BigGunner

George Bush reacted to the stress of his job by cutting funding to the very departments that were responsible for counterterrorism. Bush also downplayed the Al Qaeda threats and ignored intelligence reports. When the tower attacks happened, Bush reacted by telling a joke "jeez, those are bad pilots hey?" When the tower attacks were finished and all air travel was stopped in North America, one flight was allowed to continue...the Bin Laden family was put on a plane and sent home to Saudi Arabia. George Bush reacted to 9/11 by wanting to blame Iraq for it...instead, he bombed Afghanistan, even though the nationality for most of the terrorist hijackers were Saudi...oddly enough though, the biggest demand from Osama was the American evacuation of its troops from holy Islamic soil in Saudi Arabia...which America promptly did shortly after 9/11. Bill Clinton stopped the millinium bombing attempt on LAX. Bill Clinton acted on intelligence info and bombed terror training camps in Afghanistan - and the Repug's dismissed it as a 'wag the dog' stunt while they were trying to impeach the president because he cheated on his wife...imagine that - Bill Clinton and the Democrats were focused on fighting terrorism while Newt Gingrich was focused on Bill Clinton's pants.

What else do you want? Svend has quit, has apologised, and says he is prepared to face criminal charges if the crown recommends them.. He returned the merchandise too.. That cannot be said of Liberals and Conservatives. The Liberal party should be forced to pay back $100 million of taxpayers money that ended up in the pockets of friends and insiders of the Liberal party. The Conservatives gave Canada the GST, big government, big taxes, and over $300 billion in new debt in the 9 years they governed. Perhaps you would be happy if Svend was taken outside and beaten with a crowbar? Shot in the head? Hanged in a public square?....for a stolen $50,000 ring that he returned? NO ONE is suggesting that Svend should be exempt from whatever criminal proceedings may occur...least of all him. There are several other examples of theft and abuse by liberal and conservative politicians...I wonder how many of them have humbled themselves the way Svend did and resigned? None?! Goddamn hypocrites..

I don't know how you put idiots like Harper and Campell in the same basket as Mr Martin and George Bush, and I don't care. What DID get my attention is your mention of "eating from the same through". Did you know that Czechs have that very same expression for politicians? Amazing! In past times in Czeckoslovakia, eating from the pig's trough was more or less all that was left the communist dictators got their fill.

Did the PC and Alliance party merge? YES Did the NDP and Liberals merge? NO With the severe underfunding of healthcare, their failure (lie) to rescind the regressive GST and the liberal PM's stunt of having his companies registered off shore to avoid paying Canadian taxes, the Liberals are certainly not "left" either...Paul Martin is a Conservative. All Conservatives are the same, George Bush, Paul Martin, Stephen Harper, Gordon Campbell......pigs, eating from the same trough...

You mean the $50,000 ring stolen by a Left Wing leader and the '$100 million adscam and $1 billion gun registry sinkhole' as carried out by the Left vs the MANY billions of GST imposed by a party that no longer exists? You know, the tax that the Left promised to get rid of but never did? Oh? When did "NDP Prime Minister Svend Robinson" impose the Gun Registry or the Adscam fiasco? Nice try pal.. Oh, and the GST that was created by Brian Mulroney's PC government, was also a regime that Stephen Harper worked for as a young staffer in the 1980's. You cannot accept the historical links you want and reject the ones you do not want. The PC party still very much exists, as a colonial attachment of the Alliance party. The conservatives will wear the baggage of big government, big taxes, big deficits, and big patronage of Mulroney's PC party government. BRING ON THE ELECTION!!!!

You guys have it wrong... Svend will walk away from this smelling like a rose. Whatever brainfart happened that caused him to take the ring is irrelevant. He humbled himself, and took himself out of the running for the next election...so he wasn't doing this stunt for votes. Conservatives are pissed... They lost their favorite whipping boy. Svend was an icon of the rage against the liberal social agenda in Canada. Svend could be rightly painted as an extremist in his views, but with him out of the way, they will most certainly cannibalise themselves. Which is bigger? Svend's $50,000 stolen ring? Liberals $100 million adscam and $1 billion gun registry sinkhole? or.. the Conservative party's $MANY billions of GST they created? Its all in perspective...and if I was a conservative, I would walk away from this topic really quick.

The worker is not always to blame for the failings of the business or department of government. In the anti-union rants displayed by some here, it would seem that union workers are big, bad, corrupt, and violent. It is not the fault of the worker (union or not) for the bad decisions made by overpaid managers and political appointees. If managers and beuraucrats are leaders in their work places, then lead by example. What kind of an example are you setting to rank and file workers when the boss increases his salary, buys a new company car (with all the options - that only he is allowed to drive), renovates his office with high end office furniture, then cries poverty while laying off workers or guilting them into reduced hours or wages? From the rants by union haters in this forum, you'd think that unions are of the same ilk as Saddam Hussein or some other famous facist dictator. The reality is that union workers are just like everyone else. They drive the same cars, own homes, have families, have dreams and plans for a future like everyone does. Union haters are trying to invoke the politics of greed and jealousy and hate. 'oh look at the bad union man who gets $40/hour' (even though his rate is probably $19/h). By red-baiting union members, the union-hater tries to make everyone else jealous and angry at unions so they support so-called 'right-to-work' laws. Once passed, these laws will ensure that union rates will drop...but it also implies that everyone elses drops too. True blue capitalists get really upset when people get angry at their success in business ownership. So why is it ok for union haters to make everyone upset at the successful worker who earns a middle class wage? What have I done to you? I earn my daily bread. And the taxes I pay go a long way to support the good causes like healthcare and education. To some here, there will be no satisfaction until all unions are illegal, everyone works for minimum wage....except you. Well if you are the business owner that has to rely on some consumer spending to support your business and feed your family, you'd better hope that there are at least a few people out there with decent wages. Stop the politics of greed and politics and realise that having a healthy supply of decent paying union jobs is good for the economy.

I'll answer your questions as best I can.. 1...yes Any group of employees have the right to form a union. That is guaranteed by the constitution - its called the freedom of association. 2...yes In a free collective bargaining process, the parties have the right to collectively determine what 'shop' structure works best for them. 3...depends Not all government jobs are union positions. Some are individual contact jobs for a specific timeframe and are well outside of any union arrangement. Otherwise, we already discussed this...if a person gets hired into a closed union-shop position, then they should be obligated to join the union and pay dues. After all, the union fought for the wages and benefits that the new employee is to recieve. We all pay taxes, and just because some of us dislike some of the policies of the government, doesn't mean that we can opt out of paying taxes. 4...depends You will find that many of the rank and file jobs are near market rates. But even if you were to determine *real* average rates and apply them to rank and file union employees, then you must equally apply them to excluded management positions that are often WELL beyond common sense or market rates. On top of that, to be fair, you would also need to apply a more reasonable ratio of excluded managers to union members that is more in line with private sector. I've discovered that government is top heavy with overpaid managers who do little, but public wrath is dropped on rank and file union members at the front line of public service. 5...yes Do shareholders get to interfere with the managements side of collective bargaining? Do shoppers get to veto a union negotiations between grocery workers and management? NO. But both sides have the unwritten encouragement not to go overboard and sign a contract that raises the prices of things beyond the reach of customers. In government, that encouragement should come from the political masters that appoint the patronage appointees ("don't be signing any expensive contract that could cost me my seat" - read:angry voters) Don't get mad at the union workers when it's been the politicians that have dropped the ball. 6...uhh... Government employers are often the overpriced patronage appointees and political failures of a different age. With former Liberal and PC MP's and insiders negotiating contracts, they are often out of the loop in reality, not just labour negotiations. I don't think taxpayers object to having rank and file civil servants getting a decent wage and benefit plan. Most, however are opposed to the generous contracts handed out to conservative and liberal friends and insiders and the rich MP pension plan that has no basis in reality. The pension plan that rank and file union members in the public service recieve is nothing to write home about.

Hjalmar, you hate unions. Plain and simple. Thankyou for identifying these extreme cases...they are outrageous, some are illegal, and some are just plain stupid. But as with any advocate, they usually cite an extreme case in an attempt to villify an enemy or champion a cause, while deliberately mis-representing how it actually is...kinda like the freaks that screamed that if gay marriages were legalised, it would lead to the legalization of incent or beastility....pure crap, spoken by those that speak it well. Most unionized workers are not thugs and criminals and are as diverse as everyone else. Some attend a church or temple, some have hobbies like fishing and hunting...in other words, they are the same as everyone else. In my jobsite, an employee can be fired for underperforming, sleeping in late, insubordination, theft, rudeness - basically the very same 'just-causes' than anyone else is subject to that in non-union shops. There are no jobs-for-life anymore...either in the union world, or the non-union world. The longevity of one's career largely depends on the management skills of the owners/operators and how they adapt to a changing world. This union worker wants to see his employer succeed...after all, my bosses success means more of a job-for-life than if i get greedy and demand everything. Speaking of management skills, why don't you be as equally passionate about corporate criminals and thugs who bilk their customers, investors, taxpayers, and their employees for billions out of sheer greed? Even I appreciate that most business owners are decent people and although are driven by the potential payoff, most acknowledge that their success is due to hard work by dedicated employees, and are treated with some amount of respect. I am not prepared to paint all executives and managers with the same brush, so why do you attempt to do the same with union workers?

Comparing this poll to the last one by Ipsos-Reid, it looks as if the NDP has gained more than the conservatives. In March, it was; Liberals 38% Conservatives 27% NDP 15% BQ 10% GP 5% other 4% Today it is; Liberals 35% (down 3 points) Conservatives 28% (up 1 point) NDP 18% (up three points) BQ 10% (unch.) other 3% (down one point) GP 5% (unch.) Looking at the regional breakdowns, it looks as if the support base for the conservatives is Alberta, and parts of Ontario. Conservatives are WAY off their 2000 support level when they scored 50% of the vote in BC (now 27%) I question the model that the Ipsos-Reid people are using to forcast seats, since the conservative party with just over half of its support still intact can hope to keep most of its seats in the west when that is percisely where the NDP has scored massive gains.. The election campaign will be one for the history books.

Never heard of it? .. How about the young man with a wife and 3 children from Vancouver. This man had just purchased a brand new tandem truck complete with box and hoist back in 1984 or 85. They were preparing the site for Expo 86. The man was saddled with hefty payments on his truck. He wheels onto the site with a load of gravel and is met by about 100 unionists who blocked his path front and rear -- he couldn't move. Then these thugs started to hammer on the hood and fender of his brand new truck. How would you feel? The story and pictures were on TV that evening. This is typical labour union activity -- their way or the highway and it has to stop. Governments are too chicken to touch labour union laws so the people themselves need to start speaking out -- and they have. What were the circumstances? Was he dragged into someone elses labour dispute - was there a strike at that particular site? Did Bill VanderZalms anti-union Socred gov't inflame the situation like they did on many other issues? Perhaps you can provide a more modern example, instead of a 18-20 year old archived media clip? If this was typical of union behaviour, where are the list of recent examples?

I'd need a specific example of that. I've never heard of your hypothetical situation before.

Voluntary Unionism is the answer -- or "right to work" laws as it is known in the USA. When was the last time a union thug busted down your door and forced you to join a union at gun point? Oh, never? 'Right to Work' laws are a misnomer. That implies that upon walking through the front door of a shop, you are legally entitled to work there if you so choose...nevermind that you were fired from the last job for stealing, or that you are simply unqualified. In reality, the shop has the right to offer you employment if you are qualified - or can be internally trained for the position. Everyone who works in bargaining unit jobs should be members of the union. Opting out, or having the 'right' to opt out of the union is no different that being a citizen, and opting out of paying taxes because you philisophically disagree with 'government'...but fully expecting the services such as police protection, highway maintenece, to name a couple. If a union has fought on your behalf to get you a decent wage and decent benifits, you should be obligated to join a union. Remember, this is a democracy. If a majority of the workers vote for a union shop, then that is how it must be...unless you believe in minority rule. Certainly, union 'greed' can't be any worse than corporate greed and criminal activity.

Go cry me a river BG. This typical union attitude is the reason that labour unions and their workers are fast becoming the most hated group in our society.. the group in our society that does the least and gets paid the most money. Have you any idea how people are starting to talk about your ilk when you disrupt other peoples lives, increase the price of the goods we must buy and keep our income taxes higher than necessary because of the greed in the public sector where you max out your leverage. It is people like you that are going to find out the hard way. People like me...my ilk... What was I saying about union-hating rhetoric? And, about that 'attitide'...who do you think pays more taxes? A non-union worker that earns $14/h or the union worker that earns $18/h? You and your "ilk" are never going to be satisfied until unions are illegal...period. But that is never going to happen. The constitution protects the right of citizens free assembly, and freedom of association. While I can appreciate some peoples argument that public sector employees should have no right to strike, those same advocates also argue that private sector workers should also be denied that same right...when do workers get to defend themselves against an abusive employer? You hate unions...you are entitled to that viewpoint...but it doesn't make it right, nor does it make your argument valid.

They should be embarassed when they say things like And.... Typical union BS.... trying to compare apples to oranges. How about picketers taking away the rights of a worker trying to cross the line ? or teachers taking away the kids rights to get an education & using them as poker chips in their "negotiations". Think you're on the losing end there BG.....glory days are over!!!! Jim Unions, Jews, Gypsies, Gays, Catholics, Socialists, and intellectuals were all banned, arrested, and murdered in their turn by the Nazi's. I see that you like teacher-bashing...nice that you hate an entire class of worker because of what they do...but it doesn't lend credibility to your argument. The argument is about the right of a group of workers to democratically form a union to negotiate a collective agreement for all of its members, and the right to lawfully withold services until the employer negotiates in good faith. This is a right, and should always be a right. Some union-haters in this forum think its a good idea to outlaw unions, or levy an extra tax on unionized workers. The problem is that unions, and the right to join one, are protected by the constitution of this country...and the average unionized worker already pays a higher level of taxes because of their higher than average income level. I don't know about where you live, but in my province, certain public services are designated 'essential services'. Withdrawing services from such a designated job would likely result in heavy fines and/or jail time. This designation applies to the healthcare, education, and tranportation sectors (under provincial jurisdiction). Your hero George W. Bush has gone many steps further though. He has banned overtime for most workers, and legislatively crushed the unions. If that wasn't enough, he offers tax breaks for corporations to outsource to foreign companies the already low wage, non-union jobs that you'd like to see here. After giving hundreds of millions away in tax cuts to the wealthy, forcing wages down by the threat of exporting jobs, you think teachers are selfish? Give your head a shake. You are certainly not winning this argument.

Us union workers are prouder than ever to be a part of a union. Because of our higher-than-average paycheques, we have the kind of spending power that allows independent small and medium businesses to thrive. Our higher than average paycheques also pay a higher rate of tax which support the construction and maintenece of healthcare and education...its simple - cut our wages and you will cut the services that everyone rely on. I take particular exception to the lies told by people like you. Union workers are just like anyone else...they pay rent or mortgage, feed their kids, drive cars, and try to have a vacation once in a while. Your kind of hateful rhetoric is just that. Our constitution guarantees a right of free assembly, and that includes membership in a union. If you had your way, unions would be illegal and 'members' would be arrested for being involved...as it used to be. How far back would you move the calander? What other groups would you outlaw? Jews? Socialists? Left handed people? Hitler imposed a kind of 'Jew tax" and then confiscated all of their hard earned possetions...this is not a path that we should even look at. Your hero Geroge W. Bush has already started down that path by jailing thousands of Muslims, and has taken away Overtime from workers. Union workers do not enjoy special rights over and above non-union workers. Most workers in a non-union shop are happy enough to leave things as they are, as long as the employer treats the workers with dignity and respect, and pay a decent wage. It is when the employer attempts to abuse the rights of the non-union worker that they are tempted to stand up for their rights and form a union to fight back...and this is the very right that you'd take away from oppressed workers. That has nothing to do with right-wing economic thinking, its goddamn facism!

I wish it were true actually. The GST is hated, but now it is with us. Part of the funding that to help urban Canada rebuild its broken infrastructure was supposed to come from the GST (collected on fuel purchases within a city jurisdiction).. ..and I would just love to help in a campaign that skewers Liberal candidates for yet another Liberal Lie

It was their big lie of the 1993 campaign, and they had two more to promise it too. Why on earth should Canadians believe him now when he promises to scrap the GST? Liar!

Dosanjh won the NDP leadership under very cloudy circumstances. Events that look similiar to the Basi-boy techniques used by the federal liberals today. Dosanjh was viewed by many NDPers as a conservative, and this 'appointment' confirms that he has no principles. Oh well, that is Paul Martin's problem. Appointing Dosanjh will backfire on the Liberals and send the seat to the NDP. Oddly, making David Emmerson the candidate in Van-Kingsway is equally stupid. Emmerson was a Social Credit insider of the VanderZalm days, and just as Paul Martin tries to defend his left flank from Layton, Martin appoints a ruthless, conservative CEO as candidate in a progressive part of Vancouver. NDP gain.

National.. (change from previous Leger Poll) Liberals 38% (drop of 11 points) CPC 26% (gain of 5 points) NDP 16% (gain of 1 point) BQ 13% (gain of 2 points) Moral of the story... Liberals have lost slightly. Election 2000 gave them 41%, now 38% Conservative have not benifited from it. Alliance vote in 2000 was 25.5%, now it is at 26%. NDP is up significantly from last election. Election 2000 scored a whopping 8.5%, now its nearly double. BQ will continue to be a pain in the ass for the Liberals in Quebec. Up slightly from 10.7% to 13%. Summary... If this poll is accurate, it points to a Liberal minority. Liberals will lose seats to the conservatives in Ontario, parts of the Maritimes. Liberals will lose a couple to a strengthened BQ. Conservatives might gain in Ontario, but will lose in the west. The Alliance won BC with almost 50% of the vote in 2000, but the CPC only has 26% (feb poll). NDP has recovered in the west and will retake traditional NDP seats, and will gain in parts of Ontario too. NDP will keep its maritime seats.

You are free to believe in this utopian capitalist philosophy if you choose. You are also free to believe in the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, Santa Claus, and the Great Pumpkin too. A lie, repeated often enough, still does not make it the truth. What you talk about is a global kind of trickle-down economics. That theory is a lie - it does not work. It never has worked. Its an agenda that was attempted by Ronald Reagan, Margarette Thatcher, Gordon Campbell, and now George Bush and it has failed each time. The theory is a self centred concept that says that by rewarding the wealthy with tax breaks (and lowering the spending power of 'classes' below them) the wealthy will automatically invest and create jobs for the masses. Bullsh*t. They took their money and ran. They invested it offshore, out of the tax jurisdiction of the nation, and it was pulled out of the economy. The ret result each time was massive deficits and a ruined economy. But those in the conservative camp refuse to accept blame for your own mistakes and attempt to blame the unions. Unions wouldn't exist if companies treated their workers with respect and dignity and paid a fair wage. America has been outsourcing jobs at a painful rate now. These aren't the $30/h union jobs (although enough of them have been exported) these are the non-union jobs of the mid-west that hover around $12-14 (US$) per hour. Hardly the 'big money', but not bad either. Tell me...who the hell benifits when you take the ability of a family to feed itself away? The practice is wrong and immoral.

Losing really is a b*tch, ain't it? Liberals and conservatives will both lose seats in the election.. Bring it on!!

"... Lib & Tory insiders are privately conceding that NDP candidate Ed Broadbent has the Ottawa-Centre riding all but locked up..." Bourque Newswatch It just goes to show that with the right candidate, any seat is in play. Ottawa-Centre is a seat that the Liberals have held for 20 years, but are poised to get knocked out head over tails. This bodes well for other higher profile NDP candidates like Pierre Decasse, and Monia Mazigh.

I know what Haper is trying to do - he is trying to pretend the NDP don't exist...as if they'll just go away. He wants it to be a conservative vs. Liberal race (only).. Trouble is that his party and its policies stink. The conservatives are pro-Iraq war, pro-Star Wars, anti-Kyoto, and they are the original authors of the GST...all of which are unpopular positions in the Canadian voters mind. Now that the Liberals are waffling on these issues, the threat on both parties is from the NDP...despite the best effort of the Liberals and Conservatives to ignore it.

So-called "right to work" legislation exists in some of the most conservative regions in America due to an extreme hatred of unions that is linked to McCarthyism of the 1950's. At less than 25% of the workforce, I'd hardly call unions a monopoly of the workforce. Union labour and the wages they receive are a bargaining chip for non-union employees. It gives them something to strive for - asking for a raise that comes close to the union wage. Union wages apply upward pressure on non-union wages by pressuring non-union employers to keep the pace or lose their skilled workers to the union shop. Lowering wages of union workers by legislatively smashing the union organisation will affect more than the workers themselves. Disposable income by middle class workers will evaporate and create a Wal-Mart economy. There will be no more small business. Right to work laws have little to do with politicians' "care" for the working stiff. It should be noted that in many of the US states that have right-to-work laws are the most victimized when it comes to foreign outsourcing of decent paying (union and non-union) jobs. The only way these workers could compete would be to drop their $12-14/h wage to $1.50/h like India or Indonesia (if they get that much). What then do you think will happen to small and medium business? Higher paid union and middle class workers also pay most of the taxes in this country. Lowering their wages by force will shut down small business, and cause massive budget shortfalls - Look at America's problem.