takeanumber

As much as the media tried to demonize Layton (and clearly, they were trying), I think that he was partially on the money. But, I agree with Bradshaw that he was standing upon all those corpses to elevate himself. Let's face it: The Commonsense Revolution and the Deficit War were fought on the backs of the poorest of the poor. I'm not going to make a value judgement as to whether or not it was right that the war was fought the way that it was--it just was. Maybe Martin deserves a share of the blame for HOW the war was fought.

Alright, essential surgery only, and relate services. Don't forget, it takes 2 to strike. One side to be unreasonable, the other side to be unreasonable.

Participatory democracy is in trouble. There needs to be some way to hold the liars to account in between elections. Either that, or turn up the frequency of elections to once every 2 years. It would be cheaper in the long run.

These people are rich because Canada allows them to be that rich, through opportunity and infrastructure and an educated workforce. They can afford to pay a little bit more here in Canada and a little bit less in Bermuda. Watch your mouth. My family STILL serves in the Armed Forces, and they fight for Canada. Got it? And they've suffered quite a bit from the cuts that Mulroney and Cambell brought in, followed by Martin's rape of the Armed Forces. As for your other assumptions. Canada was not founded on the free market. (Do you even know Canadian history? It was based initially on a monopoly called "the Hudson's Bay Company", you may have heard of it. There was nothing 'free' about that market. Canada also had a heavily protected domestic industry and high tariffs on trade for most of its existence. Canada is in fact, more free market today than it has ever been. Alliance Fanatic: You might have a problem with social mobility for a number of reasons. From my experience, opponents of social mobility feel that they've earned their way to the top, refuse to give ANY credit to society, and feel that nobody else should enjoy the SAME opportunities that THEY ENJOYED. It's the WORST kind of selfishness and it smacks of Dickens. Regards, Takeanumber.

Or new political parties. 1855 Reform 1921 Progressives 1935 CCF 1987 Reform 1988 BQ We have a proud heritage of doing that. The key thing to look for is a spike in voter turnout. Every time Liberals have been in power for 'too long', there's a spike, the Conservatives get a boost, and then we move into a new party system. (1918, 1952, 1984)

What about the Greens? I wish there'd be backlash. But there won't be. Seriously, I'd like to hear what they gotta say. What do Canadians do when we want to say 'none of the above'? (See: 1855 (reform) 1921 (progressives), 1935 (CCF), 1987(reform), 1988(BQ) ) We say, GIVE ME ANOTHER PARTY!!! Might be time to introduce new parties both on the Right and the Left.

Odd. I don't hear any conservatives making noises about Klein. Funny how that works. Let's face it folks: the problem with the parties and leaders we got today is that they all suck. We all know that whatever Martin says is BS. We all know that whatever Harper says is BS. We certainly all know what Layton says is BS. Alternative? I don't know. But things suck ass.

OOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooh. And we're supposed to be 'impressed' with that? That's called 'hedging'. They know Harper is gunna rape atlantic Canada if he manages to eek out a majority. (And that might be a good idea, but not for premiers, who thrive on Western-subsidized pork)

Social mobility is a founding principle of Canada. When I talk to the elite of the Conservative party, I don't get the impression that this is a principle that they share. Their attitude tends to be summed as "the world needs ditch diggers," and would be perfectly happy with a society with little-no social mobility. Social mobility has a cost: equalization. A progressive tax system is one of the methods that we equalize opportunity and foster social mobility. A strong public school system is the other plank. Since the Conservatives have been attacking both for as long as I can remember, and they've outright said that social mobility isn't a priority, I can only conclude one thing: Conservatives have something against the founding values of Canada. What Martin says about values is true, as much as I'm loathe to admit it.

The true small 'l' solution is: Those who want unions, get unions. Those who don't want unions, don't join unions. Workers in essential services, narrowly defined as 'life and death' services lose the right to strike, but gain the right to binding arbitration, as a consequence of their chosen proffesion. It's not right to include such mundane things as 'laundry' as 'essential', merely as a tactic to take away people's rights of organization. I'm not sure where this 'right to work' comes from, or how Unions somehow affect your right to work. I mean, we know unions actually cause higher unemployment (Macroeconomics, 4th Ed.), however so do other things: Minimum Wages Tariffs Quotas So...if you're against the right for people to form unions, surely you must be against: Minimum Wages Tariffs of ALL kinds. Agricultrual Quotas. So I must ask the 'right to workers' one question: What do you got against the struggling Canadian farmer?

It IS a citation. Read a style guide. Better yet--pick up a journal once in awhile and at least get some original material to spew instead of the prejudiced crap you were raised on. Regards, Takeanumber.

That's just what the political elite in Calgary is like. Those are all pretty mainstream positions too in the suburbs of Calgary. When Harper was president of the CTF, he was speaking his mind. Now that he's pretending to be a moderate, he's biting his tongue.

Read "Hidden Agendas" (Brooks, Miljan, 2003) before you say anything about the ideological orientation of the media -- before either side starts nailing their writs to the cross. Thank you. (That goes for both Right Wingers and Left Wingers.)

Or worse, it smacks of Chretien--whom everybody really blames for adscam.

I broke rules. But I never did things like drugs, or slept around with 45yo men. Old guys go after the young, stupid, impressionable girls because they're young, stupid and impressionable. Golly, I wonder who's responsibility it is to teach their children how to think and not be quite so gullible, eh? It's all in the first five years folks. You're asking for laws that cost society freedom. (entropy) Censorship of television. Censorship of violence. Censorship of movies. Where does this line of logic 'let's do it for the children?' stop? See--it's just a classic guise of conservatives to do that: shun personal responsibility and ask 'would somebody please think of the children?" or worse, ask outright, "What do you got against children?" I have nothing against children. Children are uber. However, when people start shoving their values down my throat 'for the children', the line needs to be drawn. The Age of Consent has very important ramifactions for other communities. If you'd spend some time to think about other communities instead of your own, perhaps you'd understand that. But that's the conservative way: yourself first. Look, if you raised your daughter to be that way, no amount of laws are going to protect her from herself. She will still manage to dress up way-to-mature-for-her-age when you're not looking, and she's still going to find some creep to give it up to. Protection starts by teaching your kids the difference between right and wrong. Instead of resorting to inumerable restrictions and policy options, let's start by teaching the kids that. And then focus on teaching them how to think. WRT sex offenders: They cannot be rehabilitated. They need to be locked up, or sent off to a nice all-sex-offender community where they can grow potatoes and whatever.

Yup. And it's sickening. I think he reminds Canadians of Jean whenever he tries to demonize somebody. The negative ads are more 'American' than anything anybody else has done. In fact, if we're going to start attacking people based on their 'patriotism' (another American thing to do, too), then the NDP should be the first to cast the first stone.

Yes Argus. It's sad. Sadder still for the moderate and secular muslims, who are saddled with these extremists, but can't stomach the Americans.

Unstable government hoe. You have to remember though, coalition governments are not in our heritage. Whenever we return a minority government, the politicians think "gee, they made a mistake, oh well, we're going to pretend to play nice for six months, and then afford Canadians a chance to correct their error" What's worse: you know how much we all hated the white guys behind closed doors during meech lake? Elitist accomodation gets worse during coalition governments. So, I'm excited and skeptical at the same time. I really want to see a form of PR come out of the unstability.

Very Canadian of you. Teaching facts like evolution, the fact that the earth is flat, and that there is no such thing as 'races' in the human species might conflict with people's beliefs. But we still teach them in public schools. Parents can make sure that their children are not taken advantage by 45 year old creeps if the age of consent is set at 14 as well. It's called parenting. The first line of defence for children are the skills and values imparted to the children at very young ages. Don't steal. Don't bully. Don't lie. Think about what people tell you. Think about consequences. Understand consequences. Understand benefits. Understand right touching. Understand wrong touching. Understand danger. Knowledge of right from wrong. Understanding of risk. You can never control every single factor in a society. To do so would result in a society that you wouldn't want to live in. The first line, and BEST line of defence for children, is proper parenting. The fact that you can't isolate a family from society means that you have to prepare children for those influences. We can enact a million laws 'for the children', but it will never absolve a parent from raising their children instead of letting television raise them. Are we clear on the point of parental and personal responsibility, and the centrality of CHOICE, FREEDOM and RESPONSIBILITY in contemporary Canadian society?

How nativist. (Trudeau, 1982), (Canadian Values Study, (ongoing) 2004) You imply all immigrants don't work. This is not the case. (StatsCan data, 2002) (Ritzk, 2001) (Ritzk, 2001) Again, I'm going to have to ask for citations, as your claims go quite against what I know of history. ("An early history of New Brunswick", 1984) For somebody who so is concerned about their 'culture' and 'history', you sure don't seem to know a lot about how this country was built. Perhaps if you practised what you preached, that soap box of yours would be a little more sturdy, and you wouldn't be pwned so much. Regards, Takeanumber.

Harper genuinely believes in those comments. He's not going to apologize for them. He won't apologize for something he believes in. I hope Harper and his COR party lackey's get the shaft in Atlantic Canada.

? How will that 'protect' children from scumbags? I think that's the current law. We attack dealers in Canada, not users. So what's the problem? EXPENSIVE. you gotta pay guards sooo much money to live up there, not to mention all the trucking. That's how it is in Calgary. It's a good idea. All porn with persons UNDER 18 is illegal. The term 'depict' is subjective. Somebody is is 22 could look 16. So what, the 22yo looses the right to do porn? That's illiberal. There are consent forms for that education. Don't like it? Don't sign them. Get a backbone. YOU HAVE A CHOICE NOT TO SEND YOUR KID TO THOSE CLASSES. That's YOUR job as a parent. Why are you asking the state to RAISE YOUR KID? it is. They do. ------------------ Do you really have any idea what goes on in high schools now? Seriously? I think you've been reading too much Alberta Report.

Maybe we should start quoting our sources? (takeanumber, 2004)

I have more grounds to attack YOUR patriotism than YOU have to attack me. I won't respond in kind to this. Nope. Half the justification for accepting immigrants is economic. The second half is that Canada is a multi-cultural country that is made stronger by enhancing the mosaic. I think some immigrants are drains on communities. But if we're going to get into comparisons, I think the white trash I left behind in the Ghettos are even more of a drain on society than immigrants ever will be. So what, we ought to ship them back to France and England? Or are you saying that it's okay for white people to be drains on the community, but not for immigrants because 'they were here first'? How about a better arguement? Wherever immigrants migrate, the economy booms, because 90% of them are such hard workers. They KNOW and APPRECIATE the opportunities that Canada has to offer, and if we have to drop ten grand on them for them to get up there and work productively, than that's GREAT! Hmmmmmm. In Anglo-Canada, the lingua Franca is English. In Franco-Canada, it's French. I've yet to encounter an immigrant who has been here longer than 5 years who does not speak either language. Moreover, the second generation always knows either language. And by the third generation, usually, they're pretty well intergrated into society. It's just like any of our families when they came over. So what's the problem? 10 grand spent on a new immigrant will return WAY MORE money in the long run than 10 grand dropped on White people in Saskatchewan or New Brunswick. QUOTE If they can't "hack" doing jobs that they're skills match for, then TS. Every other generation of Canadians had to it. Not exactly, early immigrants got little or no help once here, and were expected to provide for themselves. There was no medicare, no pogey, no pensions. As you say, early immigrants who failed went home. Now they go on welfare, and still lead better lives than they had at home. Sorry--early immigrants got TONS of help. The community helped them build their hose. They fed them until they got up on their feet. In fact, in the earliest of days, there was quite a bit of social welfare programs!

QUOTE I'll say this again and again: Conservatives: Stop asking SOCIETY to raise your kids. Okay? Raise your kids with the skills to protect themselves. Murderers, pedo's, rapists: we can't rehabilitate, granted. But it's always one thing or another with conservatives asking the state to protect their kids from: 1. Content on TV 2. Content on news. 3. Content in Mags. 4. Content on Internet. 5. Content in movies. 6. Content in video games. Raise your kids. Teach them to make smart choices. Censorship for lazyness sake is wrong. QUOTE Molested implies abuse. There is no such law that allows such abuse. I'd call it pretty freaking sick and skanky. What kind of PARENT would raise a child to sleep with a 45 year old man consentingly? By the time a kid turns 14, if they were raised right, they would have the faculty to avoid several things in life. 1. Don't touch a hot stove. 2. Look both ways before you cross the street. 3. Girls should only date boys their age. 4. Sex, in spite of what you see on TV, is special. It's also easy to get knocked up, or worse, get a nasty STD. The problem that I've seen with 14yo girls who sleep with 45yo men willingly is pretty simple: bad parents. I believe that parents should be held in part accountable for the kids that they raise. Everybody has the RIGHT to raise a kid, but everybody has a RESPONSIBILITY to raise good citizens. A 14yo girl who sleeps with a 45yo man is clearly NOT one that has been raised responsibly. Yup. Compare the amount of love an only-child gets compared to a family of 12. Poor middle children are starved for attention. No, no, no: don't try to blame 'the economy' for CHOICES that parents make. See: a core problem with the conservatives that I know (and I have a conservative friend, they're good people) is that nothing seems to be their fault all of a sudden. You have a CHOICE to make. Do you forego salary for 5 years so you can raise your kid, or do you shove them into daycare? Nobody is 'forcing' anybody to work. If you value your child more than work, you'd take the damn pay cut, suck it up, and live like a student for awhile. I think the problem is that conservatives have forgetten that having kids requires sacrifice, but they don't want to sacrifice anything, because to a conservative, they're the most important person in society, without taking into account the needs of soceity. So, suck it up. Take the paycut, and raise the kid. What about the father? Isn't he to be held responsible too? That's what's so great about Canada today. You have the CHOICE. Dad can stay home, or Mom can stay home! This is a good thing right? Taking kids away from families who won't raise their kids properly to families who will? Prostitution and drugs are illegal. Nope. There are plenty of efforts to solve the problem. I think it's many parents who have turned the blind eye. The Klein bill was illegal. See: The Patriot Act. More Freedom means More Responsibility. Don't want your kid raised on Nintendo and Xbox--don't give them one. Learn to say NO to your kid. Unless that is, you're exhausted after work and you choose not to spend time with your kid. In that case, you reap what you sow. If you come from a low income family, and the Federal Tax Credit is still not enough to enable one of you to stop working, (which is largely the fault of the baby-boom generation--the most selfish generation in history), then spend what little time you do get with them. If you come from a middle class family, spend time with your kids. Seriously: it's called responsibility and sacrifice, something I see conservatives in Alberta forgetting.