udawg

Disagree. Disagree, disagree, disagree. Bush Jr. needs his legacy, just like our Jonny. He'll try and go down as the second JFK, the man who sent the US to Mars. Not to mention, it rallies the American people around something, in a time when all his previous attempts at rallying have backfired. (War on terrorism...Iraq, WMD...) Recall the state of the union last year. When the American people agree about something, and feel strongly about something, they tend to think more highly of their esteemed leader. Sure, i know it's election year. But Bush doesn't want to go down in history as the guy who invaded multiple countries on little or no grounds. So he thinks up this little scheme to put the media and public focus elsewhere. I dare say, the Canadian public could use something to rally around. Seems to be alot of pessimism going around.(Read my posts about our military) I don't think we're going to Mars, though.

Now, see, there's an idea. Damn historical borders, and colonial expansion, and all the crap that made the maritimes separate provinces in the first place. Unify all the maritime provinces into one. Perhaps two... Newfoundland might even be able to go it alone. And they never were totally sure about being Canadian anyway... Maybe with a united PEI, NB, and NS, they could actually sustain an economy between them.

Loved the comment on R.C. Air Farce last night about Sheila's possible switch... something like: "The NDP is always looking for more loud-mouthed morons...."

The reason we have one of the worst immigration systems in the world is because we take a socialist view of it, the same way we do most other things concerning foreign policy. If they claim to need help, we are required to help them (by our own ideas, not anyone else's). What we need is a "Canada First" policy, which I know has been proposed many times before now, and is still quite relavent. We don't peacekeep overseas unless we have a genuine capability, and we don't let people in unless they have something to offer. Once we solve our problems at home, then we can look at refugees and other questionable immigrants. Criminals, on the other hand, should not even be considered. Just take the refugee claim, and burn it.

And before anyone asks, (I assume somebody will): Yes, I WOULD actually pay the extra taxes or whatever to pay for this. I routinely pay more money than the report says, for things infinitely less important. I'm sure there are those out there, who would not be willing to loosen their deathgrip on their wallets, but I am not one of them. For something like national security, there is no price too high.

Amen to that.I agree with the 2002 Senate committee report on the state of Canada's military. This is the report that said Canada should pull out of all overseas commitments for 2 years, and put 4 billion new dollars directly into the military. That amounts to about $130 per Canadian citizen. Not being a financial or military expert, I couldn't tell you how much our military actually needs to arrive at operational capability. But I believe that no matter what the cost is, we need to pay it. Even if it was 2 or 3 times the cost the committee suggests, I would be quite willing to pay. There is no cost greater than not being capable of defending one's own country. The main problem is that many left-wingers in Canada are deliberately attempting to downsize our military to extinction. *cough* LPOC *cough* The people and groups in favour of actually HAVING a military need to be more vocal, and show the politicians that Canadians still believe in defence capabilities. I think that would be most Canadians, but nobody does anything about it. Whatever the cost, our nation needs to invest in our military. It is completely unacceptable to only be capable of mustering 500 soldiers. We couldn't even defend my small town of 5000, should someone decide to invade. Hell, the natives in Oka could outnumber our combat-ready troops. So I say, pull out of our "peacekeeping" missions. Put whatever money in that is necessary. Cut out useless federal programs. Find the money, then use it wisely. Don't buy equipment for political reasons; buy it for military reasons. And above all, rally the Canadian public around the idea of a strong, worthy, capable military that we may all take pride in.

And a serious thanks to KK, who spelled out what I thought, but couldn't seem to say. Clarification is a great thing.

lol Thanks for straightening me out, Morgan. So I guess all the liberals must be just thinking of what they would have done when they accuse Bush & Co. of invading Iraq for oil. Remind me not to get involved with those crazies on the left...

Congrats to the States, as much as it hurts to say. But we could have used a good, competitive game earlier in the tournament. I mean, every game before was a blowout, we never had to play at our highest level. So I think we may have slacked off a bit, after jumping to an early lead. Next year... And just a question... what the hell happened to Russia and the Czech Republic? 5th and 4th respectively, I think?

Perhaps this is because they listed the most credible sites. And many Israeli sites are radical. Or in Hebrew. Hypothetically, of course. But I notice you didn't list any other countries... is that becuase those were the most notable, or they were the only ones with 5 sites listed? Really... just curiosity. One might also note that the ME is predominantly Arab... hence the perpetual friction with Israel... Now, I really don't know, but I imagine CNN has Israeli sites listed elsewhere. Either that, or you might be more correct than I want to admit. [laughing]

Here's a question for all of you, I don't care if you're liberal or conservative. Why does Middle Eastern oil seem to mean so much to America? Is it because there isn't enough oil at home? Or is it just an excuse the "neo-cons" tell themselves every night before they go to bed for why they invaded Iraq? I mean, I'm not saying the US does or does not need M.Eastern oil, but everyone seems to make a big deal of it.

[laughing] Is the reason you always write it "Rush" because you can't spell his last name?

My guess, not that it means much (not an economist, you know), is that the dollar will continue to rise fairly steadily to about 85 cents US by middle/end of this year, but then fall back and stabilize around the 80-cent mark. Which is a heck of a lot better than 65 cents.

Although it's probably alot easier for me to say this, since I am not considered "rich" by the federal government, if I was making hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars a year, I would be proud to give it to my country as taxes. Knowing that for the most part, my money is helping my country, I see it as charity to the little guy... everyone else. Unfortunately, and I don't know whether they are made this way as they get rich, or get rich because they are this way, but most rich people seem to be quite greedy. "What??? You want to take $6M of MY money? To build roads?? Who needs roads when you have a private jet? And so what if I still have $10 or $20M left? Month-long Caribbean cruises and Ferraris and mansions on the coast don't pay for themselves, you know."

I don't disagree with sirriff much, but this is one of those times. I think most Canadians would be more than willing to pay for a military capability exceeding that of ...say, Malta. While an armed force on the scale of say, the US might be extravegant, we would do well to remember that one of the defining factors of sovereignty is the capability to defend oneself and one's borders. Without relying on others. What Chretien left us, was the building blocks for a possibly bright future. By accident, I might add, but nonetheless, he did it. While Kyoto has been royally screwed, and will never succeed, it has planted the idea of helping the environment in our minds. Give it 20 years, when we'll have technologies that will allow us to cut back emissions without all the economic costs, etc. Countries have agreed it needs to be done, now they just need to be convinced to actually do it. We have a nation that finally realizes what happens when you neglect an important institution for too many years (ie: the military). Which is, it stops working. This legacy of JC's was by accident, not design, and a high enough price we're going to pay for it, but hopefully in the future it will not get this bad. Maybe in the future, we can buy new helicopters the first time it's suggested. Rather than waiting for 10...15...20 years. We have a country that is proud of its sovereignty, proud that we defied the mighty US, but is now ready to resume relations. We have made our stand, and can now take part in further activities without fear of losing our national identity. If there is one thing that I am entirely displeased about, it's Chretien's handling of the French affair. In my opinion, if he hadn't gotten in power, the separtists in Quebec never would have gained enough support to even require calling a referendum. It's the coddling of the French that made them think they could make it on their own, and now the aftermath of that fiasco is costing us millions, if not billions, of dollars every year in taxes going straight to Quebec. If we didn't help them at every turn, they would have had a few companies fail, their economy would have dropped to the level of the rest of the country, and they would have realized that they're not so much better than us. Ungrateful little bastards starve the rest of the country of every penny they can get, then have the nerve to try seperating. Next time they start getting all nationalist on us, we should let them go. And when they come crying back to us when they can't make it on their own and the US won't take them, we take all that money straight back from them. I'm not anti-French, but I am anti-ungrateful-little-separtist-bastard. Who, in this case, happen to be mostly French.

I don't see why it would. The relationship between the BC Liberals and the LPOC is overblown. And this will probably have all cleared up by May, anyway... that's five months, and the RCMP should be done by March, I would think. If it does delay the election a bit, I won't complain, however. Gives us all a bit more time to see what Martin's really about... for better or for worse.

On the new conservative magazine: I look forward to reading the first issue. Sounds like 10 good reasons to me. It'll be good to have an alternative...no matter what your personal standpoint is. Ms. Stronach's entrance into the Conservative leadership race could mean people pay more attention. Probably won't increase media coverage, which is already sky-high, but ordinary people may sit up and take notice. No matter who wins the race, she'll help both credibility and public awareness of the race.

Good article on "neocons" and why there probably isn't a conspiracy in Washington. The author tries to put an end to the argument once and for all. Good food for thought: The Era of Distortion To pique your interest:

Well said, widowsmite. For an occasion that was once possibly the most religiously motivated calendar event, we sure seem to have forgotten that lately.

Re-read my post Craig. I'm saying WE, meaning Canada, should adopt the new US policies, not the other way around.

I think the Southern states have it right. Make them work hard for their keep, and don't pay them for it either. All the money they would have earned for their work, goes to pay for their incarceration. This way, we complete valuble public projects... hell, have them do private jobs too, and the equivalent amount that normal workers would be paid, goes to the justice system. Then, if they want to work on a college degree or whatever, let them work on it in their spare time, like everyone else. They work, they get credit for money, and they can use their credit to pay for classes. No freeloading off the system. They want to get ahead, make them work for it, don't just give it to them.

Amen to that Neal. The government needs to find ways of raising money that do not end up costing society in ways that can't even be imagined. Anything that is addiction-causing should be outlawed, no ifs ands or buts.

Took that from a link off the site Brainiac listed: The Safe Return of Offenders to the Community I don't know about anyone else, but personally I was under the impression the rate of reoffence was much higher than that. 1.3%? Doesn't seem like that much. But these numbers are misleading, because that's a percentage of ALL new crimes in Canada, that are committed by previously convicted persons. The more accurate number, which isn't exactly highlighted, is 7.2% of released convicts reoffend. (It is, after all, the Canadian government site...everything has a spin. Where are the colourful graphs showing the reoffence rates?) Anyway, if even 7 released convicts out of every 100 reoffend, that's too much in my books. You will note that the violent offenders are the most likely to reoffend. Aren't they the ones we're most worried about?

Bigotry? [laughing] Just the truth. Feminists and the French are among the special interest groups who benefitted from the various programs in dear Sheila's various portfolios. Identifying the groups who seem to get copious amounts of federal funding does not a bigot make.

Agree completely, which is why, despite my previous post, I hope we don't get ahead of ourselves calling for a complete reform of our tried and tested style of government. In ten years, with things going great, we could be laughing at ourselves for thinking we should have changed systems. And it's only been a month, I wouldn't be so hasty in criticizing Martin. I still have hope he can lead this country in the right direction. Not saying the Liberals haven't been in power for too long, though...