Yorkness

Sounds like typical pre-election drivel. Ignatieff should elaborate because taxes are quite low to begin with and EI ineffecient. Any change would have to be quite minimal and uninteresting.

I think Ontario has an amazing potential and therefore ability to innovate it's market. Five years may not be the time frame to look too brightly upon but in a decade I believe Ontario can be again at the forefront of Canada's economy. Diversification of Ontario's industry and population will occur, allowing everybody to be in the right place for the right thing. Ontarian emigration to Alberta for example, allowed some of the unemployed, unskilled labor force to make use of their abilities. I hardly can say which industries will emerge in Ontario to once again invigorate it's economy but I think education and technology could help. Ontario is home to a very high number of Universities, many of them very good, and some provinces in Canada only have one or two. I believe the service industry is also much more capable than most of Canada's. Technology, such as biotechnology, is a big thing there and thay industry could be built upon as well.

I due realize that I am a little "late". I think that although "the" precedent could already be set it is dangerous to build upon it. I think that since there appears to exist DNA evidence of who is or at least who is'nt the father, the woman's knowledge or lack thereof of who the father really was at the time is irrelevant.

As a second reponse to the one you quoted I must say that the role he took and "maintained" was based on a false premise of relation. I think a very dangerous precedent has been set here because a court has allowed itself to judge not on legal terms but on moral terms which can vary and be easily manipulated to one's favor. A court should not be able to judge morality as there is no legal definition of it. Sure there is a certain public standard but how can a court prove which perspective on either side of it is correct? Could I have somebody prosecuted according my own personal beliefs of what morality is? The justice system, to remain neutral and even relevant, is based on facts; And ruling on such ambiguous terms has undermined the integrity of what the justice system is and could even have possibly put it in a state of decadence towards long obsolete faith-based justice. Also P.S. responding to Drea. I believe the "vulgar" use of the word feminist has quite rightly adjusted to what the feminist movement currently represents which uses the process of mascualinization of the woman to achieve equality. The belief that "if you cant beat em, join em". Also I would describe current feminism quite exclusionary with such creations as female-only facilities such as spas, resorts and history-based justification of the use of bias. Of course feminism in its pure form represents equality and respect but it has morphed into a sort of culture of competition rather than the equality that it originally pursued.

Great quote at the end. This is what I wanted to understand. That Libertarianism does have it's restrictions and is not a great free for all. Thanks.

Look, this is why I dont use pure ideology. Libertarianism in not allowing imposition would be imposing itself. It's libertarian principles would be imposing the act of imposition by another ideology. This could effectively be called imposing itself on someone else. I think libertarian ideology is not very easy to define or defend for that matter because of it's anarchaic principles of basically "anything goes".

Yes but I believe a phrase used commonly with libertarians is "free will". Which could mean that a libertarian would not condescend conservative belief or try to promote his own libertarian belief in detriment to it's opposite. They would, rather, being libertarian, accept the free thinking of his conservative friend and try to relate it into his own doctrine effectively creating a more liberal movement, having accepted yet another idea to move along to the next. This is why I believe pure ideology in moral issues cannot be used to compare to something as calculable as economics. An economy has the ability to be calculated to quite an acceptable degree while human morality is ever changing and unpredictable. The very definition of morality is very disputable itself. I can say that I am free market or not free market and be perfectly understood. I could'nt say very firmly at all though, that I am a moral person as there are so many ways to interpret even morality's true definition.

What would you propose then? Perhaps a one state solution? Would assimilation or "Gaza dying" into what is now Israel be a worthwhile effort?

Of course platonically there would be no extremist Palestinian groups if there were no certain extremist or "anti-social" Jewish behavior. I doubt the historic achievement of the greater good between the two populations is relevant in this matter. I think that what matters is that a premise set by the population of Gaza is allowing themselves to be persecuted or at least an excuse to do so is readily present to their agressor. The same goes to the Israeli side. I guess I would agree that innocence can be almost fully presumed of the Gazan and for that matter the Israeli youth. They are not allowed to vote. So legally anyways they cannot possibly be involved at least in the election of HAMAS or airstrikes. I think it remains so though that both sides will eventually outgrow their youth and innocence and possibly have to take part in this war be it by IDF conscript or extremist resistance. It is reallly quite a sad, violent cycle that is being bred.

While it is quite easy to avoid civilian casualtes in densely-populated Gaza I must ask if much of the presumed civilian Gazan innocence is misrepresented. Remember that Hamas won a majority which helped lead to it's increased and finally complete influence over Gaza.

Preferably welfare should be a temporary, incentive-based "support" program and not an alternative lifestyle. I guess we are talking economics here in whether to have a smaller or larger government. In any case, the market, however free it is, should be proactive and diverse so as to limit extreme fluctuations in it's ability to support itself.

I think it's great Klein is starting to make sense to people; finally. Anyways everybody from Jane and Finch seems to be here to stay.

I was quite saddened to see Taft leave. Certainly it was'nt much of his fault the liberals lost so many seats in the last election. Taft conistently held his own against his conservative opposition on their own turf. If there is one place he will be missed is in parliament. He was my favorite speaker in the legislature consistently offering clear, concise, and critical questions and comebacks.

I believe you dont take into account the fact that though one can be libertarian in economic terms yet also perfectly be conservative morally. The next guilt stick could possibly be the legitimacy of minority governments.

HaHa. How interesting it is to "quiz" myself every so often. The Moral Poltical quiz made me out to be a "capital republican" as part of a broader "moderate conservative" scope which sounds about right. It also cited Nixon as president. Interestingly enough, the poltical compass site found me to be slightly leaning towards the left albeit almost completely in between authoritarianism and Libertarianism. My "politopia" is centerville which also sounds quite right. I am still a bit surprised at the compass quiz though.