Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by udawg

  1. Of course, the problem in Hamilton, the reason they like her, (and maybe the cause of her idiocy) could simply be the water. I have grandparents in Hamilton, and they don't like her very much. They drink bottled water.
  2. I hope the Liberals allow her to run for them. The rest of the country (outside Hamilton, I mean), will see that it IS still the same old Liberals that have angered so many. On the other hand, if she defects to the NDP, facing unofficial expulsion from the LPOC, it could signal that the old party is gone, and this is PM's Liberals, not Chretien's. Which would be a big relief to many, to see the last hangers-on leave.
  3. Whether or not I think Ms. Stronach should be leader of the federal Conservatives, she does for the race what needed to be done. Which is, bring in a star candidate to get media attention. I actually think that she may not be the woman for the job. Quite frankly, she doesn't have the experience. What she should do, and I've posted to this before, is run for a seat in the upcoming election, regardless of the outcome of the leadership race. Especially if she loses. This will fuel debate as to whether she will run again next time, and keep the spotlight directly on the Conservative Party. Whether she wins or not is not the important issue. The important issue is raising their profile and convincing voters that the party isn't dead yet.
  4. My father suggests that New Zealand would be an ideal neighbour. With no natural enemies and a generally moderate government, who can complain. Not highly industrialized (where the sheep outnumber the humans by about 25 to 1), they still maintain western, democratic beliefs. Ireland would be similar. Both these countries have similar views on many political issues, and both can maintain impartiality on most issues, in the way Canada used to be able to. Our ideal neighbours, to my thinking, would have similar worldviews; capabilities that complement our own (in terms of trade, defence, etc); and would respect our decisions, even if they don't agree. Any nations come to mind?
  5. How about a little more patience? Give her a couple weeks to find herself, gain some confidence, and get used to the whole thing. She'll figure it out, she's a smart girl.
  6. Seems to me, it's alot easier to waffle on an issue, especially in your first appearance, than to make a stand. If she has the courage to make a stand on an issue as controversial as that, first time out, I think she can only get stronger.
  7. Taken from dictionary.com, the quickest place I could find a definition.
  8. Sure, but does Mr. Martin see it that way? Career politician... votes mean more to him than actually accomplishing things. Even better if the two coincide. Unless he wants to diverge from Chretien's policy... in which case he'll do things for the good of Canada, not for votes.
  9. Ambition can mean whatever somebody decides it will. Ambition is simply what a person wants to achieve, whether it be for themselves, for others, or something entirely negative. Greed IS a kind of ambition, because what some people wish to acheive is money.
  10. There's nothing wrong with diversity, as long as people are [place citizenship here] first, and [place ethnicity, nation of origin, or religion here] second. One of the biggest problems facing Canada today is that many new immigrants, after moving to Canada, gaining citizenship, getting jobs, etc, still see themselves as Iranian, German, Algerian, or whatever, before Canadian. There is no instilled sense of pride or allegiance to our country. Canada, for many, is simply a meal ticket. Diversity, I don't have a problem with. Disloyalty, I do.
  11. What I don't understand is why she decided to go straight for leadership. I think she would have been better off to run in a southern Ontario riding, win the seat, and get some political experience. Give it a couple years, build her reputation, and once she has the political credentials, go for the leadership. There might be a little more trust at that point. She would have an opportunity to develop her knowledge of politics and the workings of the legislature, without being thrown straight into a high-profile, important leadership position.
  12. Sure is gonna be an interesting election... best one in my memory. We've got the NDP trying to de-radicalize, same with the new conservatives, we've got big names coming to and coming back to politics... then there's the Liberals, whose main goal will be to hang on amidst a storm of new faces and ideas... and some old faces with new ideas. Most elections in my lifetime have been landslides for one side or another, where the party arriving in power was the only viable option. Finally, there's more than one party to vote for. Lovin' it
  13. Interesting point, and I don't know the answer. Do you have a suggestion?
  14. While this a little off the topic at hand, the main problem with the gun registry is that it does nothing to combat the criminal use of firearms. Police will tell you that most firearms-related crimes involve unregistered, illegal guns. In most cases, illegal to begin with, even if there wasn't a registry. Therefore the gun registry is useless, as it merely harasses the law-abiding gun owners that we don't need to worry about.
  15. Thanks for tellin me about this, Craig... haven't heard of it til now... time for a little research.
  16. Column by Thomas Friedman in the NY Times today. Outlines his thoughts on the Israeli/Palestinian problem.NY Times column Read the article for better explanation. It makes enough sense... assuming you think Palestine has a valid claim for existence. Even makes sense if you don't, just because it might actually help Israel.
  17. No, which is why reform is needed. The senate can still serve a useful purpose, reviewing bills to ensure they represent the people's wishes, rather than the MP's, or the party in power's. Whatever reform occurs, the Senate needs to maintain it's objectivity, and not become too affiliated with one party. Once objectivity is achieved, I see no reason why the Senate cannot take a more active role in decision making and law-passing. Senate reform should include a way to make a more active role both possible, and acceptable.
  18. Amen to that Morgan. While I agree that we need to be careful to maintain our sovereignty, we also can't be so fearful that we simply do the opposite out of spite. One needs to have faith in our elected leaders that we will use our military wisely. *sigh* Not that they give us much reason to have faith... Money could also be saved by reducing the bureaucratic idiocy that evelopes the federal government... but that's too much to ask for... so instead, I suggest we stop funding private organizations (ie: National Action Committee)...the Firearms Registry (most, in my corner of the country, consider this useless... as well as expensive... a billion dollars would go a long way for our forces...), and programs like the one Paul Martin said he was ending (Quebec ad campaign). Federal programs should be limited to areas that the constitution names (defense, immigration, etc), and other areas that expressly help the Canadian public in its entirety. No special interest group should be funded by the government, at any level.
  19. Conspiracy, Mr. Read? That is not what I was suggesting. Merely good politics. Of course he's doing it for the election... wants to win the votes that he loses with each new American death in Iraq. It does not require a conspiracy for the nice men and women in the White House to do things to enable their continued stay in that esteemed building. Making new policy to garner continued support from the American public is not a conspiracy. And, KK, I do not find it hard to believe that he may want a bigger legacy, if he can get it. Toppled terrible dictator...went to Mars... won second term easily...etc etc.
  20. I agree, SirRiff, the powerful nations would never agree to this new organization, human nature being what it is. But I still want to kick the idea around a little, see if we can reach some sort of consensus as to what an international body like this should be.
  21. Well, I have to apologize, I was ignoring adoption. You're right, it really isn't explained as an option as much as it should be. Back to the drawing board indeed. So, if the kids are wanted by others, then the only excuse for not having the child is they don't want to have to deal with pregnancy and birth. Which is a sad excuse; if they're gonna have intercourse and get pregnant, they can sure as hell have the baby, as long as the baby doesn't end up worse off. Thanks for opening my eyes
  22. I do realize that this idea could be seen as advocating a one-world-government. However, there would never be one person in charge of the entire organization. It would have stewards, I suppose, but nobody who could make orders or actually command anything. I guess I misstated myself earlier. The armed forces would still be under the direct control of their home nations, and any country that was attacked would have the right to defend its borders. Their forces would only be used for the purposes of the NIO when they have expressly voted in favour of an action, and at all other times the nations are free to do with their armed forces as they wish. The idea of the new organization is so that one country, commanded by a rogue leader or dictator, could not unilaterally do anything without repercussions. If they choose to invade another country, the victimized country could plead their case to the NIO, and the countries of the world will decide to support one side or the other. This would prevent any nation from doing something against the interests of the world at large. I believe this would be the first step to actual world peace.
  23. Just a comment about abortion. Many people DO believe this. But is it fair to a child, to be born into an environment where they are a) not wanted, or b)unable to be taken care of properly. Those are the two main reasons for abortion, I would think. Child not wanted, or parent/s unable to care for child.
  24. Everybody on this forum seems to agree that the UN is a useless, money-draining organization, but that something like it is necessary. I was writing an essay on Canada's military and armed forces in general, and got in a discussion with my father about a new international organization. The ideas we came up with follow. 1. The new internationl organization (NIO from now on) will comprise of every nation in the world. Whether a nation decides to participate and send delegates, etc, is up to them. 2. Every nation has equal rights. No veto powers to the major western superpowers. 3. The world's military forces fall under the jurisdiction of the NIO. (wait a minute to yell at me) 4. Military actions require 60 percent of the nations to agree, however, those who vote for it must be willing to contribute to the action. To counter this, if a nation believes in the action, but does not wish to contribute, (a little hypocritical, but it happens nonetheless), the nation may declare an abstention, and the 60 percent will be taken from the remaining nations. (ie: 60% of 192, rather than 60% of 193 nations). I chose 60%, because with 1/2 the nations, it becomes too easy to create an alliance FOR the vote, and with 2/3, too hard to get support. Nations who decide not to participate will be considered an abstention in voting, but are welcome to participate whenever they decide to. This encourages participation, but does not punish anyone (the nation itself, or other nations in the NIO) for their non-participation. Looking for a good discussion... what do you think of these ideas? What other powers should the NIO have? Any ideas about making the voting more equal in terms of population, or in terms of capability, etc? One idea my father had was to tie in population to the 60% of nations: that is, for a vote to pass, 60% support among nations must exist, but also that those nations must have 60% of the world population as well. I think maybe 60/40: 60% nations, containing 40% population. More ideas?
  25. As much as I really don't want the taxpayers to have to pay for this, it cannot realistically be blamed on the supranational RC Church. I have doubts that the Pope commanded that priest to do whatever he did.... But seriously, it should be the priest who pays, and if he's dead or whatever, then the case should be dropped. Mental anguish and whatever other crap is cited in the lawsuit should have a statute of limitations. Sure, go after the priest for abuse if you can, in criminal court. Which they have, and they've won. But if the priest can't pay the lawsuit, the court says, sorry fellas... we don't owe you anything, the government don't owe you nothin, and the church at large don't owe you nothin neither.
  • Create New...