Queenmandy85

WWWTT wrote: "Never said what kind of system was best or what I would suggest. Just pointing out that our system IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!" I guess we agree. I should pay closer attention. In theory, of course, the PM serves at the pleasure of the Party Caucus. It is because Canadians have grown too lazy to get involved in the nomination and election process that we have ended up with sheep for MP's. It all comes down to the citizen doing due diligence in selecting quality candidates. That hasn't been happening;- witness the "orange crush" in Quebec. The worst thing ever introduced in the process is the requirement that a party leader must sign the candidate's nomination papers. It places too much power in the hands of the party.

WWWTT, you seem to want some kind of pure democracy. We have a system where we elect someone to study the issues, hash them out in caucus and then in Parliament. What makes you think you could do any better? The House of Commons is a pretty good reflection of the electorate. If MP's are venal and dishonest, the you have to admit they are just like the rest of us. I've only known a few MP's, two leaders of the opposition, five cabinet ministers and one Prime Minister. They were a pretty good bunch. They work 80 hours a week, and get little or no thanks. Sixteen year olds lack the life experience to understand that just about anything they suggest has been tried before. Classic definition of insanity- trying the same thing over and over and expecting the different results. That's why the ultimate decision is in the hands of the executive.

You have influence in policy when you nominate your party's candidate. As a citizen, you have a responsibility to choose a capable candidate who shares your views, and the ensure that candidate is nominated and then work to: a. identify the vote b. get out the vote. It is not enough to just get off your ass and vote. If you don't campaign, you have no right to complain.

The motorcycle was totally at fault. He was travelling too fast for road conditions. Rule of thumb- if you are unable to come to a full stop, you are going too fast.The reason she stopped is irrelevant What if her alternator failed?...no forward motion, no lights. Normally, I have the utmost respect for the jury system, but this was a miscarriage of justice.

Democracy is the philosophy the says people should get the government they want...good and hard. H.L. Menken

Yes

In 2005, I conducted a poll of 100 first year students at the University of Saskatchewan. Eight out of one hundred could name Canada's Head of State. None could correctly identify Canada's independence day. I have to wonder if low turnout might be a good thing.

I would never click on a link. That's an invitation to trouble. That being said, a nuclear deterrence depends on convincing your opponent you are crazy enough to use it. That was Reagan's specialty. He managed to make the Soviets believe he was quite willing to commit global suicide to deter them. The problem with nuclear weapons is, in the words of JFK, " The fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth." In 1972, I had the opportunity to ask Canada's chief military representative in NORAD about the outcome of a nuclear exchange between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces. "Ninety percent of the earth's population would die in four weeks. The rest would take a few days longer." Pretty sobering prospect.

It's not a foregone conclusion that there will even be a referendum. First, the PQ would have to win a majority. Nothing is certain in a campaign. Then, if they do, they have to have the "winning conditions." Then, finally, they would have to win a referendum…not likely under present circumstances.

Many Quebecers disliked Chretien so much that his participation in the last referendum did more damage than good. Harper is in the same situation. The best strategy is to let Quebecers decide for themselves and make the best of whatever happens.

The W.A.C. Bennett government (Socialist Credit) was more bolshevik than Dave Barrett's NDP government in BC. Roy Romanow's NDP government was more conservative than Grant Devine's PC government in Saskatchewan. My point is that when a party takes power, events supersede ideology. Competence, on the other hand has no relation to party label. Premiers Glenn Clark and Grant Devine were idiots. Romanow, Harcourt, Lougheed and Wall are very competent. A Mulcair or Trudeau government do not scare me. Harper's government scares me because of their apparent antipathy towards science and their tendency to take political differences too seriously.

When I first joined the Progressive Conservative Party, it was partly because the Conservatives supported the Canadian Armed Forces. Since this stupid merger, Harper has conducted a campaign to cheat the vets who served this country. Harper is no Conservative. For all his BS about rebuilding the Canadian Forces he has done virtually nothing. A man or woman goes off to fight for Queen and Country and when she or he returns and completes the mission, they are cheated and ill treated and forgotten by their government under Harper.

Predicting the future, while entertaining, is based on the absence of unforeseen events such as the 9/11 attack or the effect of climate change in the fourth century that brought down the European wing of the Roman empire. I sat in a lecture presented by Gwynne Dyer in the lead up to the First Gulf War. His predictions were all based on solid analysis. He is an excellent military historian and analyst and few of his predictions were correct. We are facing three inter-related issues. The build up of greenhouse gases and the end of economically viable oil supply both are caused by over population. These three problems are going to have a dramatic impact on our future. No one can predict what that will mean. Then, again, an asteroid could take us out before we sit down to dinner tonight. Have a nice day.

I should have included defamation in with liable and slander. I'm not a lawyer. My rule of thumb is never type anything into a computer that I do not want to see on the front page of the G&M.

The issue is one of free speech. A person should have the right to say anything on the internet (or any other media) so long as it conforms to the law regarding liable and slander. If I put forth an argument with which someone disagrees, everyone has the right to refute it with a counter - argument. When Nobel Laureate William Shockley published the hypothosis the there was a difference in the level of intelligence between the races, he was banned from speaking on many campuses. David Suzuki, at that time host of Quirks and Quarks, invited Shockley onto his program where they engaged in a fifty minute formal debate. That is how we should deal with issues. While insults have no place in the exchange of ideas, banning them is outrageous. When I first read Barbara Amiel's book comparing Human Rights commissions to the thought police, I was aghast. Now I see how right she was. I have the right and the obligation to be insulted and have my feelings hurt and to refute comments with which I disagree by presenting evidence to the contrary.

Unions are the last bastion of free enterprise. My union is a corporation who sells labour. As a member, I am a stockholder.

We have a blended heritage in Canada. We spend large sums of money on celebrating our First Nations culture, our French language, and the many contributions to our culture from China, India, Pakistan, the Ukraine, Sudan, etc. Is it too much to ask that we maintain this contibution from our English heritage? It costs virtually nothing, yet the English did contribute to this nation. (The tax payers of the UK who bear most of the cost of the Monarchy spend more money on the British Embassy in Paris than they spend on the entire Royal Family.) If we were to have a President, we would end up with a politician as Head of State, rather than a person who is above politics. Who would you rather have as the personification of your country, Queen Elizabeth or Brian Mulroney.

Canada is not a representative democracy. Our system is based on the British model. Each Member of Parliment works on behalf of all Canadians and is responsible to vote according to their conscience. An MP is free to vote however their conscience dictates, however in real politics, if you vote against your Party, you may be made to pay a political price; if you vote against your constituants wishes, you will pay a political price.

So that's why my hats are so expensive. Levesque felt it was better to keep the US informed than make them guess. Kennedy arranged for large contributions to be made to Pearson's campaign in 1963 after carefully leaking Diefenbaker's refusal to arm our Honest John tactical missiles with nuclear weapons. The conduit for American money to the Liberals were George Lamay and Lucian Rivard. The latter gave $50,000 to the grits.

This is nothing new. The Americans have been conducting clandestine activities against us for decades. Kennedy and the CIA brought down the Conservative Government and installed a Liberal Government in 1963 with agents of influence such as Doug Harkness, George Lamay and Lucien Rivard. You can be sure they are still at it. Rene Levesque was also a CIA informant.

There are some who still feel Colonel J. Sutherland Brown's analysis holds true, in which case it would be better to configure our Defence policy around irregular tactics and organizing a more robust Reserve infrastructure. Absorbe an invasion and then grind them down. As you have all pointed out, we cannot hope to defeat our most probable enemies in a conventional conflict and Canadians have no stomach for a reasonable Defence commitment.

You have not adressed the problem of numbers. If we are facing an enemy with an air force numbering in the hundreds, 65 planes are not going to be able to provide air superiority. It is folly to put that much money into a futile gesture. Put it towards A-10's and cheaper fighters to cover the ground attack, or (as stated earlier that Canadians don't want to defend the country) put that money into paying down the deficit or social housing and a white flag.

Both of you seem to really be caught up in the technology and ignoring the primary component, the pilot. Technology is a benifit but remember what happened in the Falklands. The British pilots flew harriers that were not as good as the French aircraft used by the Argentinians, yet they had the vital edge in pilots. Those Argentinian planes that got through were attacked by AA missiles that sputtered and fell into the chuck The planes dropped bombs that clanked across the dect and failed to explode. That's sofisticated technology

It is ironic that some of the greatest military men in history such as Julius Caesar and Richard the Lionheart would have been barred fron serving in the U.S. military.

There's a Romulan Cloaking device on ebay.