Stoker

I didn't notice that the first time I read the story.......IMHO, thats even worse if these boys were mentaliy challanged, and she abused them. Maple, was it natural for the Catholic priests to moleste young natives in residential schools? What about Olsen? John Wayne Gacey? Dalmer?

I just can't let this go.........how can you try and justify child abuse as being something natural? If this was a case of a male teacher luring young girls with drugs and booze, would you be alright with that also?

I thought you were a nut bar before syrup, but between this topic and you blaming Mulroney for a car accident.......I'm sorry but either lay off the dope or go seek some help........

The reasons simple, the small business guy, most likely understands that conditions that allow big business to do well, are also the same for small business.

Maple, you seem puzzled: Here you imply Labour had something to do with the election And here: You appear to distance the election results from labour.... What, 25% of working people? And of those 25%, how many vote NDP? I do agree with you here, on both points.

I agree with MS here........Carol James is in bed with all union leadership in BC.......

Has it been proven that is infact the reason why we have shortages? If it has, I wonder why healthcare workers would go to the private sector? And on the flip side, why is there a reluctance to say, allow Filipino nurses and Eastern European doctors to continue their trade over here?

Damn right it's better........private also mean accountability and not a bottomless pit for taxpayer's dollars. And whats that? Mo' money, mo' money, mo' money?

In both those cases, thats why government insurance is kept.

Well said.......I can't think of anyone that wants a system based on what the Americans have. With that said, we shouldn't be so closed minded to not look at other approachs to fixing healthcare, be they European, Asian or American. IF we kept government health insurance for those that want/need it and have the government maintain certain standards, I don't see any reason NOT to have private Healthcare providers within Canada.

What I would like, would be for the government to come up with the average cost to the indiviual taxpayers for healthcare, then compare that with private insurance. Then allow the option to "opt out" of the government health insurance and recieve a tax break equal (or close to equal) to that of the before mentioned "average" cost. There will still be the current system for the poor, and the indiviual Canadian can choose if they want the current system or a private one.

How's that? I'm not trying to be billigerent, but I recieve extended healthcare and dental through Blue Cross for about $40 bucks a month......nothing to complex there, I put the money in my account, the bank wires it monthly. I would be intrested in finding out what the "average American" pays monthly for Health Insurance (compared to us via taxes) and how that before mentioned "average American" finds their Healthcare services (compared to the average Canadian).

Don't get me wrong, I agree that having a healthy, well educated population is a good thing. Also, let me stress, that I think the poor should be given the opportunity to better themselves. What I disagree on is a total universal education and healthcare system that provides free services to middle and upper class indivuals, that with a little foresight, could take care of themselves. Let's keep the safety net open for those that really need it.....and close it for those that don't.

That doesn't really answer the question.......when will society put it's foot down and say enough? I see a striking resemblance between our "romantic" and "idealistic" society and my dog. My Dog is more then willing to eat and eat untill it's sick or runs out of food if I were to leave access to it's kibble 24/7.........

And were is that line seperates between societies responsablity and the individuals? I don't wish to cut my lawn.......I want government to do it. I don't like picking up the dog turds on the before mentioned lawn.....why can't government do it? I don't like doing the dishes, I want government to do it.........

Why should I have to pay for somebodies entire schooling and for a nurse to wipe the apple sauce off the chin of somebodies grandfather? And as I said before, how much, and how are we going to pay for it? Let a private farmer take care of the goose, and in turn we will tax him for every golden egg the before mentioned goose layed........less goose shit to deal with.

How much is that going to cost, and how are you going to pay for it? Why? Why? And what if the companies don't "buy BC"? Are you going to punish them? So the same party that you claim is greener then the green party, is all of a sudden going to allow the logging of old growth forests, strip mines, fishing and perhaps if we are lucky, offshore oil and gas production?

I'm of the belief that second world nations will have the oppurtunity in some areas to "by-pass" the most pollutive periods that the current first worlds went through. I would be 100% behind the sharing of more efficent and enviromently friendly technologes (clean coal, fuel cells etc) with the growing second world. Not just for the "green reasons", but I also think that would help reduce the demand on certain resources. Another very good point........I'm of the mind that it's better to reward then threaten and punish. I agree here also.......in the long run reduction in waste equals money (Duh). Not too mention, alternative fuels and the reduction in the usage of crude oil (and this is coming from someone that worked in the oil industry) will allow the west to lessen it's need for middle east oil and all the associated headaches that come with......

I beg to differ.........I don't see any difference between "right" and "license", or for that mater claim, interest, title; freedom, liberty etc........I could quite easily have used any of those words and have expressed the same meaning. My point still stands. The people give the {insert one of the above words} to the government. Now this does not guard 100% against corruption/wrong doing etc, but unlike Nazi Germany, the people of American will decide in a mater of hours if they will give a {insert one of the above words} to govern to Bush or Kerry. I stand by my statement. If you put five people into a room, and of those five, two were opposed to abortion (the minority). The three people in favor believe their choice to be moral, well the two people opposed believe their choice to be moral. The moral are in the eye of the beholder. That doesn't mean that the three in favor of aboration are nihilist, in that they don't believe in longstanding values or beliefs. Nor does it mean that the two people opposed to abortion are nihilists either. IOW in a war, do the "bad guys" think that they are the "bad guys" as opposed to being the "good guys"? And how do you decide whats "right" and whats "wrong" in a moral debate? They are one in the same. As for why, it's the will of the people. As I said before, it depends if you belong to the majority or the minority. If I'm in the majority yes, if I'm in the minority no. I'm in the minority on aboration rights, so in my view, the majority is wrong and my postion is moral. Now if you ask a person in the majority, there postion is moral, and mine is wrong. Where did I say that? I very much so have a "concept" of whats right and whats wrong, just because our concepts differ, does not disqualify a person. Depends if you are the "rest of the world" or the United States.

And your point is irrelevant. The German people (if they knew about it) could not vote Hitler out. Those Americans that disagree with Bush and the Patriot act, have that option. Have you stoped beating your wife? Yes or No. With that said, a democracy can make sure that those that govern without ethics or morals will be voted out. How was my quote of a "nihilist viewpoint"? Can not both sides share a common point of view? If a person diagrees with a certain course of action does that make them a nihilist? I believe that abortion is wrong, but the majority of Canadians don't..........does that make me a nihilist? Or perhaps a person that accepts that they live within a democracy and things won't always go my way? How so? Can not the majority believe in moral absolutes? I beg to differ. I (the minority) may not believe a course of action (abortion) taken by the majority is right, but does that make the course of action (abortion) wrong in the minds of the majority? The majority can very much so legitimise such a thing. (as in my example above). In doing so, they don't have to have a 100% concenus, since in a democracy both the majority and minority choose to live within the "democratic country", and the given minority must understand that their choices will not always be followed. Yes, if it was shared by the majority.......it doesn't mean that the minority will agree though. As i said before, it's all in the eye of the beholder. Do you think your opinions are wrong? But you have...you choose of your own free will to live within the boarders of Canada. And you are very right, Liberal voters, do have the right to govern over you.

When in power was Hitler's germany a democracy? If the German people did infact know about the killing of the jews, could they have voted Hitler out? I fail to see the contrast between Hilter killing the jews, and Bush putting the patriot act into place... It seems as if you are mixed up...... The Merriam-Webster definition of a nihilist is as follows: I believe that "traditional values and beliefs" are very much well-founded and that those (the beholder) that disagree see them in a different light. If my opinion is voiced and shared in a democracy, it very much so can be made law. And what if ones opinion(s) is founded on some "universal law"? Ahh but it's not that simple.........If I were an employer, I have to recognise a homosexual employee's spouse for work related benifits.....In this case, one persons rights are being forced onto another. Is this not wrong? I never said the majority/government "owns" anything...........but I will say that they govern over everything, at the people's request.

How many have been captured or killed? What focus? There are still over 15k American troops in Afghanistan........

caesar, since you don't seem to believe in sources, I'll play along also......... Because I said so, the enviroment is infact getting better, to the tune 79.2% better, due to the leadership of the Bush administration, and over the next few years, we will see the better factor reach 142%. Use some common sense Back on topic though... Who caused the Ice Age? And is the culprit that caused the ice age part of the Kyoto treaty? Why has only 32 countries ratified Kyoto, of the 120 that signed on? Why did China and India abstaine from ratification?

So did the majority know? No........ thats not too obtuse? Sure I do, but I also understand that I live in a democracy and like Mick Jagger says, "You can't always get what you"...... But isn't the law forcing people to recognize their marriages? You didn't answer my question about aboration though.........Is not the rights of the fetus being violated by having a metal rod punched through it's skull? Thats the beauty about democracy........nobody is forcing you too stay, you can leave anytime. But if you choose to live within the confines of the democracy, it's rules apply onto you.......just as they apply to everybody else.

Are you saying that if PBS put out a fictional mini series that put Canada in a bad light, Canadians wouldn't be "outraged"? You don't think we would have several threads on this board as a reaction to it, with a larger portion of posters calling for the government to resend relations? Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.