takeanumber

Sad.Grim.Pathetic.

The two cities are not analogous.

Another election will be called for August 28. (Unless Harper shows his true colors and refuses to call parliament for six months.)

The market has failed when it comes to providing quality daycare for children. Just as the market had failed for healthcare in Canada prior to the 1960's. Just as the market for healtchare in the United States is an abject failure. Where the market can't perform, the government must step in. (Although, if you regulate a market well enough, you can coax it to work properly.) Markets, as a rule, don't always fail. But when they do, you need a government to step in. I'd prefer to see S.92 of the Constitution rewritten so that cities get some power, and that way, we could weaken the provinces and let local communities decide how to provide daycare. In the case of daycare, it's something that's best done locally. Which, of course, is the anti-thetical to provincial power, because in most provinces, they're allowed to get away with blatant Gettymandering that gives the rural regions way too much representation, starving cities as a result.

Harper, with his 'principles', will probably go down faster than Clark.

I think maybe some of the men on the board have a hard time seeing what many Canadians saw in Harper.. Cold eyes. Stiff movements. Didn't talk much about his vision for the country. As for Craig Oliver and 'The Duff"... hardly unbiased voices there.

My list: 1. Martin He didn't screw up. He set out a vision for the country. He stayed on message. 2. Duceppe He got his point across. He bullied Harper. He attacked Martin visciously. 3. Harper He couldn't get Martin to screw up. He stammered. He spent a lot of time deflecting attention from social issues, and got called on it. He was actually wounded by Layton attacks. (tax credits) 4. Layton What a dog. What a rude, rude man. Got pwned by Martin (did your handlers tell you to talk all the time?). Came across just as rabid. Enough to turn off left leaning Canadians.

Harper was distracting him by standing right at him and shaking his head. I also thought that Martin was choking on some rage, which is understandable. Here's my list of those who showed the least Decorum. 1. Layton. What an animal. No respect for anybody. Asks a question and doesn't shut up. TOTAL clock hogger. (And his tone of voice towards Harper was way off base.) 2. Duceppe. There were times where he was shouting, just shouting at the top of his lungs. He was using his most polite tone though. But still, the shouting was rough. 3. Harper/Martin (tied). Both continued talking when it wasn't their turn, but at a regular, normal tone and volume. Still rude. But often they were being interrupted. No excuse for some patches though.

Thx Playful. I do my best to derive solutions. I shouldn't just complain all the time. Alright, I guess I want to appeal to handgun enthusiasts. I think it's alright to collect guns of all types. No need to damage them with holes to disable them and whatnot. I'm sympathetic. I just posit that if you have a collection, and you live in a city/community that has voted that they want to be gun free, take your collection out to range/storage facility outside the community. I agree with the point that there is no right/need to carry a concealed weapon, or a handgun. Even for protection. There's no need for it. I suppose we should expand to other violent weapons maybe? Well alright. Is there any need to carry a concealed hatchet in an urban area? To cut down trees, yardwork, etc, yes. But to conceal it on your person? Nah. Is there any need to carry a machete in the city? Nah. Canada is a country where you shouldn't need those tools for defence. And if you commit a crime with a hatchet, clever, knife, or machete...it should be an automatic 10 year sentence, if not attempted murder. (I can't think of a single part of the body that you can stab without the intent to kill...even the arm, because you can hit major arteries.). So yeh. Off topic. But knife crimes should be automatic, and really, you shouldn't be able to carry around knives. With respect to religious needs (Sihks), they have pouches that can be sown shut. So long at its sown shut and in a protector, it shouldn't be a problem. I mean, I don't want to trounce on religious freedoms, but I think my concern about some people converting to Sihkism for the ability to legally carry a knife. (some gangs might take advantage). But yeh. Let communities decide locally on guns. And once they decide, everybody, including rural folk and communities that disagree (Edmonton, Calgary), to respect the wishes of Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, QCity, etc.. and not insist on dragging their guns through their communities. I think that's a good Canadian comprimise. A bit too authoritarian for my personal taste, but yeh, bending half way is fine.

Bird kill is a huge issue. I think building them offshore, like in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, or offshore BC, would be a terrific way to generate energy, and reduce birdkill.

Isn't there a general rule about having one account...you can't smurf on these boards.

Martin pwned Harper. The quote about firing a gay person. Bravo! It was dead on the money. Harper wants to take away human rights from homosexuals. Martin called him on it. And it was great to see Harper stammer, and stammer. Terrific stuff!

Martin is doing good. Duceppe is doing wicked. Harper admitted that the agrees with the US on Iraq. Harper is getting owned. Layton is sucking. lol. He's like a child. It's quite funny. Martin. Meh. don't know. Better than last night.

I love the fact that Duceppe basically said: "Attacking same sex marriage -- that's a vote of non-confidence." "Attacking a woman's right to choose -- that's a vote of non-confidence." "Attacking Bombardier, that's a vote of non-confidence." "Attacking the interests of Quebec, which all of the above are, you better believe that's a vote of non-confidence." It was nice to see somebody capable of putting Harper in his place, in his place. Just wonderful.

Harper is getting his @ss handed to him by Duceppe.

For more on media bias, read "Hidden Agendas" by Brooks and Miljan. It's a great read. Actually tracks metrics and the like all the way through.

Oh, sorry. lol. But what do you think of my musings on the Conservative front?

Maple: According to Blais et. al., the answer to your question is clear. Women who are married tend to be very conservative. The likelyhood of a woman being conservative triples when she is married. Why? Because married couples pay high taxes, and the woman is very likely to see a lot of that money flow out of her household towards programs that she doesn't use. The likelyhood of a woman being a NDP or Liberal supporter doubles though if she is divorced, and nearly triples if she is divorced with children. Why? Because divorced woman and divorced women need to access those social programs, which are funded and supported by left of centre governments. The likelyhood of a single urban woman being Liberal is also quite high. The likelyhood a single urban woman with children (not married, never divorced) of being a NDP supporter is EXTREMELY HIGH. (I can't remember the number off hand), but, for the same reasons above. Hope that helps, Takeanumber. (These results were in part from Blais et al, "anatomy of a liberal victory", and also from journal articles in the Canadian Journal of Political Science.

How come? Alright. So it's just not Jews and Homosexuals who should be protected, but everybody. I'm for that. It doesn't take anything away from Jews to say that others should have an extra degree added on to their crime for doing it out of identified hatred. Oooooops. Did you really mean to say that? Okay. So you want muslims to be protected, but not Jews? You know, there are many Canadian Jews who are not Israeli. So, hate speech should be allowed against them? Attacking Israeli policy and Jews are two different things. Attacking Israel as a means for attacking Jews in Canada though is really, really invalid and off base. Agreed. It's called Republicanism. It's pretty incidious.

I'm not. I just need to think about it. I know the BQ wants to seperate. But do the Cons think Canada would be best without Quebec? Because you know, many cons generally believe that Quebec is holding Canada as a country back. I know it might sound shocking, but many Cons don't think they really need Quebec. As one (cons) peer put it, "One less mouth to feed". I'm not entirely convinced of that logic. But maybe the Con elite would like to engage in that?

Courts? Try law enforcement too! I full agree. Often hate legislation is turned against the people it's trying to protect. (Borovoy, The New Anti-Liberals), however, inspite of this fact, I still support them, because I can't stomach the alternative. But superior point. I always hope that hate laws will be checked by reason. Sometimes they're not. I guess they're just like any other law. Are towns hurt by pride parades? That would be first degree murder, and the homosexual would probably get 25 to life for that crime. Deplorable. But I think given the Homosexuals status in society, vis-a-vis Christians, implies that the opposite crime, of a homosexual waiting in the dark for a homosexual to get out of the bar, is far worse. I think the general arrow of hatred, from SOME Christians in general towards homosexuals in general, is what should find abhorrant. (Not all Christians are total intolerant bigots. The United Church is wonderful!) I did have a long thing about the historical arrow of discrimination, but I deleted it. I'll just say, any hate based offense is wrong, and abhorrant, and it should be treated as an extra degree. It should be a degree on top of first degree.

That's a neat statement. I actually need to think about that. For insight into Calgary Consevative thought on Quebec seperation, read Russell in that Clarity act book, I can't remember the name....ah, "The Quebec Decision, Perspectives on the Clarity Act", that really epitomizes the position, and has neat implications for the ROC.

I've already confessed my anti-liberalism and my hipocracy. I can't bring myself to accept that level of entropy in society. I can handle a lot of entropy, a lot more than I suspect most people can. But I draw the line at hate speech. I fully confess my contradictions, and I don't try to hide them.

The last time I checked, there wasn't a problem with homosexuals waitint outside of churches to beat Christians with bats. That's par for the course AF.

I strongly agree with Blair on this point. And I can respect him for his probable point that he doesn't want to have to head out to the gun locker every time he wants to go hunting. It would be a nuissance.