Dave_ON

It is idealistic and naive to expect that the people of Afghanistan are even remotely ready for a sophisticated level of western style liberal democracy. That is completely foreign to their culture and it's more than just a little arrogant to presume that our way is best. I disagree, tyranny is not the enemy of hope; it is chaos, lawlessness and instability. If tyranny is the only way order can be established than that is the starting point they must get to. I'm certain that the people of Afghanistan would welcome anyone who could offer them stability, peace, good civil order and the ability to subsist. Once they've established the basics of life and are able to maintain them on their own, then they can turn their thoughts to higher things. Maslow's hierarchy of needs applies to society as much as it does to individuals. Physiological needs must come first, followed closely by safety needs. Only once these are established can they move on to the next level which presumably is some form of democracy. You can't skip stages as it were, at it's unreasonable to expect that any type of order, can and will be established by instituting a straw man form of democracy.

I agree social reactionary is an apt description. It is why to this very day we still have so much resistance to removing the last vestiges of Victorian influence from our society. Though we are largely secularized there are many who have issues separating morality from legality. Exactly, the war on drugs was a fool’s errand and for all our hard work and money we have little to show for it. The fact of the matter is people will always do what they want to do regardless of the legality of it. I'm inclined to be libertarian about the matter, if it doesn't hurt anyone else in society it shouldn't illegal, regulated perhaps but certainly not illegal. Indeed they want everyone to have the freedom to be just like them.

Think about what you're saying and the assumptions contained therein. Your assertion is that democracy, freedom, and all the rainbows and kittens contained therein are superior and I don't disagree in the least. Who among us can resist a kitten? But the issue at hand is that this is the natural state of things if we remove all resistance to it. That democracy and freedom rushes in to fill the void left by tyranny. This is not the case, these people want stability, security, and subsistence living; prosperity at this point is a luxury. My assertion is stability is more important than democracy, and if stability can be achieved via an absolute monarchy so be it. Tyranny is not the enemy of democracy and the west, truly its lawlessness and instability as is demonstrated in Afghanistan as well as Somalia. Of course we're working to support them but we can't expect them to be at our level of cultural progression. As such they must develop at their own pace and arrive at democracy, if they so choose, in their own time. It is entirely likely that any form of stable and lasting government will be decidedly undemocratic in nature, and it may evolve into democracy if it is successful. As I said earlier, democracy is preferable, but stability is more important. I don't believe it is our responsibility to eradicate the Taliban, but rather to give the Afghans the tools to do so themselves. It is the only way to ensure victory and lasting stability. I would call the above ethnocentric, but I'm no idealist. I would however accept cynical pragmatist. You can even toss in arrogant if you so desire. Be careful labelling people, it can be inflammatory and can cause the debate to devolve to little more than a name calling session.

Mercantilism was essentially heavy government regulations and interference in the economy to ensure a trade surplus, i.e. a great number of exports than imports. This was achieved via tariffs and trade embargos. Laissez-faire of course was the philosophy that government should interfere very little in trade and allow the market to be "free" to govern itself as it were. Agreed, but I think the modern context lacks substance and is relative to the user rather than a particular fixed point. We can't even really say our political parties are left or right, unless used in reference to one another.

Largely my intent was to demonstrate how very different these terms are from their historical origin, and that by far and in large IMNHO, people have a tendancy to over use or misuse them given their historical context. Often it's a term used to describe left or right of me. They're not so much static points anymore, but relative to one's own placement on the spectrum. For instance originally a right vs. left debate was mercantilism vs. laissez-faire. How many modern conservatives know what mercantilism is let alone supports it? Such is the nature of words the connotation employed by the user isn't of necessity the same as the words actual denotation.

I realize it was a personal commentary but it made me realize that many Canadians can be described that way, myself included. Wishywashy to some; pragmatic to others

I agree something needs to be done about the current state of our millitary, but I guess the question is what? Certainly cuts aren't the answer but I wonder if a shortfall in funding is the only reason for ill state of repair we find our forces in. Perhaps you can speak to this better Army Guy, but is it also a problem with the beurocracy at the DND? Is is solely that the fund aren't there or is it also that they're not wisely spent? We hear about goverment funding various equipment purchases and what not but surely that comes based on recommendations from the DND. I guess my question is how do we go about fixing the issue? Further what are the issues as you see them being a member of the CF?

I'm certain many of you are aware that the terms left and right are a throwback to the seating arrangements of the French legislative assembly around the time of the French Revolution. In a nutshell, the conservative aristocracy were on the right and the progressives "republicans" were on the left. Clearly the terms have changed significantly today but in reading these boards we see the terms "leftist" "rightwing", "neo-con" and the like tossed about with reckless abandon almost as if it's entirely relative to one’s personal perspective. M.Dancer's signature has always stood out for me "right of some, left of others", and I think that's an excellent commentary on modern society. It seems all too often the line between the two is extremely obfuscated, and I'm not even certain we could ever really term a person to be left or right. I myself hold many views on a case by case basis that could be termed right leaning or left leaning, but I would never really ever term myself as either, or even centrist. I suppose the closest term I can come up with is pragmatist. I suppose my question is what do these terms even mean in the modern context? How are we to gauge and address them? Is the scale personal, national or global? Where is the division? Is it socialism vs. capitalism? Liberalism vs. conservatism? I'm not certain it can even really be defined as there are so many caveats to modern society. I suppose it all comes down to your perspective on the role of government, as this will have a great deal of impact on your political views in general. I'd be interested to hear the views of others on these boards. Where would you place yourself on the scale and how is it you arrived at that assessment?

You can't foist freedom and democracy onto a people and expect it to stick. If you honestly believe that is possible it is clear that you have never read a history book in your entire life. Iraq immediately comes to mind. The British attempted to transplant their values and system of government and it failed rather miserably, there are numerous other examples of this throughout history. Look at the nations that are considered free today, many of them had to fight very bloody revolutions to achieve those freedoms; France and the US come to mind. Because the people wanted these things, fought and died for them that is why they still persist today. Not because some foreign power came in and "liberated" them. Our interests in Afghanistan are and should only be the stabilization of the region. They need a stable government, a good standing army, a good domestic police force and the ability to enforce whatever laws they see fit to enact. Only then will the region be able to prevent terrorist groups from flourishing. Then they can undertake the task of ferreting out the terrorist organizations that threaten western security. If that means they eventually evolve into a western style liberal democracy fantastic, but that's not a change that will happen over night or even in a decade of western support. If the citizens of Afghanistan do not want to fight for this, it will not happen. Most of them are too concerned with the basics at the moment to really worry about anything else. Your assumptions on my expectations are ludicrous at best. I don't expect to "liberate" the world nor do I think it is even possible. God helps those who help themselves as it were. Those who seek freedom will eventually find it, but it's generally a long and bloody battle to get there. Clearly subtelty is lost on you. You're correct I see no further point in continuing a discussion with someone who needs to resort to aspersions and pejorative labeling. Anyone who calls any of your statements into question or disagrees with you is a "leftist extremist" a "terroist supporter" or a myriad of other terms you flippantly toss about.

Agreed a debate should be held. But given the economic situation in Ontario something has to be done to address the shortfalls. I know we've had the income vs. consumption tax debate before and I know you're dead set against a consumption tax rise. But honestly what are the alternatives? Cutbacks deeper than what will likely come or income tax hikes? Ontario has higher consumption tax but lower than most other provinces income tax. Sure Income tax may seem the solution on the surface but given the job losses in Ontario it would need to be a significant hike to make up the shortfall.

I agree there should be some public debate on the matter but in all honesty will it really do any good? When is anybody ever happy about a new tax? Let's be honest we all have the opinion that, in general, the government is trying to screw us over regardless of who is in power. Taxes are always a very sticky situation for any government to address, but they are none the less absolutely necessary and will be implemented regardless of public opinion. What would convince you that this is a good thing? Why do you think it isn't? What would be a solution you would suggest as an alternative? I'm not being critical, as a fellow Ontarian I'm quite interested to hear your PoV on this.

As you should value these, however you should also respect the rights of others to have these. That includes the Afghan civilians. It is not up to us to force these ideals on them that is for them to fight for if they so choose. All the same they too are every bit as human as you or I, not sub-human as one poster who shall remain nameless called them. As such they have basic human rights. As I mentioned collateral damage happens, but there is an enormous difference between a civilians getting caught in the cross fire when engaging enemy combatants, and intentionally killing civilians along with the enemy combatants indiscriminately. Just chalk it up to the fact that I'm an extreme leftist I suppose or whatever other pejorative term you feel necessary to assign me. Either way I think we've veered a little too far off the thread topic so I will end here.

Lastest Ekos Poll http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/11/25/ekos-poll025.html So the CPC has held fairly steady thus far and the issues some thought would affect their numbers hasn't to date and I don't really think they will It is interesting to note that the CPC's approval rating is slipping though this is to be expected the longer they hold power. Heretofore this hasn't translated into the poll numbers and I don't think it will until such time as Canadians perceive they have a viable alternative.

Ahh but there in lies the rub doesn't it? I can say what I want and advocate any number of atrocities I want simply because I'm doing so for the "greater good" and in the name of democracy, women, freedom and baby Jesus. My actions are justified despite their dispicable nature because my intentions are "good". Anyone who advocates extreme measures is an extremist, I'm not sure why you're utterly unable to grasp this very fundamental truth. I find it quite amusing that you only want one word yes or no asnwers, but you yourself feel the need to qualify the mass destruction of a culturr because you perceive they can't "become civilized". Come now, be frank with us or are you afraid to say what you really think? Too busy hiding behind your straw man defense that you're doing it all for democracy, freedom, insert popular ideological buzz word here ad nauseum as you are want to do. You're not advocating collateral damage that happens in a war, that's unavoidable unfortunately. You're advocating wide scale blanket bombing, which is no different than systematic summary execution of suspected terrorist villages. In other words you lack the wherewithal to engage in intelligent debate, and are unable to back up any of your statements with little more than s series of buzz words that your post here seem to indicate you don't really believe. Don't throw down son if you're not prepared to defend your views.

Well there now you've admitted it. You're ok with killing civilians because they happen to occupy the same geographic space as the enemy. But please spare us the self righteous diatribe that you are God's own defender of truth, freedom and democracy. You are an extremist, to you the ends justifies the means. I honestly see little difference between you and the extremists you claim to oppose. Blanket bombings, really? You think you actually have the right to criticize the actions of extremists with a hard-line like that? Let's be frank shall we? The war isn't about bringing freedom to women, children or even democracy. It's about ensuring the state is a stable one that will not support terrorism or allow these organizations to operate within their borders. Their form of government, the religion they choose to follow, how they treat women, children, gays or puppies is not at issue. That is for them to choose or fight for as they see fit. Democracy and freedom cannot be foisted upon a people; it needs to be fought for. The cost is often paid for in their blood, sweat and tears. Our purpose is to give them the tools they need to ensure that their country is not a haven for terroists; the rest is really up to them and frankly not for us to judge or choose regardless of how much we may dislike it.

I concur completely which is why as a "leftist" I was critical of Harper's cutting of the GST. There is no way to maintain the current level of spending while at the same time cutting the GST. Something has to give and you either must raise taxes or you must cut services. The 2% cut was little more than a political ploy to placate the CPC's Alberta support base. This is unsustainable and should have instead come as a 2% reduction in income tax/capital gains etc. Sadly this will likely come in the form of an income tax hike. This is perhaps the absolute worst thing they could do. For some reason folks have it in their head that income tax is the most fair form of taxation. This is not the case as it rests the burden of taxation squarely on the middle class. Rather than spreading it out progressively as is the theory. Truth is the lower your income the less you can afford to "shelter" therefore the more tax, proportionally, you end up paying as a result. Which is precisely why a consumption tax is the easiest to administer and nearly impossible to evade. Even if you choose to buy it out of the country you'll have to pay duty on it if you wish to bring it back here. It is my belief that we should eliminate the absolutely archaic income tax and increase the consumption tax. The more money you have to spend, the more you tend to spend, therefore the more tax you pay. This puts the amount of tax completely in your control and would actually encourage folks to save their money rather then spend it. I realize this means the poor will pay more taxes but honestly that could be easily offset with a change to the current rebate program.

The difference in the Atlantic provinces is it meant an overall decrease in the percentage of tax. At the time the NB PST was 11% combined with the then 7% GST meant 18%. Then it was called the Blended Sales Tax, no joke obviously they didn't think the acronym through. (BST) However I digress. So at least in the case of NB it seemed as if the tax actually went down by 3%. I'm not sure how it shifted in terms of exemptions but it certainly didn't meet the resistance that it is in On and BC. I suppose it's because the over all percentage isn't changing, which might have made it a softer sell.

That is precisely the point, the right to an expediant trial is a fundamental right in a democracy or have we abandoned that notion?

If the case were so very cut and dry, why did it take them so long to bring it to trial? Should have been a slam dunk rather than this travesty of justice we currently have on our hands. Guilty or not, this should have been a done deal years ago.

Indeed and it only took the better part of a decade, good show.

Agreed and anyone who doubts this needs to research the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords. You could also call up former PM Mulroney and ask him how "easy" it is to make a change to the constitution.

The way I see it, if you want what I have then earn it as I did. I worked hard to get to where I am and thus I reap the rewards. Those who did not work to better themselves, have not worked the way that I have do not deserve a hand out. It's not about "stuff" it's about earning one’s own keep and the freedom to do as you wish with what you have worked for. I'm all for working together to better society, but the key is "work", if you don't work and are both physically and mentally capable of doing so, then I have no use for you.

I have no issue paying for programs we all use, I do have an issue with paying for programs that aren't/won't be used by the general public. Education and Medical services are of course no brainers. Universal child care isn't. Not everyone chooses to have children or is able to do so. Why should we be forced to pay for other people’s children? Arguably Education and Medical attention is something we all need and will and have used. If anything rather than creating targeted programs that only assist a few people I would be more inclined to spend that money on expanding the programs we already have. I suppose if the program doesn’t benefit everyone, to me it’s not really worth it. I’d rather see health care expanded to include dental, and optometry and maybe even drug coverage. This is something that everyone can and will use at some point in their life and ALL of society would benefit from. It would likely mean a tax increase, but considering what I have to pay for my group insurance at work to cover these services I probably wouldn’t notice much of a difference. To me if public spending isn’t used by or accessible to all people it shouldn’t be done. I appreciate the NDP wants to help out the underdog, but I think if we focused on more universal, rather than targeted initiatives, we would all reap the long term benefits. On a side note, considering Duffy's girth I'd be frightened to see what his meals cost.

I don't disagree, but a major issue for me is a parties stand on Gay rights and other social issues. If a party doesn't believe in upholding these or is willing to sacrifice them to appease a fringe group of religious supporters I can't support them. I honestly think it will take a CPC majority for the LPC to be able to rebuild itself and become more viable. The only trouble is every time the CPC is within striking distance someone opens their mouth and inserts their foot.

I think the gap is very much still alive and well and felt by many Canadians like myself. We need a socially liberal and fiscally restrained government. Neither the NDP nor the CPC can fit that bill at present.