Reverend Blair

Because when a party gets that taste of power they tend to back away from the idea. I've been going after them here for the same reason, and I voted for them. BC is an interesting case though...they actually have a citizens' forum looking into the matter. I don't know who initiated it, and I don't really care. It's the right thing to do.

I can mangle the pronunciation of French words without knowing what they mean, does that count? I'm the only ordained atheist I know, is that worth anything? Trustworthy? Well, I have an aversion to dishonesty, which is what spurred the list, but I don't know that makes me trustworthy in a larger sense. That being said, I don't feel any less qualified than any other candidate.

Sure, go for slurs. It ain't a tin-foil hat on my head though. The need to protect against an incredibly tiny threat that can be dealt with through negotiation puts that on your head, Stoker. Have you been able to say where the money will come from? If it isn't coming out of other defense programs then where? Foreign aid, which does more to deter terrorism than any military program. Military aid, which fights threats, real and imagined, in somebody elses country. Domestic social programs, which keep them American people from rebelling. Hmmm. Those space guns are looking more and more dangerous all the time.

We need to trash the idea of a governing party. The NDp is relevant to their supporters and a lot of left-leaning Liberals. They are also relevant to the right...note the vehemence of those who oppose them. We need a new system, one where all Canadians have a voice. The best idea I've seen to date is proportional representation. If anybody has a better, more workable, idea then I'd like to hear about it.

I think they should just go ahead and make me speaker. I have some reasons for that. 1. I hate speaking, so it would speed things up. 2. I'd show up in torn jeans and a t-shirt gotten from a beer box. Proper attire is important. 3. The last time I got voted into something is a situation I'd rather not discuss. Ever. 4. I'd call the MPs by their real names...the word honourable would never come up, but the phrase Pig-F***er most likely would. 5. I'd be completely non-partisan. Hey, I can do it at least as well as the other speakers. 6. I'd bring Max the dog and make the MPs play tug-o-war with him. With their mouths. 7. I'd make all MPs get 1950s haircuts and chain smoke again. I see no reason why television shouldn't be entertaining. 8. When people wouldn't shut up I'd have them spanked. 9. When MPs voted, I'd say, "What do your constituents think about that position?" 10. I'd buy pizza and beer every Friday.

I agree. Why not cut off the oil companies first and any corporation with a foreign head office second? After that we can go after Canadian companies who use tax shelters in Bermuda. Then we can cut off the profitable Canadian corporations. Finally, we can just go about committing thuggery on men in suits. I belonged to a union a long time ago. It wasn't democratic. It was a bad union. It wasn't the union that made it bad though, it was the members. Because I bothered to show up at the meetings they made me their unofficial rep. The shop steward was an idiot so they said, "Bring this up," and "Mention that." I did, but I was a nineteen year old kid that hated (and still hates) public speaking and I had exactly one vote to work with because nobody else ever bothered showing up. I hear people slamming unions all the time and I keep thinking, "Yeah, you're the guy who got a teenager to voice your opinion and then didn't even show up to vote when the crunch was on."

2/3's of Canadians thought he was too extreme, Bro. The vast majority of Canadians know that Stephen Harper and his Reform/Alliance/Conservatives stand far to the right of where they want this country to go. That was very clear yesterday. The NDP did not do as well as expected. Some of that was propaganda from the far right (we aren't communists, look it up and learn some manners), and some of it was strategic voting. A lot of NDP supporters were so afraid of Harper and his complete disregard for human and Canadian rights that they voted Liberal. The Liberals did better than anybody else not just because of strategic voting and Fear Of Harper. They did well because they really haven't been doing a bad job. What was it Bill Clinton used to say? Oh yeah, it's the economy, stupid." The economy has been doing better under the Liberals than it did under the last Conservative government and there is still a memory of the Liberal party that was willing to talk to the USA on equal terms. That is not Paul Martin's version of the party, or wasn't until last night, but it did used to exist. The Greens (and the Canadian Action Party) did more to hurt the NDP than anybody else. So what? The Greens are actually pretty far right and exist, just like every other "fringe" party, because people do not feel represented by the big three. The Bloq. Oh, there's a lot of fear and loathing of the BQ again. They are, other than their separatist agenda, pretty far to left though. They are basically the reason why the NDP cannot make inroads in Quebec...they offer the same representation. All day long I've been reading how the west (read Alberta and the red-necked portion of BC) should separate and how the rest of Canada can't exist without the west. I live in Manitoba where the west begins. I was raised in Saskatchewan. I have friends and relatives in Alberta and BC. You know what? If you guys are so damned determined to go your own way then get a party like the PQ and rename Harper's party the WQ and give it a shot. Have a referendum, Clarity Bill approved, and try to drag us out of Canada. You've been screaming about Quebec for years though, how they keep using separatism and their own version of alienation as a threat. You only get one shot as a result. When you fail, and you will, just shut up and quit whinging like spoiled brats.

No, if you read what I wrote on this site in my posts to you, I am asking you to follow the links all the way back to their source so you can see where that opinion came from. That's why I told you to follow the links and the links within those links. In summary, you are refusing to do your homework. I mean that the richest ten percent would likely do better if the poorest ten percent were not so far away from us. We get to pay for, because of the instability and poverty our wealth causes, a myriad of problems from the AIDS pandemic in Africa to the War on Terror to the War on drugs. We pay for those things with our freedoms, our tax money, and our humanity. Short posts are free, but if you want me to write down my life story so you can understand where my premise started, how it changed, and exactly where I'm at right now, then you'll need to scribble out a sizable cheque. The evidence and arguments have shaped me, just as your evidence and arguments have shaped you. Lastly...about my column. I appreciate the criticisms, but it is an opinion column. In a newspaper it would be on the Op-Ed page with Doonesbury. I offered it up for the links that I post with it. Vive is open site though. If you feel that it needs more opinions or viewpoints, then by all means write something and submit it. If you do not feel up to that, then do not criticise it as being,

We had a meeting in Winnipeg a week or so ago of beef-producing countries. A guy from Ireland gave a speech on how to solve our BSE that was good enough to get him on the radio (missed his name and affiliation and everything else). His main point was that we had to stop allowing animal matter into any livestock feed though. That way cows cannot, accidentally or on purpose, eat pig or chicken feed that could infect them. We also need to test every animal. It's time to start feeding herbivores nothing but plants again. Why we ever got away from that is a testament to greed.

There is nothing negligible about a nuclear weapon and NOBODY here has said that there is. There a negligible threat of one being used against North America though...there was before Bush started a new arms race and there will be after he's done paying off his arms-building buddies. The real nuclear threat is of a dirty bomb or even a black market nuke being set off in a harbour. Star Wars uses funding that could be better spent addressing that threat. Guys in coveralls scanning cargo containers isn't really glamorous, but it is needed. Those needs are being ignored for some high tech toys. Why? Well go to the PNAC web-site, read what they have to say about the US maintaining military and economic dominance, then look at the list of PNAC members with major connections to Bush.

The Security Council, very pointedly, did not support the US invasion of Iraq. You can try to sidestep it all you want, but we all watched it unfold on the news, including the lies, the spying, the bullying, and so on. The US, using the same incredibly questionable argument you seem to stuck on, then decided that it did not need to ask permission. Since you apparently were unable to read the link I supplied: Is that clear enough for you, Krusty? It lists the articles and how they were violated. You can agree or not, but until you show up on my doorstep with a degree in international law and a huge resume, I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with the experts. Their opinions and interpretations of international law are worth far more than that of some anonymous poster on the Internet. Nopw either address the real issue at hand, whether it is unpatriotic for a Canadian to criticise the US or show us all your degree in international law and a resume showing you aren't just mob lawyer trying to pick up a side job.

Yes they can. ABM does nothing to protect South Korea, Asia, or Eastern Europe. Any missile that can reach North merica can reach any of those places, as well. By the Bush government's own numbers it will cost between $53 billion and one trillion USD. Are your saying that money is going to come out of thin air? So then you agree that the installation of Star Wars is likely to promote, not negate, terrorist acts against the US. Russia and China have already stated, openly, that Star Wars has forced them to develop new weapons technology. The new arms race began the day that Bush backed out of the 1972 treaty. Not building ABM would not end terrorism, but it would make it less likely that the methods of terrorism would be used. China has said that they would not be developing new weapons or spending so much on getting into space if it wasn't for the threat of Star Wars. Last I checked the Roman Empire had fallen and those allied with it suffered some rather drastic consequences. Notice how I didn't say anything about competition. When you play Monopoly the losers go have a beer in front of the TV. When you play real life, the losers fly jet planes into tall buildings. We need to make a world of winners....I sometimes have to go into tall buildings. So far and the outlook has been getting worse for a long while. You ignored the fact that the leaders of China might have a different rule book too. Not when their debt is taken into account. If I was borrowing more than I made on a consistent basis, my banker would cut off the cash pretty quick. The US has been borrowing more than it makes for a very long time.

It's good to see the Conservatives actually get less of the popular vote than they did before. The silent majority has spoken, Stevie...they told you to take a hike. Kudos to Susan Thompson who managed to grab 11% of the vote (at this point, they're still counting) in Peace River. Not an easy place to run for the NDP, but she did it and made us all proud. How about that increase in the popular vote? It would have likely been higher if it wasn't for the frightening spectre of Stephen Harper too...a lot of strategic voting happened tonight. We can move forward now, instead of back.

As soon as the wife gets ready, I'm going to go and vote for Bill Blaikie. No guilt, no doubt. He's been an excellent MP for as long as I've been living here and he represents the NDP, the only party in Canada that seems to think that Canada is strong and capable enough to move forward on its own. I think we'll get a Liberal minority that will last 18 months to a year. I also think that Stephen Harper and Paul Martin are both going to be scrambling to hang onto their jobs as party leaders after this mess.

Because they can. Because there are many places within range of those missiles. As a deterrent to a conventional invasion. So we have a bottomless bucket of money? Spending put into missile defence is money not available for other programs. So you agree with terrorism then? Each of those has led to unforseen stresses in other areas. The introduction of technology has repercussions. The repercussions of Star Wars are increased risk of terrorism and a new arms race. No, I want Canada to stand for something besides helping PNAC take over the planet. We cannot achieve that by backing them up. I have played monopoly. One person gets rich while others go broke and are forced out of the game. That's one thing in a board game, but certainly no way to run a country or a planet. The Chinese domestic market is growing and they are exporting ever more to other markets, so the US is becoming less important all of the time. The leaders of China also do not look at things, even economies, from the western viewpoint. They could well decide that it is politically advantageous to them to call in the debts. Is it growth if I produce less income but put more debt on my credit card, especially when those things on my credit card do not produce a financial return? I've answered all of your questions and responded to your concerns. That you do not like the answers is not my problem, it is yours.

What I'm hearing from you, Hugo, is a wish for raw data with no context. I'm encouraging you, and everybody else, to look at the context as well as the data. The context for your arguments are presented to us every day by neo-conservative/neo-liberal politicians and business pundits. If you look at what happened in Cancun and again in Florida though, you will see that an increasing number of politicians and trade experts from developing nations are saying that the present thinking and methods are failing, that they are being bullied into bad deals by the US. That doesn't make the news up here, the context is not carried through. If you will not do the reading and at least attempt to understand the context, that is your problem. I gave you a path to both the context and the raw data.

I tried asking a few questions too...the Liberals and Conservatives never answered either through their local hopeful or through the party sites. They never even acknowledged my questions. Harper sneaking out the back door to avoid protestors here kind of summed up his campaign though. He doesn't like being asked questions, won't answer them when he is asked, and attempts to denigrate anybody with the temerity to demand an answer from him. He's a dangerous little man with a secret agenda and an elitist attitude.

You should have a hard look at Ball and his cronies. Check out their resumes and where their funding comes from. Kyoto isn't just possible though, it can also be an economic engine that drives us forward. Quebec and Manitoba are well-situated to become major hydrogen producers. Same with hydroelectric power. We have some provinces that are excellent candidates for wind power, others that can produce energy with tidal power. Some "have-not" provinces can become "have" provinces through this. We already make some of the most efficient windows and doors on the planet because of our climate. We now have an opportunity to export those. There are opportunities for new technologies around every corner and new technologies have historically driven economic growth. I realise that Kyoto scares the hell out of the boys in the oil patch, especially little weasels like Harper who would trade their children's futures for a few American dollars. Oil still has many uses though, so while it might reduce their income it will not leave them broke.

Increasingly, yes. I'm going to assume assume you meant forty years ago. I'm also going to assume that you are not missing the point on purpose. They have, compared to the world's richest 10%, much less than they had before. The rising tide has not raised all ships. It has left some taking on water, and some have sunk. That is completely unacceptable to me an a lot of other people. We have the means and duty to make things better for everyone and instead are choosing to make things worse for some for our own personal enrichment.

The CATO Institute? Man, that's just goofy. We've all seen the polls on how Canadians feel about Iraq. I challenge you to look it up. Learn. Go to Google and type it in. The majority of Canadian people were against the invasion of Iraq and that number has grown. Notice, I'm not giving specific references. I'm telling people to go out and learn. I'm not afraid that they might read the wrong thing.

Oh, man...this is just getting silly. We don't paint you as cold, we paint you as hot...as in hot-headed. I don't acrifice anything, I look for a better way and point out idiocy. I don't think the western seabord is in danger of a nuclear strike from North Korea or anybody else because the retaliation would be massive. The Us already has that capability. No, you are not using any logic at all. I am saying that by supporting the USA's plan that we increasingly leave ourselves open to terrorist attack by other methods. No, those are the actions of an enemy that cannot fight back in a clear and fair manner. Star Wars promotes such actions, does nothing to deter them, takes funding away from measures that might counteract them, and makes us more vulnerable as a result. Those are the result of superior technology, not an argument against it. Thank you for proving my point. In Canada's case it would be prudent to have a look around and see who deserves to have the "baseball bat." You are ignoring that the US has sought to keep the EU from setting up their own GPS system. The EU is supposed to be an ally of the USA. The US wants complete control and giving it to them would be stupid. You might try looking at numbers and facts, my little friend. The US is in serious financial trouble. Either China or the EU could send them into a tailspin just by calling in the debt. The EU has too much to lose to do that, but China could arguably come out as a big winner in one fell swoop...no wars needed. Let's just give 'em all guns though. Lets encourage them to shoot over our heads. Or maybe that isn't such a good idea.

I think you are perfectly capable of following the links. I could find the specific examples, but I want you to look at the big picture. You don't have to read what I wrote, just the supporting documentation and the documentation that supports that. Your reluctance to do that reading disturbs me.

My point exactly, Elder. You should make a point of seeing Chariots and reading Van Donniken's (I've pledged never to spell his name right) books and watching the TV shows though. They aren't accurate, or even sensible, but they are entertaining and represent an odd search for spirituality in our society. It's really quite intriguing. He uses your religion and myths from all over the planet to support his claims. In a lot of ways he is responsible for a lot of the "new age" beliefs that keep popping up. You'd be doing well to look into it.

The polls. Most Canadians disagree with the US invasion of Iraq. Look it up. You might want to define "traditional allies" too. Most Brits were also against the war. So was France. So was Mexico. So was Germany. So was Russia. The USA is not our only ally, and Tony Blair's willingness to act against the British people does not negate the opinion of those people.

The Security Council did not support the invasion of Iraq. Thank you for proving my point. It is you that is doing the wiggling here, child. Most of the world opposed this action. The US lied, more than once, to try to get them to support it. The support was not there so the US refused to ask permission. Now that I've refuted your silly little argument at least as much as you've refuted mine, perhaps you'd be willing to move on to the basic argument, if it is unCanadian to criticise the United States of America. I realise that you are, for reasons of your own, reluctant to do that. I am not reluctant though.