Sir Bandelot

Or else what... you will behead them on the spot? Same old same old

One of these two will become president, that is obvious. But whether people all get to vote, that is not known. Long lines and other problems are expected. To what extent this affects the voting is not known. The polls are so close, its not obvious who will win. So even if the electorate "make the right choice", whoever that might be, doesn't necessarily mean they will be the next president! <Insert meaningless pro-US rhetoric here>

My view of why the world wants Obama. Consider the alternative- John McCain, warrior, follower of the Bush doctrine. The world wants peace more than it wants war, and prefers the use of diplomacy, reaching out to find what is common, instead of isolation and rushing to war, which means the death of innocents and more wealth for the elite. - Obama was one of the only ones, if not THE only one, to vote against the war in Iraq. It is fitting that he would now be president and fix whats left of that country. - Clinton carries too much baggage from Bill Clinton. If she wasn't married to Bill the outcome could have been very different. - Obama has great stage charisma. Regardless of his inexperience, he is a natural orator who gets right to the point, and takes the moral high road rather than constantly dwelling on the weakness of his opponent. - The triumph of a black man making it to the white house. Especially, one with a muslim father and muslim name. Wherever there is absolute power there is injustice, and Obama represents a levelling of the playing field. - People think of him as another JFK. Let us hope that he doesn't get the same treatment if elected. These are just public perceptions, not necessarily true. The real Obama undoubtedly must have allegiance to the power system, or else he wouldn't get to where he is.

I chose not to vote for the first time in many years, because I would not give my support to any of the leaders. I do not believe any of them is the right choice for the country according to my own views. I know many would blame people like me and say its irresponsible, but the fact is I don't care which of them gets in power, each is a useless boob to me so let others vote if they will. I am glad to see many people also did not vote, which is very unusual and I suspect the real reason is a silent majority who feel as I do. When there is a leader of skill and charisma who has the vision of Canada for the people you will see the numbers go up. The politicians, they know why.

No one really knows what will happen until the day finally comes. With what is at stake for the empire I would not give fairness the benefit of the doubt.

Fascists are actually corporatists. The term islamo-fascist has to be the stupidist bushism of all time. I would not use the term fascist to describe muslims in any way. The truth is that most of the western nations, where corporations have legal rights enshrined in the constitution are the real fascists. Getting back to Somalia, what I said earlier means that the problem is not new there at all, and while I agree this story is horrific and truly sad, nothing has been done about it. I can only assume in the most cynical fashion that since there is no economic gain to sending troops there, unlike Iraq, the situation will continue.

Somalia is considered one of the most violent regions of the world today. But what was Canadas role there in the 1990's supposed to achieve? Whatever it was, we failed to bring change of any substantial value to this region by sending in our troops. In fact we were shamed by bringing our own violence there, as I just finished reading the wikipedia entry on the Somalia Affair. Check out the image. There too is some some sick barbarism, on par with Abu Graib. If we had intentions of bringing peace and stability, we failed.

This is also apparent here in Canada. The number of single-parent families is higher in small towns in central Canada and on the east coast, as supported by statistics. In other words, places that are generally conservative mono-cultures. The bigger multi-cultural cities, where liberalism is stronger have a lower incidence. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=357347

I agree its healthy to have real debate. The problem is this always invites trolls and flamers. If the debates degenerate into childish pissing matches, I too get turned off. I'd like to discuss real issues, not argue with kids about silliness. And some are only practicing their arguing skills, they don't necessarily believe what they are saying. Those communications are counter-productive in my view and could make valuable members lose interest, to the detriment of a forum. But that is the constant struggle whenever we allow free speech.

Why is someone attacking these pipelines? I am guessing it has to do with a land dispute, maybe natives, or to do with a public health issue. Apparently they are sending letters to the media. Does anyone know what they say?

To quote Mark Twain, "Theres lies, damned lies and statistics" What this doesn't show is a distribution by ethnic minorities or immigrants, which is the topic we are discussing. I put this data into a spreadsheet to do a quick calculation and get more useful information out of it other than just a big array of numbers, which is easily confusing. If you add up the number of single parent families with one, two and three or more children, and then divide that by the total number of familes with one, two and three or more children, it gives you the percentage of single parent familes in the city. I have arranged them from highest to lowest: Regina, Saskatchewan 0.3106 Saint John, New Brunswick 0.3085 Victoria, British Columbia 0.3029 Thunder Bay, Ontario 0.3003 Trois-Rivières, Quebec 0.2983 St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador 0.2973 Sudbury, Ontario 0.2926 Winnipeg, Manitoba 0.2918 Halifax, Nova Scotia 0.2918 Saskatoon, Saskatchewan 0.2888 Sherbrooke, Quebec 0.2881 Kingston, Ontario 0.2845 St. Catharines-Niagara Falls, Ontario 0.2840 Montreal, Quebec 0.2792 London, Ontario 0.2765 Windsor, Ontario 0.2703 Quebec, Quebec 0.2646 Ottawa-Gatineau, Ontario - Quebec 0.2637 Edmonton, Alberta 0.2631 Hamilton, Ontario 0.2563 Oshawa, Ontario 0.2548 Abbotsford, British Columbia 0.2481 Toronto, Ontario 0.2416 Calgary, Alberta 0.2328 Saguenay, Quebec 0.2381 Kitchener, Ontario 0.2324 Vancouver, British Columbia 0.2319 We still don't know the population of ethnic minorities in these cities. But if you scan down the list I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions. Which towns would have low immigrant populations, which have higher. Some highlights- Abbotsford is really like a suburb of Vancouver. I don't know how many minorities live in Calgary. Oshawa, Hamilton, are really part of the mega city in southern ON. At the top of the list we have Regina, St. John. Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Winnipeg, St. Johns. All small isolated towns. Victoria is predominantly white european. My guess is, most of these are predominantly non-imigrant towns. It doesn't really prove anything, but is still interesting. I thnk one factor in the reason why is, when people move to another country they tend to stay together lnoger because they depend on each other, being in a strange land. They bring a lot of their family values from the old-country with them, which often means less leisure time for entertainment, that great harbinger of social and moral decay.

Ooh thats a lot of anger there. Why don you go down and resure her yourself then. The media is sure trying their hardest to find anything at all bad to say, about Mr. Obama. Not that any of this has to do with national politics. How would they or you know the real story. Should keep family issues out of it. My uncle Zeke is a drunkard, good for nothing and can't be helped. Anythine he gets some money he buys booze. Refuses to work, pisses himself all day. By your logic I should go and spend my kids college money to save him. But it wouldn't help anyway. If thats the worst you can find on Mr. Obama, he's the right man for the job, for sure!

So it's true then, there's always a deeper hell

Well he has a strange way of showing who he's not friends with. "During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars. A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. (See grant number 5180, "West Bank: CPRS" on page 14 of this PDF.) The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi's group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of "sociopolitical attitudes." Of course, there's seemingly nothing objectionable with McCain's organization helping a Palestinian group conduct research in the West Bank or Gaza. But it does suggest that McCain could have some of his own explaining to do as he tries to make hay out of Khalidi's ties to Obama."

Absolutely. Just in case we do have to take on Uncle Sam any time in the near future. Again

I think Joe the Plumber would make an excellent choice to run for the GOP Presidential ticket next time around. Eminently qualified...

Ahahaha. Aww, that hurts... You know I'm getting it if my lips are moving!

We have certainly gone beyond "Toronto Gun Violence", hahaha. Wheres the guy who always wants us to stay on topic... I must go to work now for my fascist bosses, talk to you later.

Every western industrialized nation is, to some extent as they give legal powers to corporations. There are many interpretations of what fascism is, including "islamo-fascism" by George Bush. The word is used to invoke fear because of the nazis, who were not really so much fascists as they were socialists. So pick your poison. I prefer to go with what Mussolini said. "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

Oh, facts. Those are hard to come by, ironically in this age of information. It simply comes down to, which propaganda do you WANT to believe. Providing links, in particular ones that criticize western governments is not easy and there will be counter-links, so I use my own judgement from many sources, news and history. You must know what fascism is, and how it works with the state to produce efficiencies, maximize profits. The workers are simply a tool towards higher production. But there are some sources for my claim, such as http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/C4903.aspx "Fifty years ago, a new alliance of Japanese elites sparked the miraculous transformation of their country from a land decimated by war to an economic superpower that would become the envy of the world. These elites represented the best and brightest of Japan and they were willing to make great sacrifices for the prosperity of their people. Now, this same elitist system may be the nation's downfall. The new elites who replaced the pre-World War II "zaibatsu" elite have formed their own brand of upper class rule based on corporate control and domination of the state." This book can be read online, or parts of it at least. We are talking about a different culture too, which makes it harder for us to understand. I dont want to pick on Japanese particularly, because relative to some others I believe they are actually a more civilized society. The people have a very powerful sense of loyalty, as evidenced by the events of world war II, for example. So maybe they like it this way, I don't know.

You find it hard to believe that I think that? Well, that is what I think, so believe it. But I find it hard to believe, you think HR is left wing. I am not here to defend the HR, by any means. I see them as being left wing in my experience. Left wing would mean, trying to create some form of equality amongst diverse groups, and that really is what the union is doing. I see the management actually as being right wing, more interested in economics than in people. Thats why they are at odds, the unions are definitely left wing coming from a communist ideology while management is right wing, trying to cut expenses and maximize profit. In each case the worker hangs in the balance between two political entities, both of which are self-serving. "Promotion, recognition and transfers are all governed by HR policy, not union desires. While the union might have had some consultation the overriding guidance for these things tends to be the bureaucrats in HR, not union reps." Thats what the union will always tell you. A nice excuse, partly true, whereas the reality in the workplace is, when management does want to create an opportunity for promotion, what actually happens? Do you know, Argus, having worked in a union? The union will insist on the person with the most years of service, ie. most seniority to be the one who gets the new position, not the one who does the best work. Because the union does not concern itself with the quality of work that someone does. As long as they meet the qualifications set out by the new position, regardless of their actual capabilities they will get the position. As I pointed out earlier, it is in the interest of the union that everyone does just the bare minimum job, so as not to create expectations and pressure the other workers to do likewise. What is the outcome of this type of environment? Let me answer because maybe you don't want to believe it- Management is reuctant to create new opportunities out of fear of union meddling, and that an undesireable person will get the position. Management would rather promote itself, furthering the division and animosity between two groups, "Us" and "them". "BTW, I have worked in non-union shops for years, and many of them were very poorly operated, with mangers who arbitrarily changed hours or promoted favorites on a whim." Yes, I know all about that. I worked in many such shops as a teenager before I embarked on my current career, and I have seen much that goes on in the factories. That is why the unions are often still favoured amongst workplaces with unskilled or blue collar workers.

What am I, a dog?

It would not stop me, so why would it affect you? Does the chinaman scare you so much you can't get an erection

What do you find hard to believe. When a union makes a contract for 1000 workers, how can it be fair. As a supervisor in a non-union environment I knew that we were giving 3% wage increases for everybody, but some people could get more depending on how well they scored in their performace appraisal. The appraisal was done by the manager, supervisor and employee jointly. So no one was left out of getting an increase. People who just did the basic job to the bottom line got the standard increase. People who volunteered for projects, who showed leadership by mentoring others, who had no problems on the job got the recognition they deserve. Strangely the ones who never did those things didn't bother to try, even though they knew the extra money was there. Thats just the way they are but others who did care about their job, got the satisfaction of knowing they could move up. With the union, the rules are fixed and they apply to everybody equally. Even people who have a college or university degree, or who respond to emergencies on the job are treated the same as workers who push brooms or sit all day at a desk and look out the window. There is no way that can be fair. And management loves it too. It makes their job much easier, they only need to deal with the union reps. So what you find hard to believe

From what little we get to read about whats actually going on over there, most of it bad news lately, the rebuilding projects are not working. Its being undermined by sabotage, laziness and fear from the locals, and corruption. "Report on spending in Afghanistan" Many complaints Afghans raise about aid delivery are born out by the research. In 2005 three academics published a report Afghanistan 2005 and Beyond. It showed how only a small portion of needed money was actually being spent in Afghanistan. http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/afghanistan/money.html It only took a few seconds to find that, amongst many articles of official grandstanding and policy statements. Seems like the money cant make it to the people who need it, because the security problem is still too severe. Its a noble idea but the reality is not working out. Latest news- time to negotiate with the Taliban, and give them a role in GOVERNMENT. What does this mean