fellowtraveller

Just a rough mathematical comparison, but the Tories have to steal at least another $198 million or so before the next election to even tie the Liberals on that count. I know they can make it if they try hard.

These are weaker penalties than those employed right now. Was that your intention? Treating alcoholism is a different issue. What is required is not a cure for drunks, but an effective deterrent to stop people from driving while drunk.'Chronic' offenders, those people with 5 , 10, 155 drnk driving convictions have not had licenses, insurance or registration on their cars for years, because they cannot. It still does not stop them from driving and driving drunk. I'm less interested in them anyway,more interested in targetting the causal drunk driver because they are much more numerous. If there are fearsome and very expensive consequences like seizure of vehicle - they will pay attention because they must.

Well, why have any punicshment at all then? Or would you rather have fines? Oh no, those fines go to the Crown, and some of that trickles back to law enforcement... we could not have that, right? Drunk driving is a relatively straightforward crime to detect and prosecute fairly. There are no small timers or big timers in drunk driving, you are either drunk and endangering my family, or you aren't. The crime is identical for all concerned. No laws will prevent the insanity of chronic drunk driving other than long term incarceration, which is an appropriate punishment for repeat offenders. But if you are Joe Sixpack, you will most certainly think twice about drinking and driving if you know that your vehicle is history if you get caught. And those are the people that forfeiture is aimed straight at ansd would be very effective with preventing them from getting behind the wheel.....the same people that today go 1) I'll lose my lciense for a few months..check, I can manage that...2) I pay a fine.... yeah whatever.... 3) I get a criminal record.... yeah whatever..... add in 40 I lose an expensive vehicle, and still have to make payments on it..... whoa baby.

I used to belive this too. Now I think that Canadians will decide, and some of those Canadians will be residents of Quebec.

When i see proprep, the word that leaps to mind is : Italy. No thanks.

Are you as familiar with the word 'irony' as ypu are with the word 'progressive'?

QUOTE(madmax @ Apr 30 2008, 09:38 AM) Every Labour Market also has a black market, where people work for less then the minimum wage. Every Labour Market has systems that allow for Contracts and formulas where it is very possible to earn less then the minimum wage. Should these systems exceed the minimum wage rate for labour demand, then there is problem with the minumum wage or possibly, the enforcement of the minimum wage. Really? Identify the black market in Alberta today then...... The minimum wage is now $8.40, and virtually no employer can pay that little and stay in business. Typical rates are $11 to $12 for service work. It enforces itself. Labour is a commodity, the value of skills increases and decreases with supply and demand. And, in other breaking news, the planet is still spinning on its axis. Film at six.

Racist drivel. Here is why: you must be a resident of whatever province to access health care in that province. Lebanon is not a province. Simple approach to drunk driving: confiscate the vehicle and sell it at auction, first offence. No exceptions. if you lend your car to a drunk and it gets seized, tough luck, pick your friends better next time.

The Constitution was Trudeaus creation, and it made an awkward situation nearly impossible to fix. I know you hate to hear anythign that treats PET as anything other than a deity, but there it is....

One person, one vote, equally represented. Through decades of Parliamentray machinations, we have arrived at the point where that is scarcely true in the Commons. Trudeau- knowing where his bread is buttered- brought us a Constitution that makes it enormously complex to fix what shopuld be a striaghtforward redistribution of ridings to equalize them across the country. The Senate was originally designed to represent the regions, and sto[p the Commons from using a tyranny of the majority to ram through eveyrghting desired by the heavily populated areas at the expense of the lightly populated areas. We should just adopt the American model, which adresses much of this and would have the bonus of stripping the PMO of much of its omnipotence.

So what.Since when is any Minister, inclduing the Prime Minister, required to sit and and bark when demanded by some media hack? Many, many news stories include some idiotic reference like: "The Big Kahuna had not returned numerous messages at press time."

'Progressive' is simultaneously a buzzword for the intellectually retarded and a neat bit of control language. If you are not 'progressive' you must be 'regressive' and who wants to be labelled regressive? It is reminiscent of the brilliant play made by anti-abortionists in claiming the moral high ground of 'Pro-Life'. If you aren't ProLife, you must be ProDeath or AntiLife. Pro Choic just isn't in the same league as ProLife.

Standard household insurance polices do not cover flooding, at least they don't here. And I live in a place that has never and likely will never experience surface flooding. Sewer backup coverage is available, roof leakage due to ice dams, but any water running through basement windows is not covered. It is available here at significan t extra cost, same for earthquake coverage. In an area where floods are common, how can insurance companies afford to insure?

That would be about 8th in terms of priority of reasons why his leadership is untenable. He is closer to the beginning of the nightmare, not the end.

I don't care if she is guilty or innocent. I'm sick of her either way. I have no doubt at all that she has an agent working on the TV movie deal already.

I am officially weary of Brenda Martin, her friends and her family. The Candian govt has done far more than it would normally do for Canadian criminals abroad. Enough already. I sincerely hope she jams a cork in her piehole and is never heard from again, after she thanks those who worked hard to get her back here.

That is silly. Empty in what way? The preferred outcome for the Tories would be a majority, but they would certainly be fine with another minority. This time, they truly would govern as if they had a majority.

Like Manitoba "balances" their budgets? Once you take out the couple billion per year in gravy awarded by the federal govt every year to this long-suffering and curiously badly managed province, it doesn't exactly "balance". Just a coincidence it has a longtime NDP govt, no doubt.

That is not the correct answer, not entirely. Think about whom the mainstream media call for interviews: Phil Fontaine and cronies, none of whom have the least interest in any substantive change that will upset the sweet thing they have going now.

I think that may be the first time I've been accused of being a liberal, if that is what you meant. I'm certain I have never been accused of being a Liberal, a far more scathing accusation. You overlook the obvious: despite the massive publicity of Boutniful and the incarceration of Warren Jeffs, no charge have been laid in Bountiful for the reasons I have stated. Polygamy, under the Charter and with SSM as a recent precedent- cannot be legally challenged, or not successfully challenged. If it were, it would have happened already. Except for Godbotherers, the 'morality' or 'conscience' is irrelevant under the law. You may not like that, but life is so much less stressful when you accept the inevitable. There is zero threat to individual or public safety with polygamy , just as there is none with same sex marriage. Gangs of queers have not been on the rampage, forcing young men and women into lives of depravity and sodomy since the SSM law was passed. Likewise, Polygamists are no threat to people who prefer conventional marriage models. And this of course all assumes, as it must, that only consenting adults are involved in the marriages. The same thing -of course- applies to anybody involved in conventional or samesex unions- where there is duress, there is no contract. It is pretty much a done deal, like it or not. If you don't like it, press for a change in the Charter.

I have a problem with that, given their demonstrated and fiercely defended methods and procedures, they should be abolished. The rule of law must be absolute and every accused must have due process, a critical element lacking in HRC processes. And if it is applied as it should, there is no reason for the HRC to exist as it would be part and parcel of the criminal law system, which is where it all belongs in any event.

Just as there is no reason to discriminate against people marrying because if their gender or sexuality, there is no reason to discriminate against people who choose to have more than one marriage partner. None. You truly cannot have it both ways, which is why nobody in Canada has been charged with the 'crime' of polygamy since the 1930s. And if they are charged with all the recent publicity about Bountiful, it is hard to imagine the laws standing a Charter challenge. And really- as long as all partners to a domestic arrangement are , why should we care? If the chief proponents of polygamy happen to be non-mainstream religions, why should we care about that either. The legalization of same sex marriage has surely taught us tolerance for tohers views, right? Just as I am not required to become a homosexual because of SSM laws, I am not required to marry one, two or more other people just because it is legal.And really, polygamy is -by dint of complete lack of enforcement- de facto legal now.

We do have an equivalent of Faux News, but coming at it from the opposite side of the political spectrum. We call it the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Of course, unlike Faux News, it is supported by public money. If you have any shred of doubt where the corporate bias of CBC lives, simply listen objectively to shows like The Current, Q, Michael Enright, Cross Country Checkup or others. They make no apology for their relentless presentation of one viewpoint, and one only. The Current in particular leads off pretty much every show with an attack on Harper. Actually, I do not mind that they are biased and proud of it. That clique is solidly in control at the CBC and cannot be ousted. What I resent is one cent of my money going to support it.

You do not understand the process then...... 'Objectionable' does not equate to actionable(or should not in a democracy), and doubly so when "Muslims" do not have to prosecute anything themselves or face any jeopardy whatsoever for bringing the most frivolous actions against anybody they decide has offended their delicate sensibilities. They do not have to pay a cent to accuse, to bring a serious and expensive complaint, and are represented - for free- at every stage by the HRC itself. The defendant is obliged to defend himself at his own expense, and is often unable to confront his accusers. Sickening. And you endorse this?