idealisttotheend

Yes, it is those nine men and women who our first line of defense against the majority putting "jews in ovens" as Argus argued in another thread. Without them there is no democracy, simply a well organized mob. I noticed that three recently retired though and wondered if they knew something about the Liberals re-election chances that we don't lol.

I think the carriers would be very useful to peacekeeping/peacemaking missions. What would Delaire have done with helicopter support in Rwanda? Plus, we did eventually want to send more troops but didn't have the strategic lift to get them there and the Americans wouldn't lend us theirs. What happened in Rwanda in 93-94 is the same thing that happened in Germany in 1939-1945 and to argue otherwise is racist. Therefore we had a duty to do more to stop it and more military resources would have helped. If the carriers are built in Canada I think that it would be worth it, (or if we could get a great deal on a couple of used ones). Still though, a dollar in aid is probably ten times as useful as a dollar in military spending.

If he stayed home he'd also get pilloried for knowing nothing about Canada's military history or having done nothing but cut military spending. Oh wait, he's gonna get pilloried for that anyway by the Cons among us, maybe he should call John Turner and they can reminisce.

Well I am not as mad about this as I was but I still think we should all be mad about this situation. The old cliche, what part of your soul will you give up to save yourself. In any case here is a confirmation (to my mind) about why a Canadian citizen was deported to Syria even though no criminal charges have ever been brought against him (which also makes me very mad). BBC source article re FBI won't participate in CIA interegations It's a bit out of context but I think it is objective evidence. I think though that the FBI's refusal to participate in torture is a promising sign for America.

Martin is paying dearly for getting rid of the enitre old guard of his own party. If he expects to win with such amateur advisors he is arrogant. Perhaps the fact that the leadership contest wasn't much of a contest hurt him to since the advisors he does have never got any experience in 'campaigns.' But lieing on such obvious things isn't helping either. I mean would any reasonable voter believe that two cabinet ministers crashed Harper rallies on their own violation on the same day! At least the Cons are looking like pros (there found something nice to say )

Sorry if I am being Anti-American about this whole customs union thing, well I guess I'm really not sorry. This has not been in the spirit or adhering to the letter of law of free trade and I'm not afraid to say it. CBC story about softwood duties being halved

G & M story where Cons propose closer "European" style integration with the US. The poll on the G & M site shows 73% support for this. Since I am usually on the majority side of those polls, I wonder again what I am missing vis a vie cross border co-operation that everyone else thinks is so good. I mean what is the use of a union with a country when that country get 10 votes to your one just based on population never mind size of economy. What is the real benefit. Again Mr.Harper (that gallant defender of free speech) seems to think that "Anti-American" statements by the former government were irresponsible because they made it harder to settle the softwood dispute. But you see, the last time we pushed for greater ties to the United States we signed a "free trade" deal which I thought prevented protectionism. I missed the clause in NAFTA which reads "Either party, if it feels that the other party has made statements that hurt it's feelings, may charge duties on goods as it sees fit." Mr. Harper argues that this is the case and then in the next breath for more deals. What exactly is the benefit if we can't even get free trade with these people? But then that is the great tradition of the Alliance-Conservatives, don't blame the Americans for protectionism, blame your own countrymen for making "anti-American" statements. Don't blame the Americans at all, don't hold them responsible even though they keep losing at all the damn tribunals, on MAI and at the WTO. Don't think about the fact that some Americans have made anti-Canadian statements. Just blame the damn Liberals for it all. My Lord. I have been trying to look for nice things to say about the Cons but it is so hard. Everyone I respected in that party seems to be gone or way at the back and all there is is Stephan Harper the slick, running from his past with that smile that somehow reminds me of either an uncommonly intelligent injury lawyer or two-bit con man. Working for big buisness and pretending he's standing up for little guy yet again. What else explains his desire to stop corporate subsidies while at the same time reducing corporate taxes, so it is easier to integrate with the US. Slap an extra chin on the man, an irish brouge and we're ready to go.

If I may, I told you so. Liberals are leaning left to secure the votes they are losing to the NDP and differentiate themselves from the Cons. G&M on Liberal platform to be announced today Shorter CBC story -- same subject I just heard Mr. Layton talking about using the $7 dollar a day daycare program created in Quebec, now it is the showpiece of the Liberal platform. Yesterday I heard Mr. Martin use the phrase "a country where no one gets left behind" which is also something I hear from the NDP often (an exact quote I believe). Libs are plutting forward a "Peace and Nation building" role and pushing 'alternative' energy to be the norm. Heard those from the NDP too. If I didn't know better I'd say the Liberals just adopted most of the NDP platform, minus the missile defense opposition and the inheretance tax and scaling down most of the NDPs promises. It's fine with me, they are mostly good ideas in my estimation whoever is pushing them. Satirically though, it warms my heart that the Liberals are still adopting the platform of the party they most want votes from. No matter how things change some things always stay the same. Still it leaves a strategic problem for the Liberals. They can't attack the NDP too much because they need them in a minority situation but they probably see the danger of splitting the left vote and having the NDP take some of the centre vote as well. What will they do? Can the NDP stay relevant (PR, PR, PR)? Will the cons succeed in uniting themselves and dividing their enemies. Is Martin a Personian Liberal in his heart (like his father, I suspect so even with his record in Finance)? Elections are fun.

I think that I may have refered to Gwyn's book errounously. I think the idea that we must define ourselves by what we are not actually comes from a book called Imagined Communities I do not remember the author's name and can't find my copy but I am pretty sure that's where it came from. I apologize for this. But I still recommend Gwyn's book highly especially vis a vie the Canadian political situation. Sorry again, I will be more careful in the future.

Many people felt the long delay in dealing with mad cow was both successful lobbing by their industry AND politically motivated pay back for the refusal to go to war with Iraq. As to our relationship, in the end most everything comes down to economics I've found. If we didn't have to worry about trade with the US I doubt that many people would pay all that much attention to them (good or bad). We do have the right (and the obligation) to make our own foriegn policy decisions but like the rest of the world we must acknowledge that there could be (and sometimes are) economic consequences if the Republicans are in power in Washingtion. Sometimes you must pay something of a price to do the right thing in the short term. We must keep the elephant from rolling over basically. Or be ready for some radical new ways to become self-sufficent or close to self-sufficient in other more equal trading blocs.

Mr. Saul makes a hell of a lot of sense to me usually. It is easy to giggle harder to prove him wrong. As to the site, I searched high and low but that was all I could find on monetary policy, even the BOC site and Stats Can aren't very enlightning (though I can't read PDFs so I may be missing something). Are there results to be shown, August? Yes we have 'more' but that is not necessarily due to the free market system to the exclusion of all else. In fact, most new technologies come out of defence research and defence is never free market it is almost exclusively run by governments and centrally planned bureaucracies (often to very inefficient results in the American system). It is new technologies that make us more productive. As to the market, if it functions so well why are we working more and more if technology is making us so much more productive? Why haven't the real prices for food dropped and why are farmers going broke even though they have super productive technologies at their disposal? There are an awful lot of unanswered questions that are simply ignored by proponents of markets in general. The math does not add up, one could say. If it sounds too good to be true... it must be. I think we would do well to have governments not pay interest to private lenders. However if we just print money helter skelter we would run into disaterous inflation (this seems to be confirmed by the Stockman book I am reading) and would run into problems regarding the valuation of our curreny versus others especially the American dollar. Money also respondes to supply and demand so by increasing the supply you would drive the price down. In order to do all those things you suggest I think we would need some increase in real resources not just money but then I can see how that would be debatable. In order for that to work I think we would need to completely isolate ourselves from the rest of the world economically. I think. Unless someone else (say August ) has a different opinion.

Who is planning Liberal campaign strategy these days and what grade are they in?!? This is humilating to the Liberals.

Yeah, August I'm just being a smartass no serious critisism intended though I may use the example of the pineapples again (I quite like it). Every man is articulate in his own language and I assume one of yours is mathematics and I respect that. I also respect the fact that you care enough to edit your posts. I'm just showing off how I have nothing better to do recently than notice such things. I'll stay on topic I promise.

I wonder what the significance is that that little story started off being 20 pineapples and then went up to 25. Which is closer to the truth 50% of new production as profit or 33%? Just an observation. I can't help myself either.

So we developed systems to prevent that and we ought not give up on them now, my point exactly. Sir, if you are having a heart attack, are in a car crash or are afflicted with some sort of neurological condition in childhood, health care is all you need to the exclusion of food, shelter etc. Trust me I know. It is absolutely necessary to the maintance of human life to the standards we are capable. I pretend nothing of the sort, but I argue for a more egalitarian society while you are arguing for a less egaltarian society. Yes well this assumes that both squirrels have an equal access to opportunity to earn those nuts. You have just argued that they don't and that we must not only acknowledge that but accelerate it. It also assumes that there aren't other squirels who depend on people 'playing' in order for them to earn their nuts in the first place. The savings rate is at 0% across the board these days so by your own logic no one would get the MRI in question. People choose to pay taxes which support a publicly administrated health insurance system and so are paying/saving for their treatment, please don't pretend they're not. They could also lay out less than the $500 in taxes, see Taft, Clear Answers about Health Care . That's my choice. Indeed. It never fails to amuse me that people with higher incomes are dead set against progressive income taxes but are more than willing to pay more than their "share" for health care when it suits them. No flat tax here. As to the shorter lines, if shorter lines are the desired result why don't we simply put more resources into the system. Surely we all deserve shorter wait times, not just you? N'est pas? On this we agree. This is the issue we ought to be dealing with. New technologies are making it very expensive to keep everyone alive for as long as we possibly can. We need to debate where/when to draw the line and who will make that decision. But I think the trap we will fall into is to determine who lives and dies based on money and I think that there should be a mechanism whereby a poor person will still get treatment based on their potential quality/length of life.

Remind you of a certain question regarding soverignty. Have your cake and eat it too. Prior to the universal system health care wasn't exempt you are right. So people without money had to go without necessary medical treatments all the time. They went through their lives unnecessarily sick or missing limbs that could have been saved. That's what Douglas fought against at the expense of his political career. I don't find this preferable or even acceptable, but that's the free market solution. This is a decent point. I wonder if rewarding/promoting healthy behaviour isn't a better answer though. We already punish some unhealthy behaviour, if I spend my money on cigarettes than I pay enough tax to pay for my MRI. Given a static number of MRI machines how is this possible. If the machines are there they ought to be used and the line by definition cannot get longer. If this is so (and I assume it is) then those machines ought to be being used in the evenings for people 9paid by the government). THis would shorten the lines further and probably save money in the long run by providing quicker diagnosis and treatment. Perhaps then we should stop wasting time talking about two tiered systems and deal with the one we have and making it faster for everyone and not just you.

Alright, I thought that banks had to borrow from the BOC to make those extra loans and they only kept the amount over prime as profit. Apparently this is not so, bank are simply required (in the US) to keep a percentage of any given deposit "on hand" in the States at least (I am unclear if there is such a requirement in Canada or if it was repealed in 1991). My basic arguments still hold though. The only way to determine how much money ought be out there is by how much the banks can sell, modified by the BOC overnight rate. There is no centerally planned suggestion that I can see or have read to determine what the money supply should be. Now can inflation be prevented by going to a government only system. Hate to sound like a free marketer on this one but I think it is true. And getting the goverment into retail banking (which is clearly uncompetitive as a sector) remains a good way to get more control if we need it. The free marketers will complain that the government shouldn't be competing with them but that's okay. As to BOC loans to governments this might actually work. I mean the limiting factor would be what the public is willing to repay and it could be restricted to health education and other 'market failure' sectors. Why governments would be paying private banks interest is unclear to me (but then so are the "benefits" of P3s but that doesn't bother anyone). I apologize for posting on a topic I did not fully understand (and probably still don't) but I didn't want the thread to die. And perhaps you have an opinion August? Another good resource on the topic (I wonder if the library misses me, getting all my information from the internet, my oh my.)

Big time seats for the NDP if it were true, if the NDP could copncentrate their support like that they'd surely take 40 or 50 seats.

Indeed it isn't. That's why you have the freedom to go to your government and demand more resources be put in to the system if that's how you feel. That's why you have the freedom to demand more doctors be trained at the universities. That's why you have the freedom to demand elected health boards so you have even more freedom in determining health policies. That's some freedom.

I love how 'freedom' these days. Freedom to work, freedom to spend money on health care. You may not have the freedom "to" purchasing health care services but you have the freedom "from" worring about not recieving any services if you don't have the money because everyone is treated equally and it forces a race to the top (the richest people push for the best standards for all).

I think the Liberals would do well to go back to their what Shephan Harper said campaign and just hammer it home. The man is intelligent but is no politician and his previous record on the issues should sink him. Paul Martin by the lake does nothing to convince me he gives a damn about health care especially given HIS record on the issue.

Alright let's have this out. Assuming I make less money than you, which is very likely true, what exactly gives you a right to "speedier" service than me. What is the benefit to anyone if the people with money pay for their own service and therefore have no use for the "universal" system.

**witdrawn as may be incorrect, sorry that's how I thought it worked lol**

If I can get my two cents in here........ Humanistic thought has given us the choice of totalitarian governments and we have made that choice in the past. Nowadays we mostly reject totalitarian governments to our credit. Without a history of these governments to study (or live through unfortunately) we would be unable to appreciate the value of a democracy. Furthermore it is unlikely we would be able to recognize a totalitarian government or differentiate it from a free one. If democracy came with a "Thou shalt" in front of it we could not appreciate the true value of it or realize why it must be defended. This is actually in the best Christian tradition. In the Christian tradition, Jesus came to earth mostly to give men free will and he rejected the sword of Caesar (the third temptation, I believe) to unite the world under his rule. Free will is imperative to New Testament teachings, that will must only be tempered by certain values such as charity and humility etc. That means making choices and mistakes. It applies equally well to raising children. Humanity is notoriously unreliable when making decisions or interpreting the decisions of others. This cannot be escaped from. It leads to our greatest failures but also our greatest successes.

No for the simple reason that when we entered into NAFTA we gave away a host of economic rights (between vastly unequal partners and considering economies of scale) without getting any political representation in return. This makes us more of a colony than a 51st state. It works good as long as we keep the dollar low and don't mind a lot of foriegn ownership of valuable industries/resources. Under any other conditions it does not work and I think we are about to find this out. Very stupid, very Mulroney.