Dave_ON

Given how consistant these numbers are with the other polls to date, I'd say these are pretty close to the mark.

Indeed it will be a very long time before the CPC manages to dig themselves out of this hole, if they ever do at all. One thing this poll does point to is we won't see an election until this fall at the absolute earliest. The Tories are in a tough way atm as they have to sell huge spending cuts to Canadians, this might not hurt the CPC per se but it's certainly not going to impact them positively. Though budget cuts are generally easier to sell then are tax hikes which are likely to come in the not to distant future as well.

I do believe I quoted Mr. C directly and didn't even quote you in the post you're quoting or reference you in anyway shape or form. Your original position was rather ambiguous at best, and while I feel you lend a great deal of undue credence to behaviourism I don't disagree with your main point. Your point was clarified in a subsequent post; clearly I misunderstood your original position. In fact we share the same central view though our definition of "attraction" may be quite different. Clearly you can be "attracted" to people for different reasons, emotionally, intellectually, sexually, what have you. It’s entirely possible to be attracted to a given gender but never actually desire sexual relations with them. You are correct, sexuality is a combination of impulse and choice, however practicality wins the day. It is utterly impractical to go through one's entire life responding to random impulses towards one gender or another, you have to pick a team and play as it were unless you're only interest is a casual relationship which if that is the case have at it. So yes I suppose out of necessity one chooses "gay" or "straight" however, what I think you're failing to acknowledge, or are simply obfuscating, is that most people are more strongly drawn one way or the other, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who was truly 50/50.

Still waiting for an answer. When did you conciously choose to be attracted to the opposite sex. It's a simple question and a simple answer will do. My thoughts? You know the answer is you never conciously chose to be attracted to opposite sex, it came unbidden and naturally to you. You, and others like you, refuse to admit this truth as it would lend validity to the notion that one is born gay not made so by their "over bearing mother" or by choosing to be attracted to the same sex.

Umm ok rubbish aside the same can be said about straight men, come now there are just as many promiscuous straight men out there as there are gay men. Promiscuity is a biological impulse native to males in most species not just the gay humans. Spread your seed as broad as you can etc. You should also be aware that women tend to be biologically prone to monogamy, part of the need of a stable environment to raise offspring I suppose; promiscuity among lesbians is actually quite rare. Since you're the expert on unprotected sex you should be aware that Gay men are the most aware of the need for "safe sex", I hate that term, and that STD's are on the rise in Hetero's more than Gays. Actually surprisingly enough it's on the rise the most in the 50+ hetero crowd. They clearly didn't have the benefit of education on the matter the younger crowd did. Anyway I digress. Ever heard of the 60's or 70's? Free love? All ear marks of the Hetero community, in those days the gay community was still quite underground. That aside you're evading the question of choice; I asked you directly when you "chose" to be sexually attracted to women. Not when you chose to have sex with women but when you consciously choose to "want" to have sex with women. When was this decision made? It doesn't really answer my fundamental question, when did you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? When was that choice made? Please don't confuse the sexual act with sexual attraction the two are completely different. Any man is physically capable of having sex with a woman but that doesn't make them straight. God knows I know many gay men; myself included who tried to be straight for our own reasons. For the record my partner and I have been together for 8 years now, and monogamy isn't as rare in the gay community as you believe it to be. Eventually, gay men, like straight men realize how empty it is and settle down. But regardless I don't judge anyone for the choices they make, even if I don't agree with them, who am I to tell anyone else how they should live their life? Who's to say I have all the answers? Perhaps others know a truth I've yet to discover.

You're evading the question as is Mr. C. While you're technically right one chooses who they have sexual relations with one does not choose who they are sexually attracted to. Sexual attraction is not a choice it's a biological impulse. Often times people such as Mr. C and apparently you mistake sexuality for the sexual act. One can be sexually attracted to men and never act on it but the fact remains the attraction is there regardless of whether it is acted upon. When did you or Mr. C. for that matter "choose" to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex? When was this conscious choice made? One can choose not to eat but that doesn't change the fact that there body wants to eat and uses various physical means to compel this. One can choose not to blink but the fact remains you still need/want to blink on a biological level.; same for breathing. We are subject to any number of biological impulses and sexual impulses is one of them; obviously not necessary to live as is breathing and eating but fundamentally the same.

Ummm guess you've never heard of unions... no merit there really. Also in the real world salary isn't entirely based on merit, as in politics it's who you know and who you bl.. Further if you compare a woman's salary to a man's salary in an equal or similar position you'll find a great deal of disparity still exists. I guess the marjority of men just have more merit then the majority of women...

One of the points that gets lost in all of this is that Canada's stance on gay rights is not one many other countries in the world hold. What many call "special rights" which is ludicrous at first glance isn't at all that far from the truth; though not in the way they would intend it. Gays do have "special rights" in Canada when we compare them to other countries. They’re special in that they are the same, since 2005 at least, as those of straight people. So vis a vis gay rights in many other countries these are exceptional or special if you prefer that term. Having said that it's a key part of immigration and refugee status, and gay potential immigrants need to be made aware of Canada’s stance on gay rights. In many countries, Iran and Columbia just off the top of my head people are killed simply for being gay. As such many gays come to Canada from these countries seeking refugee status and rightly so they are generally granted it. I have a friend who moved to Canada from Columbia and recently became a citizen. He holds a job, pays his taxes and enjoys the same rights as the "normal" people. This is all he has ever wanted, sadly he could not do so back home in Columbia, so he moved to Canada where he could enjoy the "special" right of the freedom to live his life the way he wants to without fear of “special treatment” (ie. Persecution) from others.

It is?!? Holy Crap I'm cured! Thanks Mr. Canada if only I knew that all I had to do was "choose" to be straight I would have done so years ago! Tell me what day did you wake up and say "I could be gay and well while it is tempting I think that I'm choosing to be straight. Yes I've weighed the pros and cons ever so carefully and straight is definitely the right choice." Do you even know a gay person? Anyone in your family gay?

Indeed and it's also why the polls have been unaffected by the prorogation that was conveniently timed to stop the committees that where addressing the issue...

Let's face it we all know what the Child care issue is, it's a means to get votes, especially in Quebec, which the LPC needs to get elected. What's to make us believe this will actually been inacted when they're in goverment. LPC always campgains to the left and governs from the middle, this is precisely why they have been in government more often then out in the past century and a half. Harper has made some major mistakes, most notably governing exactly like a Liberal after spending so very many years criticizing them for doing it. The truth is he's not learning from his mistakes otherwise he wouldn't keep making them. It's almost as if he can't take one step forward without taking two steps back.

Nicky and Blueblood, can we drop the education debate and take it to a new topic if you truly feel this needs to be discussed at length? This is the political polls thread not a discussion on the value of education. Having said that it's quite interesting how very volatile public opinion is and how quickly it can turn. It's undeniable at this point that the CPC has fallen very far given that even Nick Nanos has them at less than 2% ahead of the LPC. The Margin for error is 3.1% so it's a statistical tie. The thing about Harper is, he's his own worst enemy. It's kind of sad because I was just starting to come around and warm up to the guy, I was not particularly impressed with Ignatieff to this point and the line between CPC and LPC had grown thin indeed. I wouldn't say that I was going to vote for him but I had considered it and given enough time I might have done so, which was an immense surprise to me. Then, as it seems he inevitably does, he went and did something completely stupid. I don't know what it is with the guy, but he builds up this incredible momentum and then makes a colossal mistake. It will be interesting to see if the Olympics manage to bolster their support or at least halt their steady decline. I have to say Ignatieff is starting to win me over. I mean I don't see anything stellar policy wise from him as yet, but at least he's trying to come up with a plan. It seems he's finally started to focus his energies in a more constructive direction.

Wow who's living in a bubble now? How often do you leave Alberta or even travel east of the SK boarder? You do realize there is another part of the country right? I suppose you wouldn't want to be raped by one of those dirty central Canadians, or pan handled by those soul sucking, money grubbing Maritimers. It has been my experience as I travel all over Canada for my job that this "western" outrage translates to certain demographics in Alberta. You don't hear people in BC droning on about their lot in life, nor do you hear those of SK complaining about the evil that exist west of MB. No it seems that AB is the epicentre of a discontented minority. Truth is even your closest neighbours SK and BC feel pretty much the same way the rest of us do. AB is a nice place to visit, unique scenery, some good people, interesting culture, the only real down side is it's chalked full of Albertans.

Yes there likely is an age gap, as I was an infant when Trudeau was in power, but I grew up in a Trudeau hating home, so ironic given my current leanings. My mom always used to say “We used to have rights in this country but Trudeau took them all away and the B@$tard LPC took our flag too!” The loss of the Union Jack was a particularly sore point for most Maritimers. However I digress. I wasn't disagreeing with you in the least, I was agreeing with you. You're point that the then Reform Party took off like a rocket serves to illustrate my central point. They did indeed manage to capture the opposition position in short order and there they remained, and why? Because by far and in large most Canadians didn't truly want their brand of reform. Look at their power base in the beginning, Alberta, decidedly anti-Liberal, then SK, MB and BC. They had no seats in the East whatsoever. In fact it was not until the unite the right campaign and a second name change to CPC and their third leader that the party actually gained any traction whatsoever in the East. They figured out what the LPC has known for the better part of a century, you've got promise much, and deliver little. Polls suggest that Canadians are warming up to Harper and the CPC, and why? If you ask most Canadians it's because they don't really notice much of a difference between this and the last government. I'm not talking about political junkies like those of us who frequent this board, I'm talking the average Canadian that get's their news by watching the Rick Mercer Report or Colbert.

My interpretation of TB's post was the reverse is true; that the CPC is swallowing the last vestiges of the Progressive element in their party, i.e. the former PC's. Far be it from me to speak on his behalf. Indeed they have become surprisingly more liberalesque of late, and frankly that's worked in Harper's favour. There's a reason why the LPC was called "the natural governing party", it's because by far and in large they governed in such a way that most Canadians didn't really object to.

I'd like to say this is the most asinine post you've ever made but I'm certain I could find one that was more so, were I so inclined. To correlate one's patriotism to where one falls on an outmoded and largely misused political scale is ludicrous at best. I'd fall under the left side of the spectrum, for purely social reasons but I'd say I'm quite patriotic. I always will choose a Canadian owned/created company over an American one. Hence I shop at Zellers and not Walmart, Rona not Home Depot, Tim's not Duncan's. The enemy of small business is not one particular big box store or even box stores in general, its malls and the convenience of one stop shopping they offer. Gone are the days of downtown shopping. If those mom and pop shops failed to adapt their demise was inevitable. As is the case in nature, so it is in business, those who don't adapt to their changing environment go extinct.

Umm no I'm saying that a pay increase WILL result in an increase in prices and invariably defeat the very reason d’être of Walmart, i.e. having lower prices than the competition. Anyone is free to seek employment anywhere they wish. No one forced them to work at Walmart, and it is what it is. You can't expect high wages from a store that promises low prices, the two cannot co-exist. I think you're running wildly out of context. We're not talking about neurosurgery here. We're talking about common Labour that anyone can do. Stocking shelves, waiting on customers, ringing sales through, definitely not work one has to train for. Again supply and demand rules the labour market. The more abundant the supply, the lower the demand and the lower the cost of an item. In this case the labour, that anyone can do, results in low pay. As for non-union labour, somewhere in the vicinity of 80% of working Canadians are employed by non-unionized private companies. The same rules apply, if you have skills that are in high demand and low supply you can expect, and even demand a higher wage. You'll likely get it because the company knows that if they don't hire you someone else will. The reverse is true if you are a low skill worker. The ball is in the company's court, if you won't take the wage they offer, there are hundreds upon hundreds of others that are more than willing to do the work and are every bit as capable of doing it. Whether or not someone "deserves" a high wage is a matter of interpretation. One could argue that someone who has educated themselves, or picked up a trade or skill "deserves" a higher wage. "Deserves" implies entitlement, and that's not the way the world works. Everything, even labour, is valued by how rare it is. Hence, gold is more valuable than gravel. That's my point exactly, supply was left off in my original post you're correct. But the supply that is affected is the amount of money that would be available to the general public. Again basic economics says the more common a commodity the less valuable it is. Ergo is everyone has more money, i.e. the supply of money increases, the less valuable it becomes and the more of it, it takes to buy those things you want and need. Increasing the supply of money only serves to inflate the prices.

Umm Americans are more truthful absolutely, some would say to a fault. But being polite means you are generally being untruthful. Canadians are polite and make regular use of please and thank you. I travel to the US often for my job, one of the first times I was out at a restaurant in Memphis TN, when I placed my order I said. "Can I please have the pulled pork sandwich." The waitress replied "Well of course ya can have it! But do ya want it?" I have since adapted how I order to be "I want" To me this seem impolite but it's the way most Americans place order. Americans are more direct, but certainly not more polite.

It goes back to "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins", if you're going to allow organizations within your boarder to attack foreign powers, and go even one step further actually protect them, then you have to accept retaliatory actions. If they were truly interested in order they would not have allowed this threat to exist with in their boarders to begin with, thereby ensuring their security needs were met. Similarly if a rogue organization were operating in our boarders unbeknowst to us, and they attacked a foreign power, we would deal with the situation accordingly. Depending on the situation extradition is quite likely. Again understanding of the hierarchy is immaterial. It's not an idea that was created, it's a description of the reality of existance. If you don't have food to eat, all your energy is bent on somehow getting food to eat. You can't worry about anything else until that need is met. Feedom of speech doesn't fill an empty stomach, and democracy doesn't keep rain off of you.

There has always been a middle class, even in feudal Europe; there were always freemen that were merchants or artisans in their trades. All that has changed is the size of the middle class and ease at which we can move from one class to another.

Tough question actually I don't honestly have an answer for that. My initial reaction is to say yes at it ensures a minimum standard. But honestly I don't know that it's achieving what it was originally intended to do. I suppose we could argue that without it some people would be paid ridiculously low, but in all honesty all low wage jobs are in competition for employees from the same pool, so it is likely that a minimum wage would exist by convention if not by law.

It's not really about freedom or democracy, as I mentioned numerous times, that is for them to decide and fight for. Our purpose is to assist in the establishment of order. How that is achieved is ultimately up to their people. It is a foregone conclusion that even a dictator is better than lawless anarchy. Do you dispute that basic physiological and security needs are desired by all human beings? I think this is a no brainer and not the least bit presumptuous on my part. Not sure what you're trying to get at here. Suffice it to say their understanding of hierarchy is immaterial, the fact remains that if you're worried about where your next meal is coming from, you don't have time to worry about your form of government; food, shelter, clothing are the most important and basic of all needs, if all your time is spent on survival you don't have time to worry about other less important matters.

Fair enough but what alternatives do you suggest? No government would ever implement a tax unless it was absolutely necessary. That's not a way to win an election, unless you're promising to axe the tax and then subsequently keep it, however I digress. I may be cynical when it comes to politicians but I must concede that if the government is doing this it must be because it is completely necessary. Given that a tax restructure is necessary what are our alternatives. Really there are few, increase income tax which is more deplorable IMNHO or deep cuts in services. Again I'm not being critical, but in all honesty if you have a viable alternative please let us hear it, or better yet let you’re MP and MPP know.

The fundamental problem with unions in the instance of Wal-Mart is that they are unsustainable and ultimately self defeating. As noted numerous times on this thread an increase in the standard of living of the employees can only be achieved by an increase in wages. If wages go up, then the companies costs go up, which means so too will there prices. The clientele of Wal-Mart shop there because of the lower prices, but if there prices go up, they will lose those clientele. Further as wonderful as it would be for us to have the same living standard that's not realistic unless we want to accept whole sale communism. Products that are sold at Wal-Mart must be affordable to a wide range of people; therefore those who work for these businesses must have wages that are in line with the affordability of the products offered. Even if they managed to get higher wages it would not really improve their living standard. We could raise minimum wage to $15/hr and the problem would still persist. Supply and demand would be unchanged and market prices would go up to compensate for the increased demand for products. As the demand goes up so does the price. I don't know what the folks were hoping to achieve. My perception is that many people have this perception that a union is the messiah of the oppressed and will turn their water into wine as it were. That's simply not realistic. As I mentioned supply and demand rule the job market as well. The more common the skills you have to offer, the less you can expect in pay as there is a surplus in people that can do a particular job. It's all well and good to want a higher standard of living, and everyone has the right to pursue it, but a Union does not guarantee this and I think far too many people believe it will. If you want to increase your standard of living the only way to do so is to gain skills or education that is in demand. If you do that you will be paid more and your living standard will adjust accordingly.

Interesting to note about this list is most of us here likely wouldn't want to live in any the countries that are lower than the 26% range.