Reverend Blair

Nope, just trying to find something real to base my decision on. The US already has all of the deterrence they need. A power with the ability to deter the US wouldn't be a bad thing right about now. I'd prefer that wasn't North Korea but, since NK lacks the funding to do that, it is not really an issue. That's just silly. Having insurance is unlikely to cause other drivers to aim at you. Supporting weapons systems makes us a target and, since those weapons systems offer no real value, endanger our safety. You miss the fact that the adversaries of the US already have much to lose. By most accounts they are building a pig in a poke. You are suggesting that we stand there with our wallets open throwing money at them before either the pig or the poke is complete. I've done a lot of reading on the latest war. I am disgusted by the actions of the United States. And the US has vociferously opposed any other country or group of countries installing comparable technology, even their allies. Part of Star Wars is keeping other powers from gaining technology that the US does not control. The Americans are on the verge of bankruptcy. Go look up their debt. Look up the money guys who are getting extremely nervous about the collapse of the US economy due to massive spending. Will they be able to protect you when they are in the same financial position as Venezuela?

I said clearly that you should, You didn't read the stories, you didn't follow the links, you didn't check the links within the links. If you won't do the reading, you won't understand the issues involved. That those links read to the facts and figures you are so fond of demanding seems to have escaped you.

I've seen Chariots of the Gods, Digby. I don't think the Bible is proof that ET was hanging out with Ezekiel, either.

Oh? Why is it that the Conservatives shot down imposing fines on US meat-packing plants that very likely screwed farmers and ranchers and had been found in contempt of Parliament for not opening their books to a Parliamentary committee? Why is it that L'il Stevie Harper stands alone among the leaders in opposing Kyoto? Why is it that L'il Stevie Harper, along with his good buddy Stockwell "Doris" Day, felt the need to take out an ad in a foreign newspaper apologising for a government that backed the views of the vast majority of Canadians?

I know quite a few people, some of them business people, who credit Bob Rae with getting the Ontario economy rolling again. The dates bear them out. The current boom started under his government, Harris just inherited the real gravy. Argus, you are complaining because we have the temerity to say that teachers and civil servants have wages that put them in the middle class. Woo-hoo, we allow them to make a decent living and that makes them bad people and us all communists. August...Survivor benefits are just that, benefits that survivors are entitled to should the policy holder die. The last corporation I worked for had a plan that offered a one time pay-out of three years of my full wage, then 75% percent of that wage until I would have been 65, when my pension benefit would have kicked in. Full health and dental continued for life. It was an above-average plan, no doubt, but we did not have a union and there was certainly no government involvement. Have the Ontario teachers, through their union, gotten themselves an excellent plan? Yes. Should we blame them? Nobody blamed me for the plan I had when I worked at that job.

You guys aren't real clear on the concept of democracy are you?

So there is no real proof, we have no way of knowing if the Liberals are directly involved, and we have no way of knowing the whole story. To me this sounds like more political grandstanding and negative campaigning from the party that blocked fining meatpackers who had been found in contempt of parliament.

The party line is what most people vote for, for better or worse. It was no secret that Chretien ruled his party with an iron fist. It is no secret that Martin does pretty much the same. If the Conservatives ever bother to actually have a policy convention, I want to know that the policies they put out in public are actually the policies they will promote. The hidden anarchy that Harper prefers does not guarantee that. When the Liberals didn't scrap the GST we could all look at them and say, "You lied to us." If the Conservatives ban abortion Stephen Harper will just say that it was the grass roots who introduced a private member's bill. It's a blank cheque to promote his hidden agenda. Our Supreme Court is appointed. They are all qualified people. Their decisions are based on the constitution, human rights laws, and previous case law. Do I agree with every one of their decisions? No. Do I think we need such an institution to protect us against politicians who have little respect for human rights and don't understand Canadian law? You bet I do.

I care because it means that the guy who cannot afford a good lawyer goes to prison while the guy who can walks away. In the context of prisoners voting that means that the rich guy gets to vote and the poor guy doesn't. That kind of elitism may work for you, but I see it as absolute and total affront to democracy. This is Canada, noelandmero, we do not kill people for stealing cars here. We actually have laws about excessive force. ou seem to hang around with a lot of career criminals, Digby.

Harper has a long history of not wanting the grass roots of his party to be heard speaking in public, Bro. He tried to silence them when he was a back room hack for Manning and now, when they do speak up, he denies that what they say has any bearing on policy. He can't have it both ways. Either he is pulling strings in the back room like some well-coifed Wizard of Oz, or the radicals in his party that would limit human rights based on their religious beliefs will be allowed to run rough-shod over those of us who do not share their beliefs. Neither of those choices is an acceptable way to run a country. Either the party has policies or it does not. If it does not, then it is not so much a party as a collection of special interest groups who lack the understanding of how to negotiate. Harper and parties dsdain for and purposeful misunderstanding of the role of the Supreme Court of Canada is increasingly troublesome. They are pushing to remove one of checks and balances that force them to adhere to what Canadians want. Right now the Notwithstanding Clause forces them to over-ride our Constitution in public. That requires disscussion and there will be open dissent. Harper's plan to silence the Supreme Court would move that discussion and dissent into the back rooms of Conservative policy meetings. How is that democratic? How does it protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority?

I read the Star article, Goldie. Sentimental slop. Bush's policies aren't working though. Why would we adopt them? I've tried listening, the thing is that he won't tell us anything. He only goes to highly controlled events full of partisan supporters. He Will not answer questions. He snuck out the back door instead of facing controversy here the other day. CBC even had trouble getting him to appear on a town hall. When he finally did, he had an earbud, likely so his handlers could feed him information.

The similarities is in the proposed policies and reluctance to keep church and state separate, Goldie. George Bush likes killing people, Harper wants to back him up. George Bush uses his power to infringe on human rights, Harper would do the same. George Bush spends like a drunken sailor while reducing revenues, Harper's plan reads the same. George Bush puts money ahead of the environment, so does Stephen Harper.

How come none of the teachers and civil servants, even the fat ugly ones, I know do that? Come to think of it I've belonged to pension plans in corporations that would have allowed the same thing.

Works for me then, Digby.

The big white dog under my desk is likely twenty times smarter and more competent than George Bush though. She's a nice dog, but I don't want her running the country.

Teachers and civil servants with money, August? Where do you find these mythical beings?

I don't think it's a red herring at all Caesar. The baby boom generation has taxed every system since they were born. I'm from the generation just after them and I've had a front row seat for much of that taxation. It is really just a matter of numbers...there are a lot of people in a single demographic. It's kind of like watching a snake eat a rat...there's this huge lump travelling down the body of our society. That's not an excuse to cut health care though. As you mentioned, boomers continue to pay taxes. They are, generally, healthier than previous generations. They continue to contribute massively. They do stress the systems though, and that stress will worsen as they age and contribute less and require more. We can stand the baby boomers just as as the snake can stand the lump the rat makes.

Maybe, Digby, Canadians have the right and the need to have their laws and the destiny of their country based on what is best for them instead of an ancient religious text that is open to interpretation.

The Bible was put together before anybody knew Canada was here, Digby. It makes no reference to Canada. It has also shown itself to be extremely unreliable when it comes to predicting the future.

Hmmmm...a right wing ideologue with little or no respect for human rights and a platform calling for massivve spending while reducing taxes. They are quite similar, aren't they?

While a fair description of the Harper campaign, that isn't really the topic at hand. Our health problems, especially as we get older, are going to tax the system. There are a lot of ways of cutting costs though. More home care, more alternative medicine, moe education are the way to that. Study after study has shown that privatised care is more expensive. That's really just common sense, public systems do not have to turn a profit, they do not need to drive stock prices ever higher to keep the shareholders happy.

I don't mean to paint all Albertans as rednecks, playfullfellow. I know several members of the NDP from your province. There is a real preponderance of statments coming out of your province that refuse to address the realities in the rest of Canada though. They come from Ralph and Stevie and they come from people on the internet. I got out of the reno business a couple of years ago because my arthritis reached the point where I couldn't do the physical labour anymore and I hated the quoting/paperwork part. I went to the photographic industry which runs year round. Part of the reason that I got into renovations when I started my business was because there is more work in the winter. The only other part of residential construction that has decent hours in the winter is new home building. Both slow down drasically in Winnipeg in the winter. Workers get laid off. We did a lot of painting (interiors) and rec rooms in the winter. We did almost exclusively outdoor work (fences, decks, porches, sunrooms...whatever) in the summer. I know a lot of landscapers though. Guys who have been in that business since they were kids. Most of them are on pogey in the winter at least part of the time. Most clean parking lots or drive snow-clearing equipment for the city or rural municipality if they can, but that work is spotty at best. They do not have an alternate industry they can go to and their employment depends not only on the weather, but on their bosses getting enough contracts to keep them busy.

I've called him a lot of things, most worse than "pro-golfer" and none of which I can type into a family board. You might try picking up a book called, "One Dead Indian" Big Blue. It's about Dudley George, a native man who was killed because of the policies of Mike Harris. You might want to have a long hard look at what happened at Walkerton too. While your at it you should think about why the homeless were demonstrating against Harris' policies.

Harper's whole campaign has been negative. The only real reason he gives why he should be PM is that the Liberals have had a scandal or two. Of course Harper is taking advice from Brian Mulroney, who also had a scandal or two. Harper has been trying to silence the radicals in his party since he was a policy wonk working for Preston Manning. He hasn't tried to get rid of those radicals though. Since Harper is really a radical himself those are his core supporters. The reason Harper is being painted as a scary man with a secret agenda is because he is a scary man with a secret agenda.

Richard Perle felt the invasion of Iraq was "probably illegal."The Guardian had this article on it at the time. In the same article Kofi Annan is quoted questioning the legality of US actions. The Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP) and the Western States Legal Foundation (WSLF) feel that the invasion was illegal. Their reasons are simple...Iraq posed no immediate threat to the US. You can find an article on that here. "Most experts in international law say they are not convinced either by the argument that military action against Iraq is authorized by earlier UN resolutions nor that the UN Charter allows self-defense against a perceived future threat."- - [Associated Press, 3/19/03] I found that quote at this page which uses the UN Charter to back its arguments. Now I could go on Krusty. There are many authorities, all of them as valid as yours, all basing their arguments on established international law, who say that the invasion was illegal. The reasons given by the Bush administration were just excuses made up by slick gangster lawyers to back a regime that wanted to go to war to reward their corporate buddies. There really isn't much point in my going on though because you will just deny the validity of any source that does not back you up. If I continue to argue you will again accuse me of being less than honest. Now, whether you are satisfied or not, I proven my position to be at least as valid as yours. You can either admit that and carry on the conversation like a human being, or continue to hide behind a narrow interpretation of reality that only those with even less capicity for thought than George Bush would even consider.