CrazeeEddie

I'd also like to point out that this is a ridiculous argument to be having as you cannot really compare the two situations based on 'who is crossing what border'. As we all know, the advantage of the US system is that anyone who can afford the treatment, can get it, regardless of citizenship, and I would venture to say are going to receive care and treatments befitting their monetary contributions. Of course Canadians with money will do so to avoid lines. The advantage of the Canadian system is that EVERYONE has access, regardless of income. The catch, of course, is that you must be a resident of Canada to qualify. What advantage would the average American have in coming here? They would still have to pay, right? Do you really think that the number of Americans crossing into Canada, if given the option of using our system (not just our services, but the SYSTEM) would not increase dramatically?

I believe the actual stat is .5%, of which less than 25% stated that this was the sole reason for their visit. This is from the Canadian National Population Health Survey, the last cycle of which was completed in 2007. CNPHS I am at work so I cannot get the actual document to work to let you know which page.... As for wait times, minor inconvenience compared to the costs involved if you ask me, but I don't have tons of extra money to throw around, as I am sure MANY Americans can relate to. I wonder how many Americans, if they could AFFORD to come to Canada, would choose to do so.

I don't believe people are stupid, I believe they are human, and subject to kneejerk reactions based on overblown and often unsubstantiated emotions. This is why we have judges. That being said, I can understand why people are upset with these cases. However, they SHOULD be upset with the idiots who took shortcuts and broke laws in order to get what they wanted when in most of these cases, they could just as easily followed the rules of the game, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

At the risk of being totally ostracized and ridiculed for this comparison, I will present it anyway. My family (father's side) represents a long line of law enforcement (from prison guards, to the RCMP, to Metro police) here in Ontario. One day, while discussing a similar situation, my uncle put it this way (in terms, I, who relates everything to hockey, would understand). Imagine it is game seven of the Stanley Cup finals, and we are in overtime. The other team is pressing, and your defenseman, trying to relieve the pressure, shoots the puck over the glass. The ref calls a penalty, and the other team scores on the ensuing play, giving them the Stanley Cup. So who do you get mad at here? Many people would get mad at ther ref right (aka the judge) but why? The penalty has been called the same way all season. The defenseman knew the rules going into the game, and broke them, costing the entire team, and its fanbase. Most of the players and the coach would be rightly upset with the player, who probably could have relieved the situation by dumping the puck, aka following the rules. Now I know that the Stanley Cup and Murder are not the same thing, but the point remains the same. Had the officer taken the time to follow the rules, and observe the laws he is sworn to protect, these people would probably not be walking. The blame lays solely on them. (And this coming from another cop). You may not agree with the rules all the time, and we have avenues to address that. No officer has the right to take the law into their own hands, even if they do end up being right in the end.

Can you define KNOWN criminal for me please?

As someone who has been part and partial to three seperate false accusations (none against me, but against people very very close to me) I can honestly say this is the biggest piece of crap lie I have ever read on here. Much as anything else in life, politics plays a huge part in these cases as well. In many cases, the accusers are taken at their word, and this may very well be the ONLY evidence in the case. For example, my brother, who was 12 at the time, was accused of sexually assaulting an 8 year old girl in a public park, in broad daylight, with myself and my best friend present at the time. The only evidence? She said it happened. No rape kits, no physical marks, even her friend told the police it was an outright lie. Fact is, this case actually went to TRIAL, where the judge finally had the good sense to throw it out. And lets talk about stigma. My brother still cannot step foot in that town without being questioned, and this was 17 years ago!!! Unless you have unmitigated proof that this guy was guilty, I suggest you get off your soapbox, because we all know about karma

Wrong, AA is exactly what you say it is not, no matter how you word it. It means that you must hire the non caucasian or non male person. This is very much a prejudice practice, whether you agree with it or not. People need to understand that 'barriers in the past' have become the opposing barriers of today.

Looking at the stats, although it does refute your token support outside of Ontario, I can agree that the CPC does have decent support across the board (25-35%)

Liberal support is down in some provinces at the current time, yes. With a weak leader Canadians don't identify with, and a political base split between themselves and the NDP/ Green parties. Yet, even with all this, their support in Ontario was 33% (to 39% for the CPC) in Quebec 24% to 22% for the CPC in NFLD 47% to 17% for the CPC in NS 30% to 26% for the CPC in NB 32% to 39% for the CPC in PEI 48% to 36% for the CPC seems pretty strong outside of Ontario to me. In fact, only in NB and Ontario do the CPC draw better than the Liberals, which kinda counters your statement. then we head west in MB 19% to 49% for the CPC in SASK 15% to 54% for the CPC in AB 11% to 65% for the CPC in BC 9% to 44% for the CPC hmm, seems to prove the CPC base statement. in the north, in YK 45% to 33% for the CPC in NWT 14% to 38% for the CPC in NUN 29% to 35% for the CPC seems fairy split. Seems to me that with the exception of the Western provinces, the Liberals draw very well across the rest of Canada. And this was with a horrible leader. Imagine if they had a good one?

Thank you for that well thought out response. However, I still do not see how this negates the possibility. The PC Party was also fairly centrist was it not? The Reform, not so much. Yet they found common good. Although it is very unlikely, could the NDP not see that this merger may actually get them the voice they need in parliament? Could the Liberals not benefit from the added support of those on the far left? After all, this would be their chance to heard, right?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying Anyway, to get back to the original argument, the comment was made that the Liberals were a secular party, representing only one region. My counterargument is that they are no more secular than our current governing party. I apologize, I meant to say that the CPC is any more of a NATIONAL party than the Liberals are.

Which agrees with my position that there are three national parties. One who's base is Eastern Canada, mainly Ontario, one who's base in Western Canada, mainly Alberta, and one who is new to the National scene.

I think you're totally missing my point, without Alberta, Harper's party would not exist. And yes, most MPs are not ALbertan, however, as a party, the CPC is still very west coast.

Oh, and my point was to dispel this myth that the CPC is now somehow a 'NATIONAL' party, instead of a very regionalised one.

Or Vancouver, Atlantic Canada.........

Please don't dispel this CPC myth. I don't know where they'd be without it. Also, in your scenario, the Greens would be nothing more than what the NDP is in NW Ontario.

Without the base in Alberta, Harper would not even be here.

I don't think Rae or Ignatieff would get enough support in Ontario to uproot Harper.

I understand that the NDP never split from the Liberals, however, they are basically a protest party on the left side of the spectrum. In it's infancy, the Reform Party was in essence, a protest party. While I agree that the Green, and the Liberals, are centrist parties, before the merger, the PC was also centrist. Perhaps it is time for a truly left leaning national party in Canada to rival the right leaning governing party?

Many years ago, the right side of the equation realized that, as seperate entities, they could not defeat the Liberals in Canada. Is it conceivable, in today's Canada, that the left could do the same? Is it time for the many to become one? Also, do you think there is a leader out there that could accomplish this, our lead such a party?

I would say a great number of 'immigrants' across this nation also voted for the CPC. Of course, I think we have differing views of immigrants. I know, I myself am the descendant of immigrants. Leave it again to the party who decries 'elitist liberals' to explain to us what is, and isn't Canadian....

Forgive me, I missed what tribe/ first nation you represent again?

Also, speaking of secular governments, where exactly would the CPC be without Alberta? I would say, without a doubt, that there are three truly national parties at the moment. Two that have been there forever, one who's main base is a province that contains a huge chunk of Canada's population, and one who's main base contains a large chunk of Canada's oil. A third that has just recently begun to show appeal to those across the country. The other provinces tend to swing back and forth.

Three things: 1) I live in NW Ontario, about as Rural as you can get. No support for the CPC up here! In fact, I would venture that outside of the 705/905 area, CPC support is fairly low to average. And I would hardly call the 905 rural 2) A good majority of the province's population lives in these urban areas, but once again, I suppose these votes don't matter. Odd how you support a party who decries 'elitists' while you believe that only your vote matters. 3) What exactly do you consider an ethnic community?

While I agree with most of your analogy, I think it would be a large mistake for the Conservative government to think the slight rise in support in Ontario was a sign of true support for Harper. Many in Ontario are simply indiferent to him, or the rest of the leaders, and I would bet a large portion of those who didn't vote are in Ontario. I would say among those around me, maybe 30% of them voted. Another 20-30% who normally vote Liberal, voted NDP simply because the majority do not believe Dion can lead this country. Should the Liberals elect a leader Ontario, BC, the Prairies, AND Atlantic Canada can get behind, we'd see Harper's government disolve quickly.