ReeferMadness

You really want to support the troops? Write your MP and demand that we stop sending people into pointless wars. It's better for people to have all their limbs than have a disability pension and be in a wheelchair. I do care about the troops in the same way I care about other people I don't know. I don't like to see anyone get hurt or die needlessly. But don't tell me that "they're dying for my freedoms". That's a political statement. I can appreciate that parents and family of dead soldiers may need to believe it because otherwise they have to face the fact that their kids/spouses/parents/siblings died for nothing. Here's something for you to consider. The troops volunteered, knowing what they were getting into. The same can't be said for the civilian casualties on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq. Over there, kids are orphaned, mutilated and killed. What are you doing to support them??

The media's focus on the crack-smoking incident is wrong. Although doing hard drugs like crack isn't an attractive quality in a mayor (even if it really was only once, which is doubtful), there are more serious issues. What's much more distressing to me are other incidents: racist and homophobic statements, public intoxication and repeated lying about his behaviour. Why would anyone give him any credit for taking responsibility for his actions when he only admitted them after lying repeatedly and then being caught on video? After all the lies he's been caught telling, why should anyone believe anything the guys says? Looking at all of his bizarre behaviour, the clear picture is of an immature man with self control issues, addiction issues, a tendency to violence, and a bigot to boot. How can this be anyone's image of a good mayor????

I haven't heard anyone suggest that he was literally intending to kill someone. However, you have to admit the video shows someone with an anger management problem and a self-control problem. Not exactly someone I'd want for mayor.

People already knew what type of guy Rob was. So, who voted for this guy? Well, not being very familiar with Toronto politics, I never knew that there was such a huge divide between the suburbs and the inner city. It seems like liberal Toronto has suburbs packed with rednecks that would make Calgarians blush. Who knew? Speaking of Calgary, anyone else think it's a bit odd that their mayor is so progressive, articulate and intelligent compared to Ford? Now some of the inner city folks are questioning the whole notion of amalgamation foisted on the city by that right wing hero, Mike Harris.

I'm not blaming Americans that Albertans are following their lead by glorifying war.

Exactly.

I think I smell a troll.

Well, I do care what we do. And the more we spend on offensive weapons, the more likely it is that those weapons (and the soldiers using them) are going to be deployed by some jingoistic idiot politician licking American boots. An excellent example is the F35 procurement. With its single engine and short range, it's a poor choice for defending Canada. However, it's an excellent choice if what we really want to do is play a support role for some American-led misadventure in some other part of the world.

If I was confident that this "best that our taxes can provide" would be used only in a defensive way, I might agree. As it is, I don't. A bigger military budget will result in us following the US into more stupid, unnecessary, counterproductive wars. Spending more on fancy death machines actually increases the risk of harm to Canadian soldiers. The war in Afghanistan is a case in point. After a dozen years, the international coalition has lost to a poorly armed, poorly trained bunch of religious fanatics. Not only were the lives of thousands of western soldiers wasted, they killed thousands of local soldiers and civilians, they alienated the local population and destroyed the local economy. Who won? The fanatics. And the big corporations that sell war toys and soldiers-for-rent. And after the coalition leaves, the Taliban will move right back in. It could probably have been avoided. Most people don't remember but the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden to a neutral country for trial shortly after 9/11. The war-mongers in the White House and the Pentagon wouldn't even consider considering it.

What about damn those people whose violent tendencies and lack of judgement cause them to want to send to send troops into pointless wars in faraway places? Or damn those people who want to cut taxes to the bone and use whatever little tax revenue remains to purchase expensive war toys despite lack of evidence that they actually make us safer? Or damn those people who really don't give a rats ass how many people get killed in wars, as long as they are poor and dark-skinned? If you really want to support the troops, exercise better judgement about how and when they are sent in to kill people. Then, more of us will be able to fully support the troops.

Become a corporate CEO and you too can be a dictator.

As if we needed more evidence of the Americanization of Canadian attitudes and politics, these license plates are emblematic of the type of war glorification that permeates politics down south. It's regrettable but just another sign of the impact Harper is having on this country. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/alberta-unveils-support-troops-licence-plates-180742969.html

Politically, it was a dumb comment. However, unless Trudeau makes a habit of it, I doubt it will have any impact. Nobody seriously believes that he is advocating for Chinese-style dictatorship. The only people who are alarmed over this are the people who would never vote for him anyway. I hope that this comment gets covered, not for its political value but for what it says about democracy and power. Deliberately or not, Trudeau has scratched the dust off of a core and timeless issue. How is power wielded and how are decisions that affect us all made? Issues of democracy are largely ignored, both by the established parties (who have a vested interest) and the mainstream media (who also have an established interest). They are left to a relatively few hardy independent thinkers (Andrew Coyne, Jim Harris, Elizabeth May, Preston Manning, Keith Martin come to mind). It's easy to hold up the model of China as a horror story but western capitalist democracies are hardly the paradigms of freedom they pretend to be. Much of the effective decision-making power is in the hands of wealthy individuals and corporations (in effect, we have plutocracies). Corporations are almost perfect examples of dictatorships. Led by a single, charismatic individual, they exert an enormous degree of control over not only their employees but in many cases their customers (think Apple). We may have freedom of speech but what happens to people who publicly use that freedom to call for changes to public policy that runs counter to the interests of corporations? These people will find their options for earning a living severely curtailed. You don't need a threat of jail time or execution to control how free speech is exercised, there are less severe and more effective ways of co-opting people to act against their own collective interests. During the cold war, the Soviet model of thought control through state propaganda was rightly pilloried and discredited. However, capitalist thought control (mainly commercial advertising) is far more insidious and far more effective. The big lie that the Soviets pushed (that theirs was a morally superior system based on public good) was exposed and the system rotted from within. The big lie pushed by capitalists (that capitalism is a meritocracy and everyone can be rich) continues to this day.

Why don't you look at the thread title and reconsider that question. This all came up because you guys are chock-a-block with nuclear weapons and right-wing fundamentalist types, many of whom happen to be politicians. Bad mix.

Nothing like a few random stereotypes to make the thread complete. Lots of people who do well in school don't fare so well in the real world.

Oh, you meant "politically" crazier. Because you don't think there's going to be an apocalypse. Because you have confidence that the less crazy elements in Washington will continue to outnumber the batshit-crazies like Bachmann? Is that your thesis? So you didn't really mean that it's crazier to hope for new taxes than hope for the apocalypse. That was just your way of being rhetorical and trying to divert attention from the fact that your favorite party includes lunatics who probably should be institutionalized.

Again, you're dancing around the topic and avoiding the question. Are you still saying it's crazier to raise taxes than bring about the apocalypse?

I guess that depends on what he's one. I don't advocate punishment for substance abuse, just help. But he'll have to want help or it's of no value. On the basis of his obvious substance abuse problems coupled with past bad behaviour and comments, I don't think he's fit to be mayor. But that's up to the Torontonians. But what else might he have done? He's been accused of assaulting his wife and kidnapping his kids. The guy purported to be pictured alongside of him in the video has turned up dead. And one of his best friends is accused of extortion relating to a video (possibly the same video?). Seems like a background more akin to Tony Soprano than a garden-variety drug addict.

First off I don't believe you. The lunatic fringe has always goaded presidents into shooting first and asking questions never. And often, they've succeeded. But more to the point, you're abandoning your own statement. You said that Ellison's statement was crazier than Bachman's - in other words, it's crazier to increase taxes than deliberately try to bring about the apocalypse. Care to change your mind? Or are you just going to try to change the subject again?

Is it because the voters in the 6th Congressional District are as batshit crazy as she is? Or is it that, like most voters, they are so apathetic and disengaged that most of them have no idea what she's all about? Is there a prize for the right guess?

Equating a comment that implies increased taxation on the rich with one that encourages the use of foreign policy to bring about the rapture is batshit crazy in itself. Congrats, BC - you've made the grade!

Look at the picture. I don't think the laws of nature would allow 2 of those.

I don't get why the citizens of Toronto aren't marching on City Hall. Does this guy really look better up close than he does from a distance? From here, he looks like a major embarrassment.

Gordon Campbell was a Liberal but definitely not a liberal. He ran a centre-right coalition and his policies played heavily to his right-wing base. His first major act was an across-the-board income tax cut closely followed by a major reduction in the size of the civil service. BC now has the smallest civil service in Canada. He cut and in some cases eliminated corporate taxes, forced people off of welfare and outsourced core functions of major Ministries. So, if you're comparing how Campbell was treated to how Ford is being treated, it's just a case of 2 right-wingers who showed poor judgement and bad behaviour. And both of them got away with it. However, that's where the comparison ends. When Campbell apologized, nobody had to guess at which of the dozens of bizarre incidents he was apologizing for. There were no media reports of him beating his wife or kidnapping his own children. There were no videos of him smoking crack with people who later turned up murdered. He wasn't quoted spouting racial stereotypes or homophobic epithets. So, your comparison is specious at best.

So, Ford is now asking Blair to release the video which he recently claimed didn't exist? Is that what he's apologizing for?