Moonbox

You were 12 when you started following politics? Did you really understand it then? Probably not. Prior to Stephen Harper you were still in highschool or just getting out. You don't have to like Stephen Harper. I don't really myself. I think he's a clown. You really have no experience, however, to comment on your confidence level as compared to previous governments. At this point in time you're barely if even part of the workforce and you likely don't have a clue what you're looking for from a government aside from what your teachers and parents have told you.

bad choice of words on my part again. I just don't think this sort of hunting is the same as stalking in the forests etc. Either way, there's nothing wrong with the seal hunt that isn't wrong with farming really.

I'm less and less a fan of Harper's every day, but I can't seem to get a handle on what Ignatief is all about. He wants to extend EI to people who only work NINE weeks in a year? That's TWO MONTHS. There are literally THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of people already who already abuse the ability to work seasonally in the summer and then collect EI for the majority of the year while PRETENDING to look for work. Why make it that much more easy? EI is for people who lose work temporarily. It's not for people who are habitually and almost ALWAYS out of work. To me, this seems like a disgusting transformation from what EI should and was meant to be. What's confusing to me is why is he criticizing temporary infrastructure spending that will CREATE jobs and then on the other hand advocate for structural and long term increases to EI spending that will encourage people NOT to work????

In that I only make the dubious distinction that cattle and swine have 5000+ years of domestication and stupidity bread into them. I don't think the seal hunt is much worse than farming so long as they don't endanger the population levels. I don't think you read the rest of what I wrote. I'm not against the seal 'hunt'. I don't think it's a very 'sporting' hunt to club sea creatures that can barely move on land, that's all.

On the matter of seal hunting it's a mixed bag for me. On the one hand, it's kind of like fishing or any other sort of hunting. On the other hand, it's not like fishing in that we're dealing with a higher and more 'aware' form of life. In terms of 'hunting' you can barely even call it that. Finding seals on land, often babies, and clubbing them before they can get into water is something that SHOULD offend the senses of most people. Having said that, this is no better or worse than what happens on European fur farms, which kill more defenseless critters in a month than the seal hunt does in a year. To ban seal products while allowing fur farming to continue is a joke and the EU should be ashamed. You don't ban products because the animal being killed is 'cute'.

The markets aren't dead. There have been doomsayers like you pretty much every decade and we've always recovered. A lot of balogna assets have been written off and we may see some rough inflation over the next few years but it won't be like the 1970's and we'll keep trucking along fine. Markets are CYCLICAL, but every time we're on an up-swing everyone is convinced they're going to become millionaires and every time it's on a down-turn that means the western world is going bankrupt.

A 3 billion 'payoff' to Ontario, by far the country's most important economy, is hardly going to lose the Tories the west. Quebec is lost already so who cares? If you're going to look for votes, it might as well be in Ontario where 1/3 of Canadians live.

Real interest rates don't matter to the majority of people as their salaries and wages aren't indexed to inflation. The worst situation is when inflation is high along with even higher nominal interest rates. Any REAL interest rate increase is only temporary anyways. The final consequence of a monetary supply cut is inflation will go down, the economy will slow and interest rates will eventually follow. The idiot in the article quoted said that monetary supply cuts drove interest rates up to 20 percent in 1980 and 1990. Not only did they never go that high, he also ignores the fact that recessions are highly cyclical and like clockwork we can pretty much expect one every 8-10 years. The best part is how it was bad fiscal policy in the 70's that drove interest rates up in the first place. Like I said, the article was written by a know-nothing idiot. In a couple of years remember this thread when you see how hard western governments start to reign in spending. We're going to see cuts like we've never seen before. It's what the next Canadian government is going to win its election on and the same thing will happen in the US and Europe. Just wait.

It's obvious he has no understanding of what monetary policy is: Through most of the '80s and '90s, the Bank of Canada was the real power in Ottawa. By drastically limiting the growth of the money supply, thereby forcing interest rates up to 20 per cent, it induced one punishing recession in the '80s. Then, using the same techniques, it did the same thing a decade later Reducing the money supply generally does the OPPOSITE of what this idiot is saying. When the money supply is too high (ie the government is printing money) the value of each individual dollar decreases. This causes inflation. Inflation hurts lenders, because the money they get repaid with is now worth less. This leads them to INCREASE interest rates, which is the opposite of what he's saying happens. He's an idiot writing in an idiot newspaper. He's the LAST person I would go to for any economic theory or opinions. The whole premise of his argument is based on the absolutely moronic assumption that the economy works in a vacuum and outside forces don't affect it. He's basically saying: Fiscal and Monetary policy can't help bring an economy out of a recession because we're still in a recession that's barely lasted 5 months.

Some of the car companies have winning strategies and could easily turn things around. Letting them fail during a really rough time would cripple the Canadian economy moving forward and is not worth the cost. On the other hand, some of the car companies (GM and Chrysler to be specific) have shown nothing but total incompetence. The CAW/UAW has compounded the idiocy. I can get into it more if I have to, but if we're going to bail out GM there has to be MASSIVE changes there for it to be worth anything to the average Canadian. Chrysler has no hope but bankruptcy so I won't even go there.

We don't have under taxation. We have over-spending. Reduce spending to get rid of deficits. Harper blew it on that note. Fix the problem, don't make it worse by increasing taxes. Ignatieff should be saying spending cuts are needed badly, not that we need tax hikes. Harper and Martin spent the money, now lets see someone claw it back and bring us back to Chretien level spending.

Egypt's 'empire' can barely even be called such. It was eclipsed by many other empires DURING its time and after. Any area of land comprising of a portion of the Nile river and then from Gaza to Syria is a pretty poor comparison to the USA. What are you smoking Oleg?

We're still waiting on the election this Spring Jdobbin....it's DEFINETLY happening. Right??? RIGHT???

Do you have anything you can link to me? I'd be interested in reading. If true, I didn't know. Either way we want to be upholding the rights of women. Just because boys are being raped doesn't mean women should. NEITHER should. If what you're saying is true than Afghanistan is more a waste of time and lives than i thought.

What are you talking about Oleg?

Mine isn't based on a 200-year old scrap of paper. The US Supreme Court? A bunch of old farts strapped to the Constitution who in many cases narrowly interpret it? Is that a surprise? No it's almost the SAME as any God the way Americans cling to it. Guns and Religion. It's funny. We call it Bible Land down there not because it pisses us off, but because we find it immensely amusing. I'd bet their arguments generally come from strict adherence to the Constitution. Please explain to me how upholding the freedom to encourage ignorant hate and/or violence in ANY way benefits ANYONE. It's not as slippery a slope as you'd like to pretend. How is banning gay marriage Constitutional? What purpose does it serve other than being backwards and draconic? That barely makes sense. No beatings or killings should be encouraged through public speech. What's your point????? I think our Human Rights record stands far and above that of the USA's and I think the world's scholars would almost all agree if it was ever questioned.

Such a black and white comment. It's this sort of ignorant dogma that's responsible for most of the world's most idiotic blunders. Like I said before, freedom of speech as the Americans know it was a concept idealized with the right to question and criticize the government and religion etc in mind. It was NOT ever intended to protect people advocating for the right to pedophelia or hate oriented violence or anything like that. Strictly clinging to it like a holy proclamation from God is pure ignorance. I DO support the right to freedom of opinion. People can say they hate (insert ethnic/religious group here) all they want, but NO purpose is served by allowing them to publish and present baseless hate in public places. There's not a single reasonable argument that you could make to show there's ANY benefit to allowing people to publicly encourage gay beatings and immigrant-killing. I'll admit I think Canada's censorship is a little silly sometimes, but at others it's a lot more intelligent than the carte-blanche Americans get.

Everyone thinks what they're doing is 'right'. The problem is a lot these people have their facts and morals pretty heavily twisted up. I'm not saying the 'west' is standing on a particularly strong moral ground, but I will say that it's standing on firmer grounds than people like Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Pakistan etc.

Who decides where it's needed the most? Various groups and people have different ideas and to some extent we very much CAN label them left or right.

Deep down they ALL secretly love Celine Dion. They'd also love Harper in the South. I wouldn't miss him

I think you've crossed the line here more than he has.

The Americans can have him.

I wouldn't even go that far. He's playing politics like everyone else does. At least he's not saying he supports exporting asbestos without labelling it dangerous.....

Most likely yes. It's really sad but giving them money really only multiplies the problems. Hopefully they find her, but I doubt it...

WELL NOW! This is an interesting surprise. At any rate, I agree. The only thing I'd like to add is it'll be interesting to see if anyone tries to spin this into a big issue. He basically said he doesn't like the export of asbestos, so at least we know how he stands personally. The fact that he won't confirm it now is likely due to, like he said, some sort of policy bog. Politics politics politics. You can hardly fault him and not everyone else, however, because it's not like ANY party is or has done anything to change things.