ReeferMadness

Wow. You say that like it might actually do some good. Before we even consider ratcheting up prohibition, why don't you dig up some actual evidence that the existing money that is being spent on policing, court costs and jails is doing any good? People seem to be under some magical belief that prohibition lowers the number of addicts. I've never seen a shred of evidence to support this. Maybe you can dig some up before you advocate jailing a bunch more people and wasting another billion dollars. Meanwhile, Insite was being kept open because there is excellent evidence that having addicts in touch with supportive counselors instead of shit-kicking cops increases the odds they will get into a program. Prohibition laws hurt addicts and enrich organized crime. Take a lesson from the alcohol prohibition days: Link to Story Even some police have seen the light.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out, the Liberals were the largest benefactors of corporate donations. In other words, it was going to hurt them but they did it because it was the right thing to do. It's a pity Stephen "if I keep my voice a dull monotone, people will think I'm honest" Harper doesn't have that type of integrity.

It's easy to hold a particular view that view is obviously advantageous to your particular cause. No wonder you like Harper so much. People who write a cheque for a thousand bucks have two characteristics in common: They're ideologues and they have a thousand bucks they can spare. Since Harper panders to right wing extremists, he corners the right wing ideologues. And since the wealthy tend to be right wing, most people who can spare a thousand bucks for a political party will be Harper supporters. So, most people who are going to write a cheque for a grand are going to write it to the Conservatives. Hardly rocket science.

The defining characteristic of the Harper government is that he's traded on the ignorance of the average voter. Fortunately for him and the cluster of knuckle-draggers that make up his government, that commodity seems to be in abundant supply. Remember when the Liberals tried to form a coalition with the NDP and the Conservatives called it a coup d'etat? Constitutional experts from coast to coast tried to patiently explain that this was how our system of government was designed to operate, that the Prime Minister is actually selected by the elected representatives not directly by the people. But, to Harper's great relief, ignorance won the day. Now, apparently everyone has forgotten that the intent of party subsidies is was to reduce the control that the wealthy have over the political process. It was a modest step to be sure; and much remained to be done. But of course Harper is able to mine people's ignorance and the low regard in which the populace holds politicians. It's cheap politics at its worst but that's Harper's stock in trade.

Prohibition laws are just plain asinine. You have half the population imposing its moral beliefs on the other half. The only winners are organized crime and the policing/prison industry. The laws don't protect kids. They don't protect anyone. All they do is criminalize people for wanting to experiment.

Separatism in Canada is a tribute to parochialism and tribalism. We don't have real problems so we make them up. Separatists ignore the problems and costs of breaking up the country while they inflate the benefits and romanticize over the what will be. You could travel across this country and find people in every region who would swear that region would be better on on its own. How is that even possible? Alberta may be better off on its own in the short term - until the conventional crude starts to run low. What then? Alberta was created a hundred years ago by someone arbitrarily drawing lines on a map. Is that the basis for nationhood? And as for Quebecers, they blame their problems on TROC. They swallow this crap about 2 founding nations. And when the separatists tell them they're hard done by, they eat it up. What bullshit. One of the reasons that separatists flourish in this country is our stupid voting system. It emphasizes the regional differences and makes them look much worse than they are. If we had proportional representation on a regional basis, we would hear a more reasonable balance of voices.

Well, obviously, we peons should all just shut up and be happy with the system we have because it works for you. And Harper of course.

Well, apparently if the NDP and Liberals tried to form a coalition, Harper would lie to the people of Canada and call it a coup d'etat. And the people would believe him because most of them are so poorly educated, they believe that we directly elect a PM the way the Americans directly elect a president. And then he would politicize the office of the Governor General by proroguing Parliament to hide from it. Which is also apparently OK with the people who seem to believe that Parliament is accountable to him rather than the other way around. And then he could withhold information from Parliament until he was declared in contempt of Parliament. Which apparently is also OK with the people who apparently don't have the foggiest fucking clue how our system of governance is supposed to function. But hey, according to bambi, we are at the very pinnacle of democracy. And yet, many of the western democracies do just fine with coalitions. Go figure. Well, there isn't much point in voting for an individual MP, now is there? They're useless, you know. Devoid of any real power or even influence. Fenceposts with hair, as Rafe Mair likes to say.

Well, it might sound that way to a fascist. But most people could read what I wrote and see that I was referring to direct democracy.

That's they way the half-assed system that we have works. 40% of the vote (the part that bothers to show up anymore) gets you 60% of the seats and 100% of the power. That doesn't sound like democracy, it sounds more like plutocracy. But I guess when something works in your selfish interest, you can come up with a justification for just about anything. Shit, even slave owners found a way to justify themselves.

Why stop there?? Imagine if all of the people rose up and demanded government that was accountable to the people? Imagine if they wanted an electoral system that produced a result that actually reflected the voters intentions? Or even worse, if people wanted to directly control the things that affected them?? My God, that would be...... like..... democracy. We can't have that. Put those pages in chains.

Well, isn't that just the height of arrogance!! You think we are at some pinnacle of democracy?? We have regular elections when the people in charge decide we do. They produce a result that isn't reflective of what the voters want. The leaders are bound by laws until they decide they're not. The freedoms are there until they are arbitrarily revoked when some law and order freak decides it's time to scare us with tales of terrorists.

I would say that the people participating in Arab Spring would like a democracy. A real democracy where the government would do what the people wanted. And I'd like the same for Canada. Again I know it's heresy to think the people might know better than Harper. We should all bow before him and just accept that he knows better than us even as he pursues policies that have been grotesque failures in the U.S.

Really? How much damage could pages running amok do?

Wow. I see what you mean. All those pages running amok could cause some serious damage. They could keep all those senators awake during senate nap time! Imagine all those grumpy senators and the damage they might do.

Well, golly gee. I'd say the ultimate aim is to get Harper to listen and follow the will of the people. It would be like.... like.... like democracy!!! I guess if you genuflect before the one true Harper, the all-knowing, all-powerful one that might sound like heresy.

No. She called for a "Canadian version of an Arab Spring". That could easily mean peaceful protests. As others have pointed out here (not that you'd bother to actually read them), many of the Arab protests were peaceful. In all of her media interviews, not once did she mention mobs or violence. If you can't be bothered to pay attention, do a bit of reading and debate honestly, then stop wasting our fucking time with your inane commentary.

It always comes to this. When you don't think your opponent is bad enough, just make shit up. Invent stuff holus bolus. Well done! Did DePape call for mobs in the streets? Heck no! But don't let that stop you.

That is such status quo apologist bullshit. Do you even understand democracy?? Democracy is rule by the people. Since it's not feasible to have everyone in parliament, we have representatives, the theory being that your representative can speak for you. That's the theory. But here's the rub. In modern times, all parties, but particularly the Conservatives, have been successful at sucking the legitimate power away from the MP's and centralizing it in the hands of the leader and his unelected camp followers. So, instead of being the people's representatives in Ottawa, MP's have become the party's representatives back to the people. The whole thing is turned on its head. So, you can vote for a person if you want but what you really get is a party. And on top of all of that, the party you vote for isn't properly represented in terms of proportionality. The bottom line is that when a government has unfettered power and uses that power in a way contrary to the views of the majority of the people, it can no longer be considered legitimate in any meaningful democratic way.

I've never been a huge supporter or defender of Chretien and I don't feel the need to defend him now. Still, it's pretty damned easy to compare him to Harper. He actually delivered surplus budgets - let's wait and see whether Harper can even recognize what one looks like. He also kept us out of the disastrous war against Iraq. Maybe you can elaborate and defend your statement that "Jean Chretien was running roughshod over Parliament in a manner that makes Stephen Harper look like a choirboy". It would take a lot of roughshod running to make Harper look like anything better than a closet fascist. See, that's called a fact. I don't know why you think facts are stupid but that's for you to explain. So, according to your math, 40% is a majority? No?? Well, I guess Canadians didn't "choose" a majority government then. The system awarded them the majority of the seats (and all of the power) because it doesn't work very well.

I don't hate anyone. I just detest what this man and his minions have done and continue to do to this country. I'm much less proud to call myself a Canadian than even a few years ago. Are you thinking that the GG is going to date the entire NDP? Quite a feat. Clearly, you know nothing. I suppose that means I'd have less flyers to throw in recycling. Aww, shucks. There's a whole lot of stuff that is supposed to be or not supposed to be. Proroguing parliament shouldn't be something the PM uses to hide from Parliament. The Prime Minister and his cabinet shouldn't be misleading to Parliament or withholding information from Parliament. The Prime Minister shouldn't be lying to the people. The Prime Minister shouldn't break his own fixed-date election law. The parties shouldn't be defrauding the people of Canada by claiming expenses were for local candidates when they were clearly to support the national campaign. The Prime Minister should have stood by his promises to bring in more open, accountable government with merit-based appointments and a review process for judges and an elected senate (how's all that coming by the way?). The governing party shouldn't set out to destroy the opposition with negative advertising. So, instead of wasting our time on all the stuff that should or shouldn't be, why don't we ask this: Who's causing the real damage here? DePape for interrupting some pomp and ceremony or Harper for undermining democracy? Well, I guess she won't be asking you for a job. Kneejerk? Not at all. My support is considered? And why don't you tell us all? What's my favourite party?

They're both true. One takes a little thought and analysis bu they're both demonstrably true. It's not a case of one justifying the other. It's a case of where you focus your outrage.

All that reveals is that your world view is validated when "many on the left" agree with you. That doesn't make any of you right. What's needed is a sense of proportion. Brigette hurt nothing except a pompous ceremony. Harper, on the other hand, has done immeasurable damage to our institutions and our country. Who is the real villain here?

Oh, for Chrissakes!! Now, you're just playing games. Anyone capable of reading can see all of the name-calling and other slagging that has been directed at this woman. Like to see some examples?? "brainless little girl child" - Scotty "ditsy broad" - Sandy McNab "Little moron" - Saipan "immature naive girl" - keepitsimple "21 year old moron" - Shady "conviction but not brains" - guyser "deranged loon" - TimG "Fucking moron" - CPCFTW "dumb bitch" - Tilter Reading through those comments, I don't get a sense of intelligence, open-mindedness or wisdom. Instead, I have impressions of misogynists, ageists, and intolerant individuals.

Geez, A&W, you're absolutely right. When Tilter referred to this woman as a "dumb bitch", I immediately associated him with the bunch of half-witted, misogynistic, knuckle-dragging retrogrades who seem to be fond of this particular term. But that's unfair, isn't it? Maybe Tilter is simply a half-wit misogynist whose knuckles don't actually drag. Or maybe an intelligent misogynistic knuckle-dragger. The possibilities are endless here. Why don't you tell me what you think when you hear a young woman called a "dumb bitch"?