sid Ryan type. A Tony Blair style of leadership is a different story. These are crucial times for the NDP. It will be fascinating to see just what they do. Hopefully, they will not take criticism as personally as YOU do!

You're right, from an academic perspective, WWWTT. However, in the real world the NDP always seems to take a more extreme position than necessary. Layton earned his "Taliban Jack" sobriquet honestly. As an example, if Canada had an issue with some NATO partners not pulling their weight in something like the Afghanistan mission, it would be reasonable of an Opposition to question if that was true or not. They might claim that the government was ecpecting too much, or had failed somehow in the diplomatic nice-ities and offended those partners. The typical NDP response would be to immediately demand we pull out of NATO! I think you might not have made an important adjustment, WWWTT. The NDP is not just the minor Opposition party any more. They are the PRIMARY one! This means they are the government in waiting. As such, they should be far less dogmatic and much more down to earth if they expect to garner confidence from voters. If you expect your party to continue to be the stiff-necked academics they traditionally have been in the past then you will condemn your party to failure! The image you want to project is one of Tony Blair, NOT Syd Ryan! Do you remember the peasants in Monty Python's Holy Grail, crying political academic convoluted arguments at King Arthur, like those political leftwing windbags that preach in Picadilly Square? A LOT of voters hold that image of the NDP! You guys would help not just your party but yourselves if you would just LIGHTEN UP!

Perhaps, but it is a very humorous statement to write! The NDP have set themselves up for that one!

Don't worry about it, Topaz. It has all happened before! The problem is self-correcting. Way back in the early 90's Paul Martin, then finance minister for the Chretien government, was doing exactly the same thing. He kept chiseling away at the amount of money given to the provinces for medicare, breaking the 50% funding promise. It backfired on him, big time! A sacred cow for the feds is to have the same standards of care all across the country. That idea worked well when Ottawa was paying half the costs but when it no longer was doing that the provincial finance ministers all realized that there was no good reason to do what the feds told them! He who pays the piper calls the tune. Several of the provinces began to take steps to make changes in how they handled medicare within their own province, changes that were not necessarily what the feds wanted! In effect, the provinces told the federal government that if they weren't going to pay their promised share then the provinces would start doing things their own way. If Harper goes too far down this path the same thing will happen to him!

Why should we start by attacking 10-15% of the problem, assuming your numbers are correct. The real figures may even be lower. Why not attack the largest part of the problem first? You know, the ILLEGAL USE of guns! You are advocating nibbling around the edges, with little result other than to piss off and alienate support from legal gun owners. Meanwhile, criminals continue to get guns easily and rather cheaply, with light sentences and plea bargains for actually using them to commit crimes! I truly don't understand why so many choose this approach.

How could I not help liking Toronto more if you keep slagging Hamilton? Man, what a salesman you are, guyser! A true Dale Carnegie graduate!

Have you totally forgotten my original point? I had stated that taxpayers from outside Toronto resent having their taxes going to Toronto needs. YOU replied that Toronto gives them far more than it takes! WHY was always obvious and never asked! So I ask you just WHAT Toronto does for Hamilton, or any other city, for that matter. You reply basically that since Toronto and some organizations have the power then that's why it happens. I've been trying to get you to answer the original question - What does Toronto do for Hamilton? Now you are onto some "arts and entertainment" trip. Such as? What could possibly draw Hamiltonians in droves to leave the Hammer and go to Toronto for something they could likely see at Hamilton Place. Buddies in Bad Times Theatre, perhaps? Or maybe some artsy fartsy opera? If that doesn't attract all us steeltowners I don't know what would! Then you sum up by saying "Didnt know TO was in the business of doing positive things for other cities." as if I had never asked my original question! Have a good day, guyser! I think I'll go chat with Waldo. It will be easier on my poor head!

First Nations in the area do not have veto power over the citizens of Kirkland Lake. Neither do protesters who seem to mostly come from other areas. You said Kirkland Lake fought against it. I guess it depends on how you define Kirkland Lake. I define it as the townspeople and their municipal government. You obviously have another definition. And I still haven't heard any specifics as to how Toronto does POSITIVE things for Hamilton! You can stop with the NHL. I am not disputing they have the power. I simply can't see how this is good for Hamilton. You keep dancing all around but never give me answers.