Cartman

Hate to put you on the spot PFF, but is this opinion or are you referring to a specific case? I have never been able to understand the negative reaction to gun control (not owning one myself). Seems like a reasonable idea to me.

I think that allowing the Provinces to make creative decisions is great as long as they strictly follow the 5 principles of the Canada Health Care Act.

Hmmm...I have always held a measure of admiration for Trudeau but he was a jerk much of the time. Take a read of Memoirs and this becomes apparent. When I referred to Albertans losing their jobs, I was trying to get across to people who did not live in Alberta the extent of devastation that took place here overnight. There were reports of people losing farms that had been held for generations and men who would lie to their wives that they still held good jobs. I did not vote Conservative, but if you want to understand why over 81% of the voters in my riding did, you have to understand the anger in reaction to the NEP. It was not just greed (reaction to NEP), it was a kick in the head after being beat. Where else in this country do people vote so homogenously regardless of stripe (PC ->Alliance->Cons)?Like it or not, this is the reality.

The NEP was introduced at the worst possible time. An incredible number of people lost their jobs and the PM was not listening to Western Premiers. Though I do not relish in the fact that he is dead, his behaviour was terrible. Lougheed nearly turned off the taps.

Well MS, I hope you are right and that I am wrong. I really thought that Layton would have been more successful but he did say that this is a long-term project. It seems to me that there are really two choices for Canadians: Conservatives and New Democrats. At least both parties have clear alternative visions. As said earlier, Liberals seem to be Cons. in gov't and NDPers in opposition. Thus far, nobody has argued this. Any takers? An integration between the Alliance and the PC's seemed natural. I wonder why the current Libs and Cons do not do the same. I would have put the Trudeau Liberals on the left, but I would not want to put the Martin Liberals there.

It is often said that when in opposition, the Liberals sound like the NDP, but when in government they act like the Conservatives. We are all aware that the current generation of Liberals continued many of Mulroney's policies and I think we all agree that the NDP offers a very different choice and that at the fed level, this option has been rejected. I have been to all of the parties' web sites and know what they say, but I wonder sincerely, is there much of a practical difference between THIS generation of Liberals and Conservatives? Are they not identical in terms of economic and social policy? Is it just a difference in brand name? This is an honest question so no rhetoric please.

Actually Ticker, most left-wing literature which argues in favour of your argument. Essentially, that the "periphery" is being stripped of resources while the "centre" milks the cow. The Left is in favour of redistribution including regional redistribution. This was a Liberal policy, not an NDP policy. The idea may have been to allow citizens to profit from their natural resources, but the reality was that Alberta was screwed. I also lived in Alberta during the hard times and remember Trudeau's "salute" to the West.

I would like to know the main reasons why abortion is sought in the first place. I would also like to know if it varies by group membeship b/c I suspect that it is linked to "social capital". I would guess that it is less often a consideration for women residing in wealthy and supportive homes. The underlying belief often seems to be that uncaring people find this a "quick fix". Though a possibility, I think it is highly unlikely. I wonder why the debate is always based upon whether or not it should be legal or not. Why is a preventative option so rarely considered?

Since this is a one-sided discussion, I will play devil's advocate. Without federal government intervention, Canada would likely not have the social and cultural development we all enjoy today. With the leg up provided by our government, many of our artists have been able to access the world stage. In the early 80's, Canadians recording artists were very rare while they are now common. We have attracted private investment (recording and movie industries). Would the NHL be what it is today without gov't investment? In terms of inappropriate spending, well, that is going to happen everywhere even in large corporations. Harper has also pointed out that large corporations also receive state $$ they should not.

Though I think you are right, I am still gonna respond. Is this really an issue anymore? Nobody enjoys the existence of abortion, but it will exist whether the state legitimizes it or not. It is just a matter of whether they are performed in a safer or less safe manner. Any alternatives will simply violate women's rights. The fact that this was even brought up demonstrates that women are still not the social equals of men.

Both companies are proud brewers, about the same size and they are both suffering from stagnation. Once you are this successful, how do you expand? But remember, this is a merger not a takeover. Nothing will change. Though sometimes difficult to define (because we share many of the same principles of the US), Canada has a unique identity. A commercial does not define us though like Caesar, I do enjoy the ads. For years I have waited for a sense of pride in this nation and it has finally started to show in our youth. No going back now.

I would agree entirely with your comments.

In this case, the NHL is the equivalent of the state. It has a limited measure of power to regulate both owners and workers, but it acts largely on behalf/behest of the owners who have the real power. I am surprised that only IMR and August have reacted strongly to the main theme of this post. I thought that all of the right wingers would come out strongly in favour of the supporters of free market principles which, in this case, are the players! I betcha that Harper, as an ardent neo-liberal, would remain consistent on this one. After all, he has said that you cannot have a free market just for business and not for workers and he admirably and clearly came out against "corporate welfare bums". Any bets to the contrary (i.e. Harper)?

Quite frankly, I do not believe that Martin has the leadership qualities to approach this issue (Constitution). When he was on the CBC in regards to the sponsorship scandal, he looked really nervous - bad. He will never take on this issue.

The right suggests that the free market (free from any intervention) is ideal. Let the invisible hand of capitalism do its job and everyone will be better served. The left maintains that intervention (redistribution) is needed to curb excesses of greed in a modern industrial economy. Cooperation is preferable to competition. If we use the current NHL conflict as a microcosm of society, we see that the owners (free market, right wing thinkers) do not want a free market because it is now serving the players well. This is a completely hypocritical role reversal and demonstrates that a free market based upon greed is not ideal. The owners are using so-called antiquated left wing interventionist thinking while the players have adopted free market economics. Do you not find this extremely ironic? The free market is supposed to be the core of right wing thinking. This very unique conflict suggests that it has less to do with consistent principles of fairness for everyone and more to do with greed and maintaining the unequal status quo.

I don't think many Canadians hate Americans. It is more like jealousy; a mix of admiration with frustration. In some ways, they have the best nation on earth but at times they have abused their position of power. BTW...cannot stand US sports.

I agree that teachers are vocal and are doing well, but they also take a measure of risk. Some parents are more than willing to blame teachers for their kids problems (which are often caused by poor parenting in the first place). My wife has both management and education degrees and unfortunately, it is just not worth it to teach. In her management position, she earns more, has much better benefits, time off, flexibility and little risk. We are seriously considering educating from home. It is sad that we are letting the public system fall apart.

It is just a matter of political will.

Actually, let me rephrase this. I do not "entirely" disagree with you because some people hold a lot of admiration for Americans. Many, however, do not distinguish between Americans and the current administration.

I doubt it has much to do with the Liberals, but crime rates have modestly declined during and since the 90's. http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal02.htm

Ouch. I do not apply this notion to unions because many of them have become movements that support a wide variety of groups in society...those less fortunate. This is not self-interest. Maybe I am naive, but I always thought that right wing supporters of the free market actually had consistent principles. People are moral to the extent that they are social. From your post, I get the impression that you believe that there are no such things as societies, just groups of individuals. I would hope that we are building a society in Canada. As well, I am left with the impression that you support unions if they are simply acting in self-interest?

The irony IS intriguing, but not for the reasons you specify. I never said anyone is anti-Canadian, I said inequality of service is anti-Canadian. The Canadian Constitution was not written in stone by God, it can be changed by people when it can be improved. It is ironic when right wingers want to reduce government but do not reduce government.

Dare ya to wear that same US flag pin in Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Libya ......

When unionists demand higher salaries and benefits, the response by right wingers is usually something along the lines of "let the market decide". However, as the NHL collective agreement deadline looms, free market thinkers must be scratching their heads. This time, the players' union wants a free market system where the most talented workers go to the highest bidders while the owners do not! A free market system is only supported by businesses when workers earn relatively low wages and not when they earn relatively high wages. This goes to show you that generally speaking, businesses are not really interested in market PRINCIPLES per se, only in any system that guarantees them greater profit. That is why they do not discuss a player salary cap AND an owners' profit cap which would mutually ensure the survival of the season.

Hmmm...maybe Kim C. WAS right about women being excluded.