Sully

^ | | | Wrong. ^ | | | WHY? WHY? WHY? Sorry a man cannot replace a mother and woman cannot replace a father. And we are not talking about exceptions to this case, where the man is abusive, negligent, or is an alcoholic. Were talking normal family here. And no the debate is not what is "normal" persay. JUST PROVIDE FACTS AS TO WHY I AM WRONG ON THIS MATTER!!!!!!

Why because I do not share your viewpoint, explain to how this amounts to mysogny, please enlighten me. Never once have I promoted hatred towards or the reduction of womens rights. I have promoted men's rights, that probably makes me wrong, right. Yes I find it sad that many young men and women will grow up without a stable male role model in their lives, which is a failure of many men to take responsbility for their actions. But yes the demise of the traditional family does have consequences, not in every case is that lack of a male figure cause a horrible outcome. But if you think a woman can replace a man in a family you are horribly mistaken.

To address MS telling men to butt out. Men will butt out when: 1.) they have rights that protect them surrounding the abortion issue (We agree that women should have the ultimate choice, no one is disputing that) 2.) their tax dollars are not spent on an issue where someone like you thinks they should not have a voice. So give us rights and don't waste our tax dollars on this issue and we will butt out. Sad that many of our next generation of men are being raised solely by women.

Hey I am all for making sex education mandatory, making it madatory throughout schools would be great, I got no problem with that. But don't kid yourself there are vasts amount of information out on the subject and also this subject is common sense. I mean today we have counselors, hotlines, books, magazines, education programs, doctors, etc. etc. all who could provide advice, its whether or not the person chooses to ignore those facts. I mean its been known that smoking causes cancer for the last the last 40 years, people still do it and start doing it today and people still want to sue tobacco companies for making them sick. People even teenagers have to take responsibility for themselves too, its not always societies fault or always the parents fault, kids can be at fault too for their mistakes and they should have to pay for them, not the rest of us. But no one can force these kids to abstain from sex or use contraception. Yes I agree, there are many stupid guys out there walking around with loaded pistols and they should pay for their faults too. Men should be aware of the imbalance of rights they have if they get a woman pregnant. I think guys have to look out for themselves. But that does not mean guys should carry the burden of responsiblity without rights. I am not trying make it into a punishment. But as of right now all "punishment" goes hand in hand with being a man. They can be punished if the woman does or does not have the child. If men did not have to pay I would not advocate that women should bear a burden financially either. But as of right now, no one is denying that the WOMAN is sole decision maker in the abortion process, not contesting that nor will I ever. But some more equal footing should be made for men. Well you seem to think that making women pay a reasonable balance to be held in trust for electing to have an abortion against a mans will would be punishment, yet its ok for men to have their wallets opened up, without any say or rights. Yes what an equal society. Sorry but I do not think its price we have to pay. When men stop being forced to pay, then it will be equal. AND NO WHERE HAVE I EVER STATED THAT OR ADVOCATED THAT WOMEN SHOULD BE FORCED TO HAVE CHILDREN, just stated that the act of abortion affects more than just them and that should be taken into account. Well single parents like many other people in this country all have their problems. I do not see a systematic agenda against this particular group, just because individuals make mistakes does not mean society should be there to flip the bill. If I have kids, I am responsible for them, no one else but my wife and me. PERIOD. I think kids are like kids of most generations they do what they want. I was taught good values, yet I still strayed from them, yet I knew it was wrong. Kids are not choosing those things directly but indirectly. Most kids especially when they have friend their age, who this has happened too, know first hand the results, yet still they are in charge of their lives and do as they please. I agree women go through a lot more with childbirth, I ll never be one so I ll never know for sure what it is like. But I am a man and feel that men should have rights too. And as I have stated all along women will and should be the sole decision maker. I have addressed this issue for you, until men are allowed to opt out of the financial burden, men should be put on a more equal playing field. I do not think anybody should have to pay for a child they do not want to have. But some equality on this issue needs to be addressed. Its an unfortunate situation, but it is all too common.

MS back up your statements with valid documented points, lets hear it, come on!!!! Go through each one of your numbered statements and provide the facts on each please, I would really appreciate it.

Oh people already know there are ways to avoid pregnancy, it just boils down to whether or not you want to take the chance of becoming pregnant. You may want to deny this fact but the choice to become pregnant is solely in the hands of the WOMAN. So, women decide if they want to take that chance and obviously many of them are seeing the results of taking that chance. No I do not think abortion should be a way to reduce single parent families, I think contraception is. But that will only work when people in this society are responsible for their actions and not society. Why do you call it punishment, when we hold people accountable for their actions. Do you call it punishment when men have no choice in whether or not they have a child, therefore leaving it up to the woman to decide the future of a man. No you call that responsibility of the man. Yet I would call that punishment, when you have no rights in the matter. I have made bad choices in my life, but I sure knew I was going to avoid getting a girl pregnant, cause I like my life to be controlled by me thanks. BD this one is mystifying me. I love the way you draw the parallel of abortion as being synonomous with people who are less fortunate, wow thats a typical left wing rant. Sorry I do not see people who get pregnant as being less fortunate, maybe you do. I see them as people who should be responsible for their actions. Hey you can give away your tax dollars to supporting that cause, I rather have my money spent on useful programs. Oh I definitely think there are many conflicting views out there and its probably hard for the very young to understand, but a lot of these issues start at home. But which is it, somedays we say that kids are smart and should be able to vote. Yet other days kids are kids and need us to look after them. I think most kids know what sex can result in, but I am not sure about the costs. In this case I am talking young kids 14-16, above 17 I think they have a good grasp of the costs. Oh I agree that the man is responsible as equally as the woman, no denying that one. But the point you are missing is that the man has all the RESPONSIBILITY and NO RIGHTS. See thats just it, I am not advocating that men can control the body's of women, women make the choice. I am advocating that men should have rights based on the decision that the woman makes, can you not see that. Why should a woman control my future like that. If I do not want a child I should be able to freely sign the child over to the mother and release myself of the financial obligations. What is wrong with that. What if I wanted the child and she terminated her pregnancy. I just get to sit idly by and smile. But women can give birth to a child, AGAINST HIS WILL, then have him flip the bill for the next 18 years of his life. Tell me how that is fair, I think in any other case you would call that punishment for a mistake, right. So until that stops, men who want the child to be born should be able to seek a reasonable one time payment from the woman as compensation. The money will be held in trust for the man if he ever has a child, otherwise he cannot have access to the money, ever. Lastly, I don't understand how you could justify making a man pay for children they didn't want or wanted to have (ie the burden of losing that child). It's ridiculous You are preaching to the converted on that one BD. But I have never stated that women should not have that say. I am all for that. But I am also all for men having rights based on the decision of the woman, cause as of right now, men are not even mentioned in this issue and they have their lives drastically affected by the outcome. Nope never said, I have stated men are irresponsible. I believe they should only trust themselves for making sure they doing everything possible to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, it takes two to make a baby, but right now only one of those people has any rights.

I do support any program that would be beneficial to society at large, I am firm believer in preventative measures that will provide benefits down the line, rather than being reactive. As of right now, I do not support a national day care program unless it can be shown that it is more beneficial, with the numbers. Personally I do not think we should be supporting single parents that chose to have kids, kids are the responsibility of the parents, not society. This is just more about people shirking their own responsibilities and expecting society to pick up the slack. No one forces anyone to have kids thesedays and no with half a brain should be unaware of the costs of raising a kid. Exceptions to the rule are not the case here. Not at all you just read it wrong. Women have the CHOICE to have a child or not have a child. Thats a fact no disputing that. The man does not have the ABILITY to make the choice for the woman (he can try influence). Thats a fact no disputing that. Why should a mans future be so obviously in the hands of a woman. At present a man who does not want a child, has no choice in the matter. The woman can have the child against his will might I add, and he will be stuck with a bill for the next 18 years of his life, cause of laws. A man who declares he does not want this child is forced into having his wages garnished for the child. Why should a man not have the option to opt out of that scenario, are you against men's rights. At present a man who does want a child, has no choice in the matter. The woman can have an abortion against his will might I add, and he will lose what he believes to be his child. Do you find that fair. So all I am saying is that the playing field should be EQUAL. Why should a woman who has a child against a man's will, be able to monetarily gain. Why should a man not be able to gain from the choice of a woman to have an abortion of his child. I not saying men can sue for just any arbitrary monetary gain, maybe the woman should have to pay a reasonable one time sum to be put into trust for the man's future childs education for example. Well that twisted world already punishes men for their mistakes and choices now doesn't it (even if those choices are within the boundaries of legally acceptable behavior). What's that about? AND YES MEN ARE IRRESPONSIBLE ALL THE TIME. Here is the thing you do not understand. WOMEN CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE KIDS, SINCE THEY ARE THE CARRIERS. Men do not choose women do. Women can take all sorts of contraception or not have sex at all. Women choose to have children not men. When a woman wants a baby she chooses that time, not men. WOMEN CHOOSE. But the way you talk you seem to think men are on an even playing, well they are not. Why would a government give more rights to men, it would only mean that the government will have to pay more for the mistakes of its citizens. As of right now its good for the government to have men flipping the bills for unwanted children, saves them money to waste elsewhere.

No one is denying or trying to stop the fact that the ultimate choice will be the woman's to make. But men and society should have more rights based on the outcome of that choice, since in many cases the financial burden will be shifted to those two without any choice. Men, if the women chooses to have baby, should be able to sign a legal agreement that will bar the woman from taking legal action against the paternal father, for monetary reasons, if he does not want the kid. Society should not be there to support these women who choose to have kids and then want society to pay for it. PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE TO GET PREGNANT NOWADAYS IF THEY DO NOT WANT, PEOPLE SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS AND NOT LEAVE IT TO SOCIETY AT LARGE (yes accidents do happen but not to the degree we see in society). What happens to would be fathers, I guess they do not matter, maybe fathers who want the kids should be able to sue mothers who have abortions and that money can be held in trust for the father whenever they decide to have a kid. Maybe we will see unwanted births go down when women have to start paying for their actions. I mean we do want to promote an equal society right, where mothers (who have the ultimate choice) and would be fathers (who as of now have no choice in the matter) would be able to benefit from a decision regardless.

We all know what women have to go through with childbirth. But what rights do men have in this issue. Are we just sperm donors in every case, where we do not care about anything but the act of sex and would not want a kid under any circumstance. What say does a man have in the abortion process, can he make the woman stop from having an abortion if he would take care of the kid, since he wants to raise it, nope. He has no say in that. What say does a man have in the abortion process, can he make a woman stop from giving birth if he is in favour of abortion, since he does not want to take care of that kid, nope. Instead she can have the kid, even tho he is against it and then sue him later for child support. Where is the input of men in this issue, do we have no say, or do we just get to sit on the sidelines. Do we get a voice, cause afterall women cannot have babies for the most part without us.

Firstly Caesar people already registered their guns prior to this implemented gun registry but now you can have a sticker on your gun to show people you are no criminal. The issues have been addressed by others on this forum and so it is clear that you have no idea what is going on with this issue so there is no sense in us discussing this matter with you. You are already supporting a system without understanding the issues surrounding it, I must assume then that you will vote NDP. Firstly Campbell had to make cuts to an already ailing system, one that was ailing under the NDP too. Yes wait lists got longer, sevices were de-listed . If you are about to make the argument that Campbell's tax cuts would have alleviated this problem, look at the points I stated above. WAIT LISTS GOT LONGER, SERVICES WERE DE-LISTED, THE SYSTEM WAS ON ITS WAY DOWN UNDER THE NDP TOO. As of right now the liberals have made me better off, I am paying less for the same crappy health system, makes sense to me. Also the unions needed to be taken down a peg, overly generous wages and benefits that eat up 73 cents of every tax dollar earmarked for health care and you are complaining about that. The govt. needed to take that step. Caesar no matter where you are in this country and under whatever provincial government, wait lists are getting longer, services are being de-listed and this should be unacceptable, but its reality. Whatever way you look at it, the system is dying regardless of who is steering its course. The NDP cannot reform it, that would ruffle the feathers of their friendly supporters, the unions. The Liberals won't do anything, cause thats what they are good at. The only party with the balls to do anything about it is the Cons. Big differences between the situations. Federally we have large surpluses and the mismanagement of money is in the billions. This leaves room for a tax cut, I do not recall BC sitting on large surpluses or the NDP having the ability to blow multi-billions of dollars, even with the recklessness of NDP spending (fast ferries fiasco, the original price tag $180 mill, final price tag $500 mill). Yes your son is not alone, people all over Canada are having to wait way too long now, but even under the NDP wait lists and wait times were growing do no kid yourself and lay the blame all on Campbell, but we can both agree he has not done much to alleaviate it. As for the physio people I have come into contact with after playing a very high level of sports, they are as useless as tits on a bull. You are better off finding a rehabilitation website that will tell you the proper exercises to do to rehabilitate yourself and also try get into contact with a sports rehab specialist if possible. I mean the system now is funded publicly (with more than enough money, just so brutally inefficient) and its failing miserably, we could throw billions more at it and get the same results, reform is needed immediately. Who will do that NDP nope, Liberals nope, Cons maybe, nothing is for sure? But if you want the system we have, but just want to pay more for it, vote NDP and Libs, you will get your wish.

Why will we have worse health care if Harper is elected, you have made that point now back it up. Personally I think Harper will be the only politician with the balls to reform the dying system before it collapses. Or you can go with Layton and Martin and buy into all the buzz words and money that they throw at you about health care, "INNOVATION" (one that seems to go hand hand in hand with the NDP agenda, I just wish someone could explain to me what that innovation is). Martin will spend his billions (which magically fall from the sky) on health care with no agenda for significant reform, wow already he is showing that Liberals will continue to blow taxpayers dollars if re-elected. There is no comparison between the tax cut under the BC Liberals to the Federal tax cut under the potential Conservative party. With the Federal Tax Cut, the money would come from the reduction of wasteful spending (we all should know what programs I am talking about here), the surpluses that Canada is sitting on our suspected to be larger than what the Liberals say they are. Therefore a tax cut would be beneficial and most Canadians would like more of their own money to spend rather than sending it to Ottawa. The comparison of tax cuts between Harper and Campbell is like comparing apples and oranges. I do not buy into the butt kisssing of Americans that you state, but I think a good relationship with them is vital to a healthy economy. I do not like Campbell, but a poorly led Liberal party is better than a well run NDP party any day of the week.

Economic Left/Right: 4.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.64

SO WHAT!!!! people are entitled to their opinions, I do not see these people banding together in little armies seeking out homosexual people and beating them (thats wrong if it did happen), I do not see the people who are against the changing of the traditional definition of marriage inciting people to write columns of hate mail or hold little meetings of hate in town halls (thats wrong if it did happen). As for the pedophilia topic, people can make whatever accusations they want its called free speech and its far from hate speech. As for your comments directed towards AF, that is one mans OPINION, I do not agree with everything he says, but I do not see him inciting hate, just some strange opinions sometimes. But the point you are missing is that his opinion stands for his own views, which you may not like, and those opinions are as important as any of your views. I do not think the definition of marriage should change, I like the idea of marriage representing a MAN and WOMAN. I am not against equal rights for homosexual couples, as I believe the love they feel for each other is the same love heterosexual couples have. But I will never support them in changing the definition. See the only difference you and me have BD is that you sit on one side of the fence and I sit on the other. Can you handle that or do I need to be on your side of the fence to gain your respect. If thats the case my friend you have the real problem and I would love nothing better then to have nothing to do with you. Again what is your point!!!! These people have all rights that you and me have. They are able to do everything I do in life, except possibly have the "title" of marriage, yet they could have an equivalent title, just not called marriage. For people on my side of supporting the traditional definition, we have to see valid and reasonable arguments that would convince us to change our views and for me there are none, nor do I think there ever will be. SOME PEOPLE may not like other people for what most of us would say is a stupid reason, but that is the world we live in, thats reality. Lets list the people who are discriminated against short and tall, fat and skinny, ugly and goodlooking, jocks and nerds, rich and poor this list goes on and on. Because one person stands up and says something you do not agree with, quit painting society as oppressive and backwards as you make it out to be. Rights take time to develop and society takes time to develop, but it does not mean tradition will always give way to your views. Traditions helped build this society. I agree I think ratio of military spending to GDP is quite a valid marker across the world, we should not be in line with countries that have no where near our wealth. Also I agree we should focus on Canadian goals for our military, not what the world expects of Canada. I think we should have a reasonable force to defend our borders, a reasonable force to peace keep, and the best equipment money can buy. And a complete revamp of the forces. Cut down the amount of upper level officials in the forces. Get rid of a general and have 3 new soldiers.

Costs are escalating because no party has the balls to try reform the system and understand the problems. No one wants to take the issue head on and deal with it directly because that might upset some people. Unfortunately all the promises of increasing health spending means nothing, the money will be swallowed up into a bottomless pit. The health care system is on the road to collapse if it is not fundamentally reformed now, not later. I know here in BC under the NDP upwards of 73 cents of every dollar earmarked for health care in the province went to paying wages and benefits of health care workers, now under the Liberals that has been scaled back. Maybe the govt. should provide tax breaks or something along those lines for health care workers in exchange for lower wages and beenfits. There obviously is not a simple solution but its time we try to implement some of the reforms that have been presented in those reports the govt. commissioned, what a waste of money if they keep collecting dust on the shelves. Yes you are right the equipment has to be immmediately modernized, I mean I was quite embarassed to see our troops in Afghanistan wearing camoflauge that was to be used in forests, not the deserts. Secondly the size of the military would not be doubled a jump from 53,200 to 80,000 is a 50% gain not 100% gain like you implied. And within the first year the military would increase to 65,000 personnel. Where is the fear mongering that is going on? Please provide examples. I see quite the opposite in fact. I see headlines in papers promoting the issue, I see gay magazines on the shelves, there are gay bars in most decent size towns, I see gay pride parades in the streets. Therefore I am to assume that gay people have many rights. There are no fear mongering tactics that maybe a few would engage in, stopping these people from exercising their rights. Please provide your definintion of fear mongering BD, cause right now your definition seems to be anything said or done by anyone who does not believe in gay marriage or anyone who does not share your view? Yes many conservative people are largely supportive of anti-abortion. Whats your point, you are on either one side or the other with this issue. The only people who have a problem with this view are the pro-choice people, each viewpoint is valid, only each other eyes do we consider the other side whacko. Well the conservatives definitely have the best understanding of the role of military and its capabilities. With that being said they also knew that they could not contribute any forces to the operations, but could back the US in their fight with Saddam. As for Canada waiting and going the UN route, we have bypassed it before with Kosovo. We are no angels remember that, we pride ourselves a little too much on being enlightened when its come to warfare. I do not think thats the best thing to do when our neighbour to the south does all the dirty work takes all the responsibility and still would protect us even when we have a large contingent of Canadians that bad mouth them. We are in the safest part of the world and why, because of the US. (And Yes the US is anything but an angel, we all know that, but I am glad we live next to them) Wow I hear all the time that the left love to make comparisons of health care spending to other countries, to promote their views. Why is that ok, its comparing apples to oranges more so than with military issue, which right leaning people have more of an issue with. I do agree with you on the top heavy military, but we definitely need a broader role than just policing the world.

Ahhhh nope!!! and where are you from Micheal?

And Conservatives can? Yup I think they can fulfill the desires of the greatest number of ordinary people. They got my vote!!! Here's why I think they would appeal to ordinary Canadians Conservatives stand for an accountable government, one with integrity and that should appeal to every voter, regardless of which side of the political spectrum they live on. They want to cut taxes. We already have more than enough taxes to support the system and programs we have if they were run effeciently. So a tax cut is realistic, if wasteful spending is curbed which under the cons I believe would happen. I know speaking for my family and friends (not all are conservatives) they would all rather have the money in their pockets, rather than govt. coffers. I for one, am all for more consumption taxation, rather than income taxation. Hopefully the cons will move more that way. Increased spending on military, ya it would be wonderful if Canada and the world did not have a need for armies anymore but thats not realistic. Until the world reaches that kind of Utopia, we should support a military that can defend our values, sovereignty and freedoms with the best equipment we can afford. Maybe we should focus on developing a small, but useful defense industry in Canada (Oh no I see the left gearing up to call me a warmonger). For Canada to be known as a police keeping force is not good enough. Its sad that Metro New York (pop. 18,000,000) has more police officers than Canada (pop. 32,000,000) has soldiers, I mean something is out of whack with that. We have the people with the brains and talent to field a good army but all our military is capable of right now is delivering soup and sandwiches to the Americans. The Conservatives also believe in asking the people, rather than just unilaterally dictating positions to Canadians, on social issues (i.e. the definition of marriage). Nothing is wrong with asking the people how they feel on those kinds of issues with referendums, which should be binding in their decision making regardless of what view is supported by all voting Canadians. What radical views eh!!!! And speaking of radical views, takeanumber, whats with you and your echo-generation babble. Sounds like you are trying to put together an army of radicals yourself. Kinda scary tho, hey maybe I can come to one of your meetings. Where will the meeting take place? Will it be at your treehouse, again?

I really do not see this as a big problem personally. This is a fight that feel you strongly for and thats super. I have no problem with an older generation looking out for their best interests. I am a young person and I will look out for my best interests. I have no problem with an older generation wanting to have taxes lowered. I am a young person and I want to do anything I can to lower my taxes. I just do not know why you think that your life is suppose to be somehow the same as a generation before or as easy as you seem to think it was. I mean you can say all day long that people from different generations had an easier time of it. Right now thats irrelevant. Because crying about the good old days does nothing. We have a serious debt in this country and future generations will have to pay for it, c'est la vie. But get out and vote for a party that you think will address the problem you see. There are a lot of things that need to be reformed, but some are larger priorities than others and I do not see this as a priority. I am going to go out in the working world, work my hardest to get the best job I can, I am going to try find every legal way to pay as little tax as possible and I will vote for a party that best represents my interests. We could complain til the cows came home about policies of previous governments, but the fact of the matter is policies do not always result in the intended consequences and not everything at the time of implementation can be foreseen. You are the one who sees this problem with intergenerational equity, not everybody has the same motivation for this subject, some people like me see other issues as taking precedence over pointing fingers at previous generations. Well you brought up the point remember, that this generation arbitrarly denies minority rights, where as I believe that statement is false to say the least!!!!! Sure lets revisit it, just do it on another thread if you want to.

You are right, those rights of citizenship are granted to you solely on the fact that you were born in Canada by your parents, whom I am to assume are Canadians. So your parents, my parents and former generations have all contributed to making this society what it is and have created a society that can afford to give you all those rights bestowed upon you at birth. You, at the point of your birth, right up to this stage you are at right now, have done nothing significant to build this society, yet you can enjoy the benefits. I mean I do not believe there is anything visible in this society that you have contributed, so for the past 20 or so years you have had pretty much a free ride on the shoulders of previous generations. As for saying that "your generation" somehow is able to deny minorities citizenship, hahahahaha, you are joking right. I would say that the generation in question has been horrible on that issue. They let it too many unqualified immigrants into Canada. We have refugees that claim refugee status without proof of persecution (hmmm they use Canada as a backdoor to the US), we have families here collecting welfare cheques and sending that money back home to fund terrorist operations, we have a family like the Khadrs who can take advantage of our health care system, yet criticize Canada as being a horrible country, I see many families being established here, then low and behold they bring the rest of their family over (which these members happen to be in the later years of their lives) who do not work, yet they will cost us in health care bills. The list goes on and on and no I do not have a problem with making sure the people moving to this country must be beneficial to Canada, before they are allowed citizenship. So accusing this generation of denying minorities their citizenship is stupid, this is the generation of established politicians who like minority votes (i.e. lets ship them in and buy their vote), this is the generation of lawyers who make their money fighting cases like this. Crap you should be defending this generation after all they are responsible for the political correctness that is so rampant these days. I totally agree with Willy its scary thinking that the NDP could come to power. Well all I can say is that Alberta is the richest province under a Klein govt. and under the NDP, BC became a have not province, sad that BC can qualify for equalization payments with the resources that we have. I guess when you are hostile towards business and promote a bloated public service and government, thats the result. But hey no govt. can please everyone. So a question to you takeanumber is when will we see you running for office. I mean you seem to be able to address problems, tell us how you would fix them. I just graduated from university, I was born around the year 1978, I have not had things easy, but pissing and moaning about everything is exactly what is wrong with society today, lets hear your solutions. I am thankful for all the things I have, I do not see why you are so angry. Lastly, when you have a job interview from someone in this generation you love so much, let him know how you feel about him or her, we will see if you can get your job. I hope you believe in honesty.

Please tell me you are not thinking that the NDP is the solution to this problem, please tell me you do not think they are the ones to salvage health care, hahahaha what a joke!!! Here is a little wake up call to you takeanumber, since you like draw the comparison of the Klein govt. to the federal conservatives, I'll draw on the comparison of what the NDP was like here in BC and relate it to the federal NDP. Here is what we could expect from the NDP as far as health care. 1.) You would hear people on the left crying about how unfair it is that right leaning governments to be in the pockets of big corporations, yet it is ok for the NDP to be in the pockets of unions, i.e. health unions. Finally here in BC their ridiculous wage and benefits rates are being scaled back to modest levels that are in line with the rest of Canada. Result: NDP would cater to unions within Health Care resulting in higher costs for all. You would see wages of these workers go up, but unlike a private business, there would not be any resulting change in the effiency or responsibilities from these workers. A wage increase of 10% would not result in 10% more work done, it would be just more cost for the same work, wow thats a great idea. 2.) You would have a federal govt. that is openly hostile towards business, especially big corporations that employ thousands of people. Result: Since the NDP does not have a firm grasp of simple economics, they will effectively kill investment in the country. Hmmmm smart move, investment results in economic growth and jobs for Canadians. More working Canadians will result in more taxes being paid, but hey who needs more people paying taxes, when we can stagnate the economy and tax the crap out of the people that already work here, man these ideas are getting better and better eh!! 3.) Rather than fixing a problem and offending someone (i.e. Unions) , they would pump more cash into a cash eating machine. Result: Just like in BC when the NDP was in power, the left will claim that the health care system will be funded better then it currently is under the provinicial Liberals. Yet still with all the money pumped into the system the equipment will still become outdated and wait lists will still increase under the NDP, but where did all the money go, yup you guessed it to the unions, more money into the system for the same results, wow I should join the NDP with ideas like this. I mean the list goes on and on with how bad the NDP would screw the "average" joe over and just give the "average" joe the same fumbling health care system he had before, but one thing is different, he is now paying more for the same system that was previously available to him .

Oh one thing I forgot is that the federal government should keep track of the movement of Canadians through inter-provincial migration. BC is a haven for retirement and as such this influx of an older population increases the burden on the health care system in this province. A formula should be derived that accounts for these increases in health care costs to this province by an increase in transfer payments.

Do what you have always done and get what you have always gotten. Throwing money at the health care system without a a major overhaul is a waste of money. The system as it stands right now is a cash eating machine in its present form. The scary fact is that if these reforms are delayed, future generations will have to pay for this. With an aging population, bad diets, laziness, obesity and in general poor lifestyle choices, the demand for health care is going to increase substanially. Our health care system needs to take a proactive stance, rather than reactive when its comes to delivering health care. Incentives should be applied to people who take an approach to a healthier lifetstyle, its better to keep them out of the hospital in the first place. Enough with spending millions on reports and then having them sit on the shelf, its time to open up more seats in universities for doctors now to meet future demand, its time to make sure wages for health care staff, are equitable and fair and not out of line, its time to get politicians away from using the system for political gains. There is plenty of room for change from a BC perspective. Doctors (meeting demand) Institute programs for immigrant doctors that train them in Canadian practices and standards thereby helping them meet Canadian certification standards sooner. Increase the number of university seats for doctors and other health care professionals who are in demand. Set up a lottery for education grants for positions that are in provincial demand (i.e. doctors), if it would encourage more students to enter those professions if they got part or all of their education paid for. A modest two million dollar investment could pay for the training of 80 students annually @ $25,000/year. The stipulation is that these doctors would have to work in the province that subsidized their education for a certain period of time in order for the province to get a siginificant return from the doctors. This way we would have Canadian trained, Canadian experienced and Canadian certified doctors immediately, without the worry of them leaving after graduation for greener pastures. Health Managers Cannot increase their own pay, while asking the people they manage, nurses, aides etc. to take benefit or pay cuts. Stricter rules on overtime, in order to get overtime pay you actually have to work it. Streamline the management bureaucracy, less is more for management, we cannot be laying off numerous front line workers and maintaining the same number of managers. Have strong and useful independent bodies within the hospitals where workers can make complaints without fear of unions or managers retaliating. Complaints about poor management, useless co-workers, and recommendations for improving the hospital could be aired in this free thinking forum. Society Reforms (Prevention) Tax breaks on certain food items, gym memberships (which means you have to actually use the gym) etc. Schools must implement mandatory nutrition programs and fitness programs. There are so many areas that can be reformed and I have only touched on a select few. Unfortunately some peoples feathers may get ruffled in the process, but something has to be done now before its too late and we have to implement a two tier system in Canada, just in order to have a health system.

Saanich-Gulf Islands (British Columbia) The Incumbent MP Gary Lunn looks to be easily re-elected (Thank God), Jack Frazier (1993 Ref) won the riding and since 1997 Gary Lunn (originally as Ref, now as a Con) has represented the riding. This looks to be a for sure seat for the conservatives in the election. There seems to be no imminent challenge from the only potential contender Liberal candidate David Mulroney, who would more than likely take a distant second place well behind Lunn. Even other areas around Victoria are potential wins for the Cons. Environment minister David Andersen Incumbent in the Victoria riding is finally feeling the pressure from Conservatives Logan Wenham. Also with the stupid actions of Incumbent Keith Martin (formerly of the CA and now banding with the Liberals whom he was so critical of) the Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca riding is within striking distance of Conservative candidate John Coury. I would predict that at least two of these ridings will go to the Cons. The Victoria riding is a toss up, but many people in that area believe that Andersen for some reason is a good politician, I dunno I do not get it.

Have you ever been to a gay pride parade yourself BD, I mean its one thing to have a parade that is respectful of the public, but the ones I have seen on TV or in person were anything but. I was driving my car in downtown Victoria one day, only to be redirected to another street because of the procession. Not knowing why the road was closed off, I looked back and my view was greeted by three plump lesbians topless, with their breasts knocking against their knees and then directly behind them were some gay men wearing leather chaps that were crotchless. Weird, I thought public displays of indecency were prohibited, but I guess anything goes in the name of gay pride. Here is some advice to streakers who like to run onto the fields during sporting events, just say you are having a gay pride moment, no one can do anything to you then. I do not want any tax dollars supporting these events until they are cleaned up and not offensive to the public. Lastly since you seem to be quite supportive of these events BD, why don't you and your family (if you have one), make a day of it, have a little picnic on the sidewalk where these parades go by. Then deal with the questions your children would have when they see naked men and women walking by and acting ridiculous. Tell me what would your answer be to those questions? I would not have a problem with these parades adhering to the laws that the rest of us have to live by. Maybe this community of people should do some public relations work and realize that their actions are offensive to the non-homosexuals and therefore they are to a certain degree responsible for the backlash they face.

Too bad the NDP was not more family oriented, it might make them think clearer, if they ever got into power they would rack up the debt to idiotic levels to pay for their silly iniatives and programs. As result of this debt and the fact that they are more worried about the present than the future, they would share with their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren a debt that they would never be able to pay off. But that goes for all our kids, and grandkids.

Hey I voted for the Liberals and yes they have not done always the best thing got no problem admitting that. Hey big gunner provide examples of the increased taxes, what they are and what they amount too. Of course equaliztion payments are needed now, we are a "have not province" now thanks in "large part" (others have contributed to it too) to the NDP. What increases in revenues in what crown corporations, examples, please!!! billion of dollars in cuts to provincial cuts???? not following you on this one, but would this not amount to a cutting of cuts which result in less cuts. And yes the tax cuts have not paid for themselves, but then again I never expected them too, within their adminstration. If Harper wants to run on a platform of massive tax cuts, GREAT!!! That message will be more than welcomed here in BC where the agenda has yet again been proven a miserable failure.