Dave_ON

I understand many of your points Machjo but I think you lack a fundamental context, as do 90% of those posters here, for where this event occurred. I grew up in New Brunswick and we sang the National Anthem every single day as well as God Save the Queen and that was in the city of Saint John. Martimers are very socially conservative to begin with, and are in general staunch Monarchists. We're talking about rural New Brunswick so these sentiments run even deeper. You're assertion that the principal was attempting to accommodate a multicultural multi-faith environment is somewhat overstated. You have to understand in NB multiculturalism consists of 60% English 40% French and roughly the same proportions of Protestant to Catholic to cover multi-faith. While I can appreciate that he was attempting to accommodate what was likely a few Jehovah’s Witnesses, I feel he too failed to understand the mentality of the community in which he resided. Loyalty to Queen and Country runs deep in the Maritimes, and frankly it was foolish of the principal not to recognize the cultural context he was trying to apply multicultural ideology. I’m not saying that death threats are at all warranted or the least bit appropriate, but they are certainly understandable given the cultural sentiments of the region. These threats likely came from all over NB as is evidenced by how quickly the NB legislature passed a law mandating the singing of the anthem on a daily basis. Such a law would not pass it was not the general sentiment of the people. Many people perceived this as a threat to their identity and to their way of life and some overreacted and responded in like manner. Some people react violently when they feel threatened. It’s not the majority but it does happen. I think the response is indicative of how deep patriotism runs in the Atlantic Provinces, and I have to admit when I moved to Ontario I was shocked at how few people actually knew the words to our National Anthem. This to me is a sad testament to state of affairs in our country. All too often the observation that Bush Chaney makes about “Canadians” is proven time and time again here in Ontario, the only identity they have is “we’re not American”. This is not the case in the Maritimes, many of the people there are decedents of Americans fleeing the revolution who wanted to remain loyal to the King, and they actually even founded the city of Saint John, which today is still called “The Loyalist City”. That is our identity and that is why I suppose patriotism runs so deep there. I still carry that with me, and those values instilled are not easily given up nor are they to be trifled with. Further to that end I would doubt you could say that the values held by the folks down East are indicative of the rest of Canada. As you're well aware Canada doesn't really have a National identity, rather it has a number of loosely sewn together regional identities that came together out of necessity. This mosaic of values conflicted back in 1867 and they continue to conflict to this very day.

Oh I'm certain you're not suggesting that the US never interferes in the affairs of other sovereign nations... Reversed your post WWII foreign policy have you?

But the people aren't drawing the lines, you're suggesting the lines be drawn for them.

There is a straight pride parade; it's called "The Calgary Stampede". There is more than enough testosterone to go around there. As for the gay pride parade being a public orgy, you clearly have no idea what the parade is about or what actually transpires there. You can criticize anything you like, but please ensure your criticism is based on actual facts rather than 3rd hand propaganda. If you truly support you down-to-earth gay friends/acquaintances you'd go to a local pride festival and see for yourself.

I suppose the point is you would think ill of them regardless of the facts. Cyclical logic is not logic at all. This is a not a matter of "The Left" denying you vindication. This is a matter of you being unable to support your claims in a tangible way that does not include the phrase "My friends and I think...". I too can use cyclical logic to support my claims. Observation # 1: All Oranges are Orange Observation # 2: All Oranges are round objects Conclusion: All orange round objects are oranges. Here in lies the issue with your entire argument. If it is so very obvious and observable why are you not able to produce, articles, facts, papers written by others to support your facts? Because you have discussed your preconceptions with others who happen to share them does not make them any more accurate. That is not a logical conclusion that is operating from preconceived notion and finding evidence that agrees with said notion and ignoring evidence to the contrary. You could provide links to the articles that lead you to these conclusions. Surely something recently has brought this to your mind, one specific article that caught your eye. When I think back to the most recent murder case I can think of I'm reminded of the Torie Stafford case that happened in Woodstock On. Incidentally neither of the accused is an immigrant. In other words you didn't even look at the information. Further to that end at least Wikipedia has more sources and citations then "My friends and I think" to back them up. Heretofore that is the only evidence you have provided for us.

Based on your "arguments" heretorfore it would appear this is not the case. Citation to support this please? I provided a link that showed the vast majority of convicted murders in Canada were not of ethnic origin as you have stated. The onus is on you to prove your claims. By the way wild accusations and heresay do not equate to evidence. That is one conclusion but it's hardly logical and certainly not the ONLY one. It could also be that it would be used to further fuel and in turn justify anti-minority hate speech and or crimes. There are those, such as you, who approach matters based on preconceived, subjective notions rather than facts. It would seem based on your posting so far that you would arrive at the same conclusions in spite of the facts. If you believe you are correct, than you can prove it by providing a list of convicted murders demonstrating your theory. It certainly is easy enough to get this information if you have the inclination to dig for it. Please limit the list to only those convicted, accused is not the same thing. Here's a list of my own. Paul Bernardo, Wayne Boden, Michael Briere, Min Chen, Wilbert Coffin, Robert Raymond Cook, John Martin Crawford, Peter Demeter, Elva Bottineau, Valery Fabrikant, William Patrick Fyfe, George Gee, Albert Guay, Nelson Hart, Florence Lassandro, Robert Latimer, Allan Legere, Bernard Lortie, Denis Lortie, Jeremy Molitor, Angelina Napolitano, Norman Kidman, Clifford Olson, Robert Pickton, Paul Rose, William Chandler Shrubsall , Francis Simard, Clifford Sleigh, Colin Thatcher, Roch Thériault, Raymond Villeneuve, Roger Warren

I would postulate that your "logical" conclusions are arrived at based on your point of departure. By this I mean your preconceptions are tainting your fact finding abilities, you notice the crimes committed by foreigners because you are under the impression that by far and in large they are committed by foreigners. Therefore you will only focus on those stories that support your notions. If you look at it objectively and do a quick internet search you can find how many people in Canada have been convicted of murder you'll find that the majority of them are in fact Canadian born white males. Shocking, that the majority of murderers could potentially directly correlate with the majority demographic in this country! It's almost as if those who commit murder do so in about the same numbers across all demographics! This list is far from comprehensive but it does contain some of the more heinous cases. It funny as I was reading your tirade the first person that came to mind was Paul Bernardo, probably one of the worst cases in recent history and he’s all ours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Peop...urder_by_Canada You really hit the nail on the head when you said there is no proof to support your claims, yet logic would dictate you should abandon them in the absence of such evidence. However, we both know that you didn’t arrive at these conclusions from a logical or objective point of departure, so to justify your illogical adherence to them you blame those “liberals” for preventing you from proving your erroneous claims.

You're clearly quite out of the loop on this one. This issue is not one of spending. There was 100 million dollars set aside for marquee tourist events. That is a done deal and is not at issue. What is at issue is how the 100 million dollars, which is already spent in essence, is how that money is allocated. No matter who gets the money for their event the 100 million is already gone. This is not a matter of conservative fiscal restraint, or a lack there of for that matter, but rather pandering to the religious anti-gay social conservatives. If you’re not going to spend money on festivals because times are tough fine, then cut off ALL funding to ALL events. You can’t use the fiscal restraint card and then turn around and give the Calgary stampede $2,000,000 the two are mutually exclusive.

This is where we disagree. Either you fund everything equally or nothing at all. I don't care which it is just choose one. The issue as to whether or not the funding for cultural events is a good idea is beyond debate at this point. The money has already been allocated and in essence is already spent. It's a matter now of which events get funding and which do not. As noted in other threads I think the Calgary stampede is the most ludicrous of all celebrations known to mankind. That's my opinion however and there are those that enjoy it. The point I suppose is that the money is already spent so this is not the issue that is up for debate. As I said in my earlier post that the Tories did this is not at all surprising, I understand their reasoning, but it's still not right. This will likely cause their numbers in PQ to suffer even more than they already have. Talk about rubbing salt in the wounds of the arts funding cuts in PQ.

With the NDP at 14.8% of course you are, they continue their downward trend. In spite of all your protestations the LPC and the CPC have remained about the same.

Interesting new EKOS poll http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/07/22/...inority022.html The CPC and the LPC are still in an statistical deadlock margin for error is 1.7%. Also I find this portion to be quite intersting

In other words you lack sufficient wherewithal to engage in the discussion, you’re surrender is accepted. As an aside “Unclever” isn't a word; looks like there is no need to cut your education system if they're teaching you words like that in 'merican schools.

Actually we have, just like the Americans it's called social assistance here, I believe your term is welfare. There are plenty of food subsidies in the states, not to mention farmers are tax exempt on farm related purchases such as farm equipment. They often time the purchase of this equipment in such a way that it cuts into their revenue on paper so they pay less or no income tax that way either. So not only do you pay for the food you buy BC you're also subsidizing it's production with your tax dollars, that doesn't seem very "american" to me. While we're in a government services cutting mood, why not disband the US Forces and the government altogether. With no services left for them to administer, it seems the next logical step. Perhaps you should look at the feudal system, it worked in Europe for hundreds of years.

Only Americans refer to it as free, every Canadian knows we pay for it in our taxes. It's funny your fighting so hard against this, change in your own country is inevitable. I think you're going to have to get used to quite a few "unamerican" notions coming out of Washington, I guess only time will tell.

Then why have any publically funded institutions at all? Privatize education, if you can't afford it too bad. Hell cut taxes all together and let capitalism rule the whole damn country. Pave your own damn roads, deliver your own post and pay for your own private police/fire departments. Can't get much more "american" than that.

The danger is the moment we start emphasizing the needs, regardless of how minor they may be, of someone who can pay over the needs of someone who cannot, even if those needs are more serious, we start down a very dangerous path; a path that inevitably leads to the full capitalization of health care. Allow me to make another "moral judgment" if you will, Healthcare in the US is not about American's well being, it's about making money, this is what drives all it's efficiencies yes, but it is also a direct cause of the inherent flaws. Healthcare costs are out of control in the US and rising at a disproportionate rate to other G8 countries, capitalism does not work in all circumstances I'm afraid, and Medical care is definitely one of them. Be that as it may I'm certain you're not suggesting that the American Healthcare system is above repute. I can admit to the flaws in the Canadian system, can you admit there are flaws in yours, heretofore it would appear the answer to that question would be no. I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean by "public". Are they government run hospitals? If they cannot, which would imply they are not, be refused care why than do we have so many Americans crossing the border trying to get some free health care? Why make the effort if it is available on your side of the boarder? Medicare fraud has been a huge issue that the provincial governments have really been trying to curtail over the past few years. I would suggest that there are as many Americans who can’t afford healthcare trying to get in on our side as there are Canadians who can afford to pay for it on your side. Perhaps I am but it seems to me very odd that a country with the population of the US would have such a wanton surplus of medical facilities and or staff sitting about twiddling their thumbs just waiting for a well to do Canadian to come along to occupy their time.

You're correct, it is the opposition’s job to offer an alternative, but it is also the government’s job to demonstrate the effectiveness of their own policies and how they relate back to the platform. It is also their job to demonstrate how they want to govern in the future. The reality is Ignatieff has learned from the last election. Harper held his platform until the 11th hour so that the opposition would not have time to scrutinize it; all the while the CPC had ample time to come up with plenty of fodder to attack the Liberal platform. This is not the least bit sporting of Mr. Harper but also not terribly surprising either. It's all well and good for the NDP and the Bloc to release their platforms well in advance, they're not Harper's real competition, I know it, and you know it, the CPC and the LPC know it. Mr. Harper changed the rules of the game; Mr. Ignatieff is just choosing to play by them.

Again an exaggeration, I can choose bankruptcy or death, what kind of choice is that really? Again the line that "months/years of suffering needlessly" is hyperbole. Are the resources rationed absolutely, but at the same time all have access to it, not just those who can pay. These stories of Canadian citizens not receiving the care they need to live in a timely manner are few and far between. In a system that everyone has access to triage will indeed rule, as it should, as such mistakes will be made and tragedies will happen. By far and in large though, in the end it's a better system, that's why most of the G8 nations have some form of universal health care. What happens to those who can't afford to pay BC? What legal recourse do they have? What are their choices; death or oh death. In pointing out a flaw in the Canadian system, the inefficiency and lack of capacity, you've also highlighted a major issue in your own system. With a population the size of the US you shouldn't have excess capacity in your medical system, this only serves to underscore how many people in your country that aren't getting the care they should be.

That's hardly sufficient, it is a well accepted convention that one does not govern the same way in a minority position as one does in a majority position. Harper stated he wanted a majority but failed to notify us as to why we should grant him one until the 11th hour of the election, even then it was a half assed platform at best.

There are no doubt problems with our system, but it is still much preferred to the American version of pay to live. The problems with our system are wildly exaggerated in the US, of that there is no doubt. Much in the same way our gun control is. The problem with this story is she had to take out a second mortgage on her home for 100k to receive this "relief". This to me points out an enormous fundamental flaw in the American system. You either have to be wealthy or willing to face bankruptcy if you wish to live. In the case of this rather lucky Canadian, she is no doubt reimbursed 10 fold by the private clinic, the PUN group and the health insurance industry.

Can you be more specific with the rights that were lost in the transition? This is an oft repeated phrase that I heard from my staunchly conservative family growing up in New Brunswick but I was never given specifics. I always chalked their opposition to the patriation of the constitution to anti-liberal/Trudeau rhetoric. At the time this happened I was far too young to understand politics so I have no firsthand experience.

Oh I don't doubt that this particular woman is of dubious character, but nevertheless I feel she does raise a valid point, even in spite of the fact that is is for all the wrong reasons. In all honesty the "brain drain" to the south is inevitable, they can and do pay better than we can. Hiring more doctors is the solution yes but can we compete with the US salary levels? The answer of course is a resound no. I do agree with Jerry J F that more nurses need to be hired, and this isn't an issue of the US stealing our qualified nurses as we pay ours better than they do theirs. I don't disagree that wait times need to be addressed but what is the primary cause of the wait times? Is it poor administration or lack of doctors to meet the demand?

I would go a step further and state the only solution is full integration. This notion of Indian status is dated and archaic and needs to be addressed. They need to become fully integrated, taxpaying Canadians, clearly the Indian act has failed to resolve the issues heretofore and another 100 or so years will make no difference. As for the land claims, be careful what you wish for. If the feds settle the land claims this could mean a great deal of money for the natives, however it would also mean all leverage would be gone and integration would be their only option. The land will have effectively been "sold" and the money would be all that remained to them. The notion that they will one day be able to form their own sovereign native nation is a fantasy. The ills of the past can't be rectified, but preventing their continuation by holding up the Indian act can be. We have to stop trying to atone for the sins of our ancestors, and the natives have to stop exploiting the suffering of theirs.

Well said moonbox. This is not the least bit surprising coming from the Tories. The gay support they have isn't because of their social progressiveness, it's their tax cutting tendancies.