Dave_ON

I understand your POV quite well as it was the environment I was raised in. However, as I became an adult I rejected this type of attitude toward society. I understand that you want to teach your children a certain set of values and so you should. When your children grow up, whether you like it or not, they will form their own opinions about the world as I did. It may be the same as yours or it may be vastly different. I guess my central point is, that try as we might, outlawing, prostitution and drugs has not made them go anywhere nor has it prevented the great harm that can be caused by them. However, if we were to legalize these things we as a society would have a great deal more control over how it is run. I understand your point that you can’t put the cork back in, but realistically the bottle was uncorked long before you or I was born. If people want to get into drugs or prostitution they are going to do so. Laws will not stop them. People will always do what they want. The best we can hope for is regulation as clearly heretofore prohibition has been vastly ineffective. Honestly, if we look at these vices for what they really are, the issue is not the thing itself that is causing society’s ills. It’s the addiction that humans develop that destroys lives. One can become addicted to any number of things, for any number of reasons. There are food addicts, sex addicts, porn addicts, video game addicts, gambling addicts, alcoholics, and the list goes on and on. Any one of these things can cause great trouble in the lives of those that are dependent on them. However that doesn’t mean we should outlaw them simply because there is the chance that, as you mentioned, a small percentage of people become dependent on them. Instead we should be teaching moderation in all things, excess in any aspect is not healthy. Would we not be getting more bang for our buck if we funneled the money we spend on busting pot dealers on rehab clinics for drug addicts? Would not education on these matters be a much better endeavor? Making these things legal does not prevent us from teaching our values to our children, in the very same way that making them illegal does not prevent our children from learning about their availability. IMV we as a society would be further ahead if we put our energy into helping those who want our help to beat an addiction than attempting to prevent those from doing something who don’t want our help. The human will cannot be contained by law, and you can’t force someone to do or not do something no matter how hard you try.

That's precisely my view though I'm certain your intent was to make that sound like a negative or reprehensible POV. The point is that what a person chooses to do, so long as it does not harm another person, is their own business and truly none of your concern. On what grounds do you feel you have the right to tell another what they should or should not do? Prostitution and drug use are realities of our society and will happen whether they are legal or not. On what grounds can you state that they shouldn’t be legal? I feel the role of government is to regulate these in the same way they do with gambling, alcohol and cigarettes. Can you really make a case to say that drug use and prostitution are any more harmful personally than these? Gun ownership is actually an excellent way of demonstrating my point. Here we have something that many feel is under regulated yet there is a great deal of potential for harm if a gun is owned by the wrong person. I’m not an anti-gun person; I’m an anti-unregulated gun person. There must be controls in place in our society to ensure the safety of the public. Not just with guns but with all things. The harm comes when there are no rules and regulations to govern these activities. My point is, prohibition of any kind does not work, history has shown that regulation is a much more successful and, in terms of tax revenues for the government, lucrative policy.

I don't think its hypocrisy really, just good pragmatic, political bridge building. It also fits perfectly with Ignatieff’s unity theme. This is good politics and not desperate in the least. The fundamental difference between the LPC and the CPC is the Liberals never really pretend to be something they’re not. They don’t come out and admit it publically of course unless it’s proven beyond the shadow of a doubt as with the Ad Scam. The CPC’s however sit upon their moral high horse and stand in judgment of what their LPC predecessors did and decry the ills of their policies and then follow suite to a tee. The CPC pretends to be the moral and righteous voice of the poor disenfranchised and subjugated westerners while funneling billions into to PQ and ON. The longer the CPC are in government the less I am able to distinguish them from the LPC of 10 years ago.

I think you got too caught up in the example I was using to demonstrate my point or perhaps I overstated my example. I was not attempting to debate the pros and cons of gay marriage; my intent was to hold it up as an example as this is a highly contentious issue with religious folks. Any truly rational person who looked at the gay marriage issue from an unemotional, logical and secular stand point wouldn’t even debate whether or not it should be law. The only grounds that were cited against it were either religious/moral in nature or that it contravenes tradition which of course is deeply rooted in moral/religious ideals. Gay marriage is not the only example of this but it is one of the more recent ones. Another good example is prohibition this was largely incited by religious organizations. Gambling is another example of this. Should we restrict the rights and freedoms of others simply because a segment of our society says that gambling/drinking/smoking are wrong? Should we apply their moral standard and force all people to abide by it? That is my concern and that is what religious people must come to accept. We do not live in a Theocracy; we are in a democratic and secular society and as such laws will be passed that contravene their personal moral code. This does not mean that their concerns and rights are not protected. But it does mean that their thoughts and values are not enforced to the exclusion of all others. Giving others the freedom to do something you disagree with on moral grounds does not infringe on your rights and freedoms in the least. But disallowing others because of your moral code does infringe on their rights and freedoms. Our society may have its roots in Judeo-Christian values, and certainly many of those have merit, but society has come a long way since that time and has grown far beyond its origins. So in answer to your question no it is not a matter of who addresses the concerns of religious groups. It’s a matter of how. Realistically Mr. Harper since his party has formed the government is addressing their concerns in the way I would expect any government to do so and frankly no differently than did the Liberals when they were in power. This of course is a stark contrast to how Mr. Harper handled these concerns when he was the leader of the opposition and was attempting to build his party’s support any way he could. The motion to preserve the definition of traditional marriage as mentioned in your post is an excellent example of this.

Don't you know that the common "wisdom" is Alberta pays more, than everyone else in Canada? At least that's what Albertans tell themselves. Ontario pays much more in equalization, and has been paying it for longer, than Alberta, we just don't whine about it like they do.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/01/...al-poll357.html Latest Poll from EKOS. Grits ahead of the Tories ever so slightly.

The number of Albertan separatists are few and far between, but what many of them fail to realize is that leaving confederacy would be nigh on impossible for a number of legal reasons. Namely the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were created BY confederation on September 5th 1905, they did not join confederation as did the other provinces. Also, Alberta was comprised of a chunk of the NW territories and what was formerly known as Rupert’s land which was controlled by the Hudson’s Bay Company before it reverted to the dominion of Canada. Rupert’s land was dissolved in 1870 and the entire region became part of the NW territories. Alberta is merely a subdivision of the NW territories. So as they did not join confederation, but rather were created by the dominion of Canada, it is not very likely that this is even constitutionally possible. So if you want to leave, no one is stopping you, but don’t assume you get to take the land and its resources with you when you go.

This is a rather difficult topic to address. Was the intent behind the remarks racist? Who can really say, I somehow doubt they were and this was a matter of PP’s brain not being fully engaged. From what I’ve seen pragmatism and tact are severely lacking in the CPC so his comments come as no surprise. I’m quite divided on this issue, because while I believe that government officials should not be intentionally offensive, at the same time we shouldn’t be overly sensitive on such matters. Don’t make a mountain from a mole hill as it were. The fact of the matter is whether the term has several meanings or not, because of the big deal that has been made about it, the politically expedient thing to do would be to apologize. It truly is a sticky issue as with any language the meaning and context of words are constantly in flux. A prime example of this is the phrase “I got gyped”. This is an allusion to buying wares from travelling gypsies that were of dubious quality. Now most people don’t get to upset about it these days as gypsies are few and far between. However, regardless of the origin of the word it has come to mean something vastly different than the original disparaging pejorative term. Most people don’t even realize it’s origin at this point and could hardly be accused of holding gypsies in contempt. I think this particular incident is not as cut and dry as we would like to make it. While the term used certainly has a pejorative origin it has come to mean something else. In this case it’s the stickiness of tar that is being referred to rather than its colour. By the same token however, if PP had mentioned that the carbon tax was “a gay idea” or that the LPC was trying to “Jew the public” I don’t think that would have been quite so ambiguous.

It depends on what you mean by "addressed" their concerns. If you're talking legislating morality, it doesn't matter what your political stripes that's not the job of government. "Because the Bible tells me so," isn't a good enough reason to make it a law. Church and state should and must remain separate. Though they are loathe to admit it, truly religious people, those who have more than a loose affiliation with a faith, are a minority, just like all other minorities. The job of the government is to address as many concerns as is feasibly possible, it is not their role to make morality into law. A prime example of this, and still quite a hot button issue with religious folks, is the gay marriage law. Here you had a group of taxpaying Canadian citizens who didn't have the same legal rights to marriage as their straight counterparts. There is no good reason a taxpaying Canadian shouldn't have equal access to the same rights and privileges afforded to other Citizens. Marriage is a legal matter not a religious one. You can be married by a justice of the peace and it is still recognized by the state the same way as one done by a recognized religious official. The only reason people opposed this was on moral grounds which is not a concern of the state. Religion has no place in government; this is not to say that those who adhere to religion should not have their concerns addressed. But addressing their concerns does not equal legislating their religious beliefs.

I find this to be an interesting move on Ignatieff’s part. It’s also rather smart. I don’t think it’s a desperate move at all as this post implies. I think it’s all a part of Ignatieff’s national unity campaign. Say what you will about him, if nothing else he certainly is consistent. I don’t have any concerns that the Liberals will become a religious advocacy party but there are very valid points raised in the article. I think Ignatieff really is working to make the LPC a big tent party once again. This isn’t a matter of mixing religion and politics; it’s a matter of making taxpaying citizen’s concerns known. The fact that they are religious is immaterial and they have as much right as anyone to have their concerns addressed.

. wrong reply

It is a waste of time because neither the PMO, Parliament nor the Senate has the power to make the proposed changes. Mr. Harper is trying to go about his senate reform in the wrong way yet again. This is a constitutional matter but Mr. Harper can not set aside his disdain for what he perceives as the Liberal Judicial branch of our government. If he would consult the courts on the matter they could advise him as to wheter or not his proposal contravenes the constitution as it stands. If it does then Mr. Harper would have to propose constitutional amendments and follow the appropriate formulae. This of course would be a hard sell and a very very long process. We need look no further than the Meech Lake Accord or the Charlottetown accord for examples of this. Mr. Harper is trying to ram legislation through that he has no power to enact. Thank God we have the constitution to protect us from those who would centralize power solely in the office of the PM. Bottom line is, the system is slow but it works. It balances power quite nicely and any changes we make to it could result in the PM, or parliament having too much power. The dispersal of power is what helps stem corruption. I personally do not want direct democracy, I don't want to vote on every proposed change or piece of legislation. If I wanted to do that, I'd run for office in my riding. I pay someone else to do the voting for me. If I think he's a lemon, I vote against him/her next time.

So because the source is not the Chinese government it's not reliable? CIA/FED is the source? There are a myriad of sources on this atrocity many of wich are not government sources. First nations definitely an issue in Canada I won't deny that. That's the difference between us and China we can admit we've made mistakes and we don't try to hide or obfuscate the situation. There are a myriad of other wrongs committed by our forefathers. The expulsion of the Acadians, the battle of the plains of abraham, the list goes on and on. The difference? These didn't happen in the last 100 years, China is still committing numerous human rights violations. Can you admit that China and it's government has done wrong in the past? I doubt it. The documentation on the female abandoment rate is likely exagerated but not by much. Honestly you don't have to be a genius to see there is a population imbalance when it comes to male to female ratio. This is an undeniable fact and it is not a natural phenomenom. It is a direct result of the one child rule and the cultural perference for boys. As for the medical mistakes, how many people die in China due to medical errors? Tank injuries not withstanding I'm guessing quite a bit more than 24000. Denying that China doesn't commit crimes against humanity doesn't make it so. There is a reason China isn't respected in the international community and it has nothing to do with the CIA/FED. It has to do with how they treat their own citizens and the heavy restrictions on free speech and free thought. As an aside, if China is so much better than Canada, why do you live here?

So basically you're saying that the unarmed protestors in tienemen square were violently attacking armored tanks? They didn't actually run over an unarmed person? There is hundreds of links to footage on this and it is beyond denial. Not according to the people of Tibet it's not. They want to leave you're happy family but your government will not allow this. If they don't want to be part of China, They feel they are not part of China then you're government is holding them against their will. As I mentioned There are abandoned children in Canada, but Chinese families will abandon a child because it is female and they wanted a boy, again there is tons of documentation on this. Canada isn't perfect, but China has a long way to go before it even comes close to Canada's human rights record.

Yes China is definitely a country we should strive to be like... Here are some Chinese stats you conveniently left out of your post. Number of peaceful demonstrators killed by tanks in Canada 0 Counter parts in China 241 as per the government as many as 2000-3000 per other sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Squ...rotests_of_1989 Number of times Canada Annexed Tibet 0 China 2 (in the last century alone) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ti...nist_government Number of female babies abandoned or left to die simply because they are female in Canada (very difficult to find there are roughly 88,000 children in Canada in foster care both male and female, but many were taken from their parents. Let's call it 44,000 for arguments sake. http://www.elizabethwiebesociety.org/ Number in China? Hundreds of thousands of females abandoned http://www.cocoa.org.uk/ Yep China is definitely a country we should emulate. Oh and as for the Olympics, let's chat after the winter Olympics, something tells me you'll be singing a different tune.

Yes and this is precisely why it still baffles me that Flaherty got the Fed Finance Minister posting. Ontario will be paying for the 407 for decades longer than we should, due to this brand of Flahrety conservatism. Crown assets should remain with the crown, they're not there to make your second rate accounting look better.

That's all well and good provided you ALWAYS air the raw footage for ALL candidates. Otherwise one could accuse you of bias which in journalism IS a no no. Do you honestly believe Mr. Harper never had a false start? Where's the journalistic balance if only one politician is singled out? Therein lies the problem. Not that Dion had false starts, that his were aired while others were not. See how very bias that comes across?

Here's the link. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/27/...lear052709.html After a three decade international ban on nuclear trade with India Canada is ready to give them a second chance. In 1974 Canada sold one of its Candu reactors to India which they subsequently used to create a nuclear bomb in spite of all their promises not to do so. This resulted in the aforementioned international ban and rightly so. With the ban lifted, Mr. Stockwell Day has drawn up an agreement with India to provide them Nuclear reactors for domestic energy production. In a vacuum, this would of course be a highly lucrative deal. However, India does not live in a vacuum and they do live next to Pakistan which is unstable at best. Given that Pakistan is a volatile, a hotbed for Taliban and other Islamic extremist groups, and nuclear capable, does anyone else really believe that India is solely interested in domestic energy production? Given the above IMV this is a very short sighted foreign policy at best. Sure India promised not to make nukes out of the reactors but they did that the last time as well. Given the fact that they still have not signed the UN's Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty this deal definitely gives me pause. Thoughts?

Absolutely, hence the sarcasm above.

You're quite correct on all counts, but voters generally don't have a memory that is that long. They won't recall who was in power when the EI system was made the way it is. What they will recall is that the CPC didn't help them when they lost their jobs and the Liberals were pushing to change the system so that it would be of assistance. I think if the CPC wants to turn this around they need to shift gears from attacking the Liberals policy of yore and focus on how they can polish their own record. Blaming the Liberals for the country’s ills won't fly this coming election and the ad scam has long been a dead horse. The question is, can Mr. Harper resist the temptation to attack the Liberals and focus on his own record?

Please, not a contextualy bereft adage. I have no recourse to deal with such an overwhelming, well thought out and exposited POV.

could you provide a link please? According to this Ipsos Reid poll featured in the Ottawa Citizen 6 out of 10 Canadians don't care. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/fp/G...5148/story.html

It's still far too early to predict what shape they will take but I think that Ignatieff has given us a fairly good impression so far. He reiterates it in this rather fluffy CBC article. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/24/...convention.html Two quotes stood out. If this is the tone that the Liberal attack ads take it will be quite a contrast to the CPC's. My question is how effective will this be? Attacking the Liberal record in government has been a corner stone of the CPC's election strategy. In the next election likely it will be a good 4-5 years since the Liberals were last in power, clearly they will need a change of strategy. The Liberals are being rather tight lipped about their policy platform so it appears that the CPC will have little else to attack. It's not my intent to discuss the ethics of attack ads, they are here to stay and have proven quite effective for both parties. My general question to all of you is do you think that one of these two methods will be more effective than the other? Will the unity card win out over Ignatieff's absence? Is unity really at the forefront of the minds of the Canadians? Do Canadians really care that Ignatieff has been absent for the better part of three decades?

It truly mystifies me that you hold education in such contempt. I find this academia phobia to be rather odd and I'm curious as to how you arrived at it. Perhaps you could illuminate me on your POV. You seem to imply that education narrows the mind when it has quite the opposite affect on a person. Combine this with the fact that he has travelled widely and he has experience to back up his education. On the one hand you have Ignatieff who has an impressive academic resume, plenty of life experience and the fact that he has been exposed to other cultures and ideas abroad. Then on the other hand you have Harper who has an MA, limited to no travel experience and has roughly 15 years less life experience. IMV Mr. Harper can't compete on a strictly "qualified" level, nor does he have the charisma or amiable effervescence that Ignatieff does. I guess I'm failing to see how Harper has the upper hand in any sense on Ignatieff. Keep in mind that except for political junkies like us that frequent these types or forums, policy and prudence play a negligible part in the average voter’s decision. It's all about image, polish and presentation. Given that Mr. Harper now has a political record in office, and the fact that Ignatieff doesn't need a lot of polish, I believe Mr. Harper's in for one heck of an election campaign.

I completely agree with Capricorn. You really can't teach these skills they have to be learned the hard way through experience. Clearly I remember the impetuosity of my youth and how very irresponsible I was with credit. I sat through all the high school classes on budgeting and such and honestly it didn't really come home until I experienced it for real, now these many years later I'm far more responsible, but only because I learned from my mistakes. Changing veins slightly, this thread has largely focused on the consumer and the protections that should be in place for them. To an extent I agree with this, but I feel there is only so much the lending institutions can do; those who won't investigate these matters for themselves won't change their behavior because the bank now produces more documentation. Something I think has been missed is that this is an extremely high risk credit product. This is an unsecured loan and therefore the interest rate is far higher to make up for the rate of default. Credit cards are not protected from Bankruptcy therefore the interest rate has to be sufficiently high enough to still turn a profit while taking into account that there is an average default rate plus the fact that those who pay off their balance do not pay interest. I think there has to be a level of personal accountability on the part of the consumer. We can claim its ignorance all we want, and that may very well be the case, but at the same time we have to take responsibility for the choices we make. It's not free money and I don't feel the banks give people that impression in the least.