Jack Weber

You mean Mr.Harper was SCARED into spending to keep us out of this recession because he was about to lose his job last winter.....

Really...Comparing a national party that is about federalism to a seperatist party he!!bent on the destruction of this country is a bit of a stretch....

Well...Migration from Northern states is responsible for that.North Carolina kept electing one Jesse Helms seemingly interminably,speaking of anachronistic buffoons.As far as the old Confederacy goes...Georgia,Alabama,Mississippi,Louisiana,Tennessee,Arkansas,South Carolina(the first state to secceed(sp)),and Texas...Seems like most of the old Confederacy mindset is still intact.

This is true...Simply refer to the way the majority of the "Old Confederacy" voted last November.

Unfortunately,for wealthy land owners in the South,giving up on slavery had a serious financial component to it.The dollar value of all held slaves in the South was more than the value of the land they worked for free on...I doubt they would have given up the fight easily.Who would compensate them for thier investment? This makes it all the more ironic that most men who fought for the Confederacy did'nt own slaves or that much land.

Some Canucks have become very good with the bumper sticker sloganeering,have'nt they?

George Washington Carvers progressivity(is that a word?) aside...uh...your quote... "People who fought for the Union,in the U.S.,wanted a world where people were Americans,and had rights as Americans."... I'm an avid US Civil War "fan".If you think the people who fought for the Union were any less bigoted than folks in the Confederacy,I got news for ya'.If you asked the average Union soldier about what he was fighting for in 1861 or '62(before Antietam),he would probably say he was fighting for the preservation of the union and to stamp out secession.A Confederate soldier of the same time period would probably say he was fighting for States rights and from opression from the heavy hand of the federal gov't.Fighting for the freedom of slaves would not have crossed the minds of 70 to 80 % of the union military.Remember,U.S. Grant was asked how can he fight for the Union while his family owned slaves...He said nonchalantly,"It's hard to get good help.",William Tecumseh Sherman is famously quoted as saying,"The only good indian is a DEAD indian!". As far as the world being American...I'll take being Canadian,thanks...

I totally agree with this.All I was saying is that,for the most part,the severity of the medical issue is what determines who goes first.That might not be the case in The States. I fully rralize that there are alot of FIXABLE problems in the universal health care system we have.Some of it might require some folks on the left to admit that we already have different forms of private health care delivery and allow that to work in each provinces public system.It seems to work in Europe,I see no reason why it cannot work here.Unfortunately,some on the extreme left think that there should be no bending on the public/private issue.These people are simply not paying attention to the fact that this is already going on,in a limited fashion.The problem then lies in being vigilent about not allowing the private system to start bleeding dry the more accessible public system we currently have.

Hudak is my MPP...I've never voted for him...A Harrisite who sided with Jim,"Let's jail the homeless on compassionate grounds",Flaharty in his failed bid at the PC provincial leadership. The fact that he's a true disciple of the Harris regime,and will be advised by his wife(a former Harris aid) is going to be problematic...I don't see a Tory return to power because of this...

Precisely...It all depends on the severity of the issue...If one has a boo boo on ones finger,one does not go ahead of another having a brain hemmorage...

What?...Like specious geographical claims to the NorthWest Passage?

The bottom line is that hardline right wingers in Canada have never liked universal health care.The idiotic NCC stood against it back in the '60's.They used the same silly reasoning you use now.They were ignored for being backwards then.For the most part,they are regarded as backwards kooks now.At another web site I go to( it's an auto racing web site) I was told basically that it was an Americans "constitutional right" to pay for private health care....A constitutional right to be bilked by the Big Insurance/Big Pharma cabal...Talk about suckers! As for our system,I'm not as rigid about some private options as other are.For example,the Shouldice Clinic in Toronto has been in existence since before Medicare came into effect.It still operates within the public system.I have no problem with that.If we took that type of lead,and took a look at the French,Dutch,or,Swiss system and tried to find a way to incorperate different forms of private options that can work within a public health care delivery system,we could probably solve alot of the wait time problems...

Well Smallc...Perhaps his province that was awash in oil revenue should have been investing in it's health care system?If the de-listing is going on in Alberta now because the oil revenue has dried up,perhaps it shows an serious shortsightedness in the Albertan conservative psyche? It sounds like the Albertan gov't did'nt plan for a rainy day by making the necessary financial investments when they had the excess cash.The folks out there made there choices.They,unfortunately wanted tax cuts,instead of health care investment....Priorities... I lived through the Harris years in Ontario,where those same poor judgements were made...Tax cuts vs actual societal infrastructure improvements. By the way,if the Harper gov't stepped into Albertan health care issues,how do you think that would go down out there? Of course,who else ewould they vote for in federal election?

Precisely...The only kookier right wing "Think Tank" that could have been chozen would have been the National Ctizens Coaltion...It looks like our "Economist in a Tank" might have some 'splainin' to do!

Your larger,less nuanced,inference was the labour movement should disappear. Do you support Open Shop policies,or not? If yes,I refer you to the link I've provided proving it's not such a good idea...

Hogwash.You free marketeers will do anything to get rid of any check and balance that stops us from falling into the trap of a total free market.The labour movement IS one of those checks and balances.They set the wage,standard of living,workplace health and safety,and,benny plans that even non-union shops derive their wage and benny plans from.I assume you would prefer labour policy that Gery Nichols and the rest of the NCC free marketeering kooks want.It's also called Right To Work legislation.That name is nothing more than libertarian,free marketeering semantic spin.It should be called "Right To Work For Less!".Here's a little info on the wonderfulness of open shop policies. http://aflcio.org/issues/legislativealert/stateissues/work/ If it does'nt work,just Google,"Right to work for less". It is sourced through the US Dept. of Labour.And it's a little out of date!I wonder what those discrepencies are lkie now?

Unfortunately,I can.It'll be the MPP from my riding of Niagara West Glanbrook,Tim Hudak... I've never voted for him,he's a right wing kook.He backed Flaharty for the leadership of the PC's when Jimmy Boy thought jailing the homeless was a good idea.I live in a generally rural riding,so it's not shocking that right wing kook gets the bumpkins attention around here.They seem to be captivated by the simpleton,bumper sticker sloganeering. All I can say is I hope Hudak wins,the party will go farther to the rightand farther into the political backwater. Who needs crypto fascists,right?

I hope you're right,but just for fun,keep an eye on this sight... www.trackforum.com Once in a while,check in on the current events page.It's an auto racing site,but for loony right wing nutjobs it's pretty good!

Not entirely correct...In the US there is a thing called "The Jones Act", or"The Jones Law".It basically states that the bidding process for building a ship has to go through ALL the available yards in the US before it can go out for international tender.Invariably,an American yard comes up with the best price.We could have something like this here as the merchant fleet is mostly over 35 years old and is in need of replacing.CSL,through the likes of Mr.Martin,has seen to it that nothing liike that happens.Most CSL ships are built in Shang Hai,China.However,Algoma Central Marine and Upper Lakes Shipping all sail on the Great Lakes and could have conversions,forebodies,or,entire ships(bow to stern) all built in Canada.There is no mechanism in place to have this work done here.

The PC government of the day decided to stop subsidizing the construction of merchant fleet vessels.That's where the money is in the shipbuilding industry.The military vessels are a different matter.Every other industrialized nation subsidizes construction of its merchant fleet.We don't.And now,we almost can't,even if we tried. By the way,the ending of the subsidies aided in closing the Port Arthur yard in Thunder Bay,closed the Collingwood yard,and,has the Port Weller Dry Docks on the ropes.

Here,here PT...I an so sick of the RtW crowd thinking that if there were no organized labour,somehow the standard of living would stay the same in our country.What a load of right wing,anti-labour drivel!. This skilled tradesperson,who is unionized,is'nt burning the world up in the wage department,but I shudder to think what my standard of living might be under anh "Open Shop" policy.If they think it is so good,simply look at the standard of living in the mid-west and deep south where RtW is the law. If they think RtW is such a great idea,they should look at the history of how RtW came about.It has absolutely nothing to do with "Choice for workers". As far as "Buy Canadian" and industrial policy for this country,I'll give an example that I have intimate knowledge of. Until the late '80's,this country had a national shipbuilding policy.That was done away with under Mr.Mulroney.In the intervening time,the industry in Canada has basically disappeared.These were all high paying,skilled trade jobs.Every industrialized nation in the world has a comprehensive shipbuilding policy.In the US,they have something called The Jones Act.There's a reason for this,and it's not to gladhand unions...It's because these jobs are high paying jobs that keep skilled workers in Canada.It also has a symbiotic realtionship with the steel industry,and all that that entails.I worked at the last Canadian shipyard on the Great Lakes.We could build ships faster,with higher quality,but we still lost contracts to China,Korea,and,POLAND!!! Why? Subsidization,or lack thereof...

Frankly,they're pretty close to one in the same...Am I to assume someone like Jean Charest would be an acceptable leader to most Westerners then?

If a person like Bernard Lord or Jean Charest won a Conservative Leadership convention,and took the party back to the centre,the socially conservative Western base would not be very impressed.I would suggest that it would yake very little for the party to split again under those circumstances.If a hardline right winger became leader of the party,most small c conservatives that the party needs to get elected would probably vote Liberal. The Igg man would be pleased!!!

Any of the Harrisites would be a BAD choice.Well...It would be a good choice to me because right wing kooks running that party means they are unelectable.More moderate consevative voices like Mr.Prentice,Mr.McKay would be a good idea. Another choice would be a fluently bilingual Red Tory like Jean Charest.Unfortunately,or fortunately(depending on your point of view),the reform kooks will not go for a small c conservative from the East.That may lead to another split on the political right in this country,which as much as I have no interest in right wing politics,I see the necessity for it to keep the equally kooky leftists in check.

I'm not an economist like Steve,but I'm just askin'?