Neal.F.

[on the wall. It says "Stephen! Withdraw the motion! You've been weighed in the balance and found wanting!" This poll is Not good news for anyone except Federalists and Liberals. Note that Bloc support appears to have declined (from 13%-10.6 nationally) despite the disturbing finding that 50% thought Quebec separationwas likely in the next 5 years. By knocking the Bloc down to pre-2004 levels we could see that number reduced as well. If all Federalists line up together, and don't cast protest votes for (especially!) the Bloc Quebecois, as happened in '04, there is a good chance of taking back 15-20 seats from teh separatists. I am a Canadian first, and a Conservative second. A a canadian, I would be pleased to see the Bloc's momentum shattered, or better yet destroyed. As a Conservative, I am saddened that we appear headed for another term in Stornoway. The lesson to be learned is that though scandal may contribute to the groundwork that will result in a government's fall, to wit, give someone motivation to vote against the poops in power, but the corrollary is that the alternative needs to give the jaded voter a reason to go through with the switch. Ths clearly has not happened,given that Tory numbers haven't been able to crack the 30% level for more than a few hours. Given the scandals that have plagued this Govt, not to mention its excreble perfomance as a government, the alternative government party should be at a minimum of 40%! This won't make me popular with anyone, but it is the truth, and needs to be stated. w'll hear the typical rantings about how Ekos and frank Graves are in teh Liberals' pocket, but would somebody care to explain why all the other polls fail to show the Conservatives cracking 30%? And don't say its the policies...Most people don't know what those policies are!It's been all Adscam all the time, and all people see is the anger, and not the substance. And righteous indignation will only take you so far. The voters response is "We're angry too, but why should i trust you, and why should i vote for you?" It's not the policies so much as having done a poor job of articulating them.

Harper is clearly an idiot. He just handed the Liberals a club to beat him with over and over again. It does not make a difference how reasonable, measured or accurate his comments about the sponsership fraud are from now on: the Liberals can now play the victim and claim that the opposition critics are exagerating the extent of the corruption. It is the 'child porn' gaff all over again.It is still early in the campaign so it may be long forgotten by the vote comes but the episode does show a disturbing lack of judgement on Harper's part. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Fleabag is right, but I'll expand on the magnitude of the error. First off, we know the CP does not have enough boots on the ground to take more than 2-3 seats...if they're lucky. All his coments will do is drive more voters into the arms of the SEPARATIST Bloc Quebecois. If he does get to be PM, he is very possibly going to have to fight a referendum on Quebec independence, and if he's prone to hyperbole, like that, and like the Paedophila thing, he's not up to doing battle with Duceppe and Boisclair on their home turf. Conservative or not, he should want as many Federalist allies as possible in the HoC, who WILL lay partisan issues aside for the duration of a refeendum campaign. the more seats the Bloc loses, the bigger the hit to separatist prestige, and the less likely a referendum becomes. Has he ever stopped to think "what if the Bloc gets 58-60 MPs?" They will use their influence (and or money) in the provincial election, and in the referendum that will folow if the PQ wins. he's out of his league in Quebec, and its ;argely his own fault. he ignore the province for nearly two years, and lost the momentum of June 2004. He needd to concentrate on te few serious prospects he has. and more long term, has he figured out that for the long term, his future prospects in QC will depend on his being able to dislodge ant-liberal federalists and soft nationalists from the BQ? After all that was the traditional Tory base in QC. As long as the bloc remains strong, and has prestige, and the tories look mickey mouse, it's not goingto happen. Let teh Block be talen down a peg, and suddenly there';s an opportunity!

seems this is getting off topic... as far as who will win and why, I offer this. It will either be a Conservative minority, if the Tories can stay on message or a Liberal majority ifthey can take harper off message. I think the Libs are going to run two campaigns. One in Quebec, Where the Tories are not a factor, and one oin the ROC, where they will try the same tactics that have worked before. In Quebec, the Liberals will attack ferociously with a message that the Bloc is treating this as a dry run for the provincial election and that anyone considering casting a protest vote with the Bloc should seriously reconsider. The Liberals are actually right in this case: 1)if the Bloc holds what hey have, or worse, makes gain, they will spin it as support for separation. They will have the Big Mo' in heir favour as we apprach a provincial election. 2) Every seat the Bloc has weakens us vis a vis the next election, and referendum, if there's to be one. The elected Bloquistes will use their influence, and riding offices to help Pequistes win in the next election. They will use YOUR tax dollars to do it. 3) There will be too few federal representatives on teh ground to add legitimacy to the Federalist cause. 4)The Bloc is a separatist party. They are not altruistically looking out for the interests of all Quebecers, they are seeking to weaken and deligitimize tehe federal system any way they can. They exist solely for the purpose of preparing the way for the PQ to destroy the country. 5) Taking the Bloc down to 35-40 seats will damage their prestige, and lead to their unravelling, and if they lose prestige, so does Boisclair and Co. , and perhaps a referendum can be avoided entirely. 6) Staying home on voting day is not an option. The Seps won't. That will be the message, and if it works, we could see the Bloc go down to those levels. And if it results in a Liberal minority or even a majority, if the separatist movement hits the wall, it would be worth putting up with 2-4 more years of the Liberals. Whatever the Tories do, they must NOT enter into coalition or any kind of deal with the separatists! If they do, they can kiss Ontario goodbye forever. The Bloc will just use them to advance their goal, which is separation, not a better deal with Canada. In Quebec, as I;ve said I do hope the Liberals are able to get Federalists away from casting protest votes for the Bloc. These separatists need to be taken down and hard. A Conservative minority, possible ONLY f they follow this blueprint could then enter into a grand coalition (such as is being currently tried in Germany, and was done here during the wars) with the Liberals so as to get the Quebec representation they need. However, they would need to distance themselves from the tainted ones, and instead put Stephane Dion in as Intergovernmental affairs minister, Marc Garneau as Sci. & Tech, Francis Scarpeleggia, Massimo Pacetti, Pablo Rodriguez, Eleni Bakopanos and others could be given something else. (leave Cotler, Robillard, Pettigrew, Frulla etc on the backbenches. Hopefully they'll take the hint and get out of the game.). I am hoping that the NDP gets beaten up so badly that they lose official party status, so that Jack Layton and his marxist louts can never again hold the taxpayers hostage as they did for the past 8 months. I'd like to see them wiped out, but Bill Blaikie, Judy Wascilycia-Lys and pat Martin, and Libby Davies are safe. And i want the Bloc gone. though the best we can hope for is to take them down to 35 seats at worst, this time. But it would be a major blow to their prestige, and they'd unravel rather quickly after that. Here is, given a dose of reality and some wishful thinking, the ideal way it will finish up: Con: 144 (that's as good as it gets:gains in On, BC and Atl) Lib: 125 (Gains in QC offset losses elsewhere) BQ:35 (Still to damned many, but Federalists wake up) NDP: 4 (hopefully the end of the line)

Klein be damned! How the Tories can win the election The above article pretty much sums it up. I will only add that While many Canadians have their suspicions about the Libs, pursuing this line about organized crime, and personal attacks on MPs without red-hot, irrefutable and tangible evidence is risky business for Harper. It sounds like the "Martin supports paedophilia" thingy that called into question whether or not he was ready for prime time. The first crack in what had hitherto been a flawless campaign. Harper needs to be positive, upbeat, and talking abot what he has to offer, not about what soundrels the Liberals are. We know that already. But people will vote for the devil they know, if they are convinced you are the devil they don't. he needs to define himself and his party, before the Liberals define him.

It is astonishing that the NDP doesn't mop up in Quebec. A party based on socialist trade unions, and radical social liberalism should win every time.... They have even affirmed Quebc's "Right to self-determination" yet people still don't flock to them, logically, Parti Quebecois members who would dabble in federal politics should be embracing them. It would even make more sense on startegic grounds too... Elect a bunch of wet noodles who are on the hook as having supported Quebec's right to "self determination, and you have a referendum cakewalk. The Federal government (If NDP) would not have a leg to stand on.

August, My absence from this forum has been rather prolonged, and I have not yet had the cjhance to become accustomed to your personality yet, so forgive me for misinterpreting your intent. I believe that while one might get a bloody nose for standing up to a bully, ONCE, more often than not the bully (and others like him) will leave him alone once they see he is willing to stand up for himself. That is my observation from the schoolyard to the world stage. On the other hand, whistling past the graveyard will yield even greater consequences down the road. I have said dozens of times, that had Britain & France been willing to stand up to a bully named Hitler in '37, at the cost of very few men, they could have spared the world the carnage that resulted as a result of their failure to act. Likewise, I beleive that the actions being taken by the Coalition of the Willing at this time, while costing some lives, will in the long run spare us unspeakable carnage in the future. That means going after Islamofascists abroad, and reining them in at home. Are there mistakes being made? Certainly. Mistakes are made in any war. War being what it is, does not happen in a controlled environment, but is rather subject to factors beyond anyone;'s control. The biggest mistake of all would be failure to act decisively, since thugs and bullies understand force alone. They have no fear of lawyers and International Criminal Courts in The Hague. I think that GWB should concentrate on working with Putin, maybe not on Iraq, but on other anti-terrorist operations. Russia could become a valuable ally long term in creating a balance to keep China in check. Also Friendly relations with Russia could produce an atmosphere whereby control over loose nuclear materials and technology can be regained.

Tony Campolo is a notorious liberal, who is on the wrong (left) side of just about everything, but I do know this, he does legitimately love Jesus, and shares the Gospel at every possible opporttunity. If you meet him, he'll have his new testament out, and give you the plan of salvation. Even though he is politically liberal, anti-Christian bigots will hate him anyway. HE has suggested that Christians take a page out of the Latter Day Saints playbook and require a mandatory two year service in the Mission field.

(I posted this in another thread, but will add, in light of something august said, that marriage is not a contract between two people. That's acivil union. A mariage is a COVENANT between one man, one woman and God) Same sex marriage undermines the traditional nuclear family, which is the basic building block of western society. It undermines the extended family which is the building block of Asian society. It's bad enough that traditional families are being undemined at every turn by various forces in society that snicker, calling it archaic and irrelevant. The families that are strong and do stay together are a testament to the fact that it is the best system under which to produce shealthy balanced adults who will contribute to building, not tearing down a better society. Nobody is suggesting denying homosexuals to dispose of their estates as they see fit, or that hospital visits be denied, however, I and others like me do not think that marriage should be extended to anyone but heterosexual couples consisting of one man and one woman . Nor do we believe that mariages should be , as Rod Stewart once put it, like Dog licenses, renewed every year if the couple sees fit. we need couples to be committed fopr a lifetime, raising their childen and strengthening families, not a society that just shacks up for awhile, then moves on when one partner outgrows the other. the damage to society resultant from such a cynical worldview should be obvious to all. I personally don't think that heterosexual common law relationships should be viewed as marriages either. for they are not. neither, in my opinion, are civil marriages. why not just call them what they are? Civil unions. The only people who will benefit from same sex marriage, ar the divorce lawyers, social workers, and psychiatrists. Here's an interesting perspective from some who has lived the homosexual lifestyle. http://www.chp.ca/arc-CHPSpeaksOut/NotAbou...riage_ExGay.htm

Sweal, I don't expect you to accept my answer about why gay marriage is detrimental, but here it is. Same sex marriage undermines the traditional nuclear family, which is the basic building block of western society. It undermines the extended family which is the building block of Asian society. It's bad enough that traditional families are being undemined at every turn by various forces in society that snicker, calling it archaic and irrelevant. The families that are strong and do stay together are a testament to the fact that it is the best system under which to produce shealthy balanced adults who will contribute to building, not tearing down a better society. There are loyalties that transcend generations. The utilitarian forces that are trying to adbvance alternative lifestyles are doing their best to drive wedges into families. It will facilitate their end game of eliminating the weaker member of society, ie: the old and infirm via euthanasia (After all if it's grandpa and yoiu bnever really knew him anway since he moved downeast to be with his 3d common law wife, the decision comes from a more detached persepective) or abortion, for children that are less than perfect... Nobody is suggesting denying homosexuals to dispose of their estates as they see fit, or that hospital visits be denied, however, I and others like me do not think that marriage should be extended to anyone but heterosexual couples consisting of one man and one woman . Nor do we believe that mariages should be , as Rod Stewart once put it, like Dog licenses, renewed every year if the couple sees fit. we need couples to be committed fopr a lifetime, raising their childen and strengthening families, not a society that just shacks up for awhile, then moves on when one partner outgrows the other. the damage to society resultant from such a cynical worldview should be obvious to all. As I said earlier it depersonalizes things. I personally don't think that heterosexual common law relationships should be viewed as marriages either. for they are not. neither, in my opinion, are civil marriages. why not just call them what they are? Civil unions. The only people who will benefit from same sex marriage, ar the divorce lawyers, social workers, , and psychiatrists. Here's an interesting perspective from some who has lived the homosexual lifestyle. http://www.chp.ca/arc-CHPSpeaksOut/NotAbou...riage_ExGay.htm I believe in traditional values because they are time tested to produce the best results, not because of any "superstious beliefs" I further believe that God gave us the Bible in part to teach us the best way to live, for ourselves, and the benefit of others. It also serves to give us a long term perspective on things, rather than an expedient "what course of action serves ME best at this time?"

Now that Bush has been re-elected, the idea of going stateside is tempting. Vist New hampshire sometime. I challenge you to find anywhere else a place with better state parks. The only state taxes there are are value added taxes, and that is only on hotels & restaurants and other luxuries. yet they manage just fine. I will agree that some taxation is neccesary, but not the outrageous taxes we pay in Canada for 3d rate healthcare, non-existent so-security, 5th rate roads and infastructure and undefunded armed forces. What is being taken from us is in large part wasted, or mismanaged. It's really about poor stewardship. we could cut our taxes substantially if money was well managed. Why not defund special interest groups, multiculturalism, and political parties just for starters?

Maplesyrup, Paul Martin may have been BORN in Windsor, he is truly a Quebecer in every way. That is a charade. Official bilingulaism is grossly unfair, and a huge waste of time and money. I grant you that knowledge of more than one language is an asset, but for someone in BC, for example, it would make more sense to speak English and Chinese, or English and Punjabi, and in Saskatchewan, Ukrainian would be more useful than French.

Sweal, Canada needs to pull its weight in the world, and not leave all the heavy lifting to others. Australia is a country roughly the same size as canada, geographically and in terms of population, yet they show common sense, resolve and character. In addition to backing the USA in the war against Terrorism and islamofascism, domestically, they have had a sensible immigration policy. It is one of the most difficult countries to get into, and as a result it does not face the serious threat canada now faces because of Trudeau's multiculturalism at all costs policies, and allowance of a dual immigration policy. W never kowtowed to the US and Britain's intersst, due to affinities resulting from historical development it is in all of our common interest to protect Judeo-Christian western civilization from atheistic, utilitarian humanistic socialism and fascism in whatever form it takes. Nothing cheapens life more than atheism and utilitarianism. Remnant moralistic statism? Abortion, for example is not about religion. it is about civil rights... the most basic one of all: the ruight to life, from conception until natural death. By legalizing abortion the right to be free of an "inconvenience" that results (in the forfeit of an innocent life) from one's own actions, supersedes the right to life. I don't see that as progress. the War against terrorism and Islamofascism served the citizens of these countries in many ways. by taking the fight TO them, the initiative and momentum is on the side of right now. Afghanistan is now free, Iraq is free, and on its way to democracy. Islamic police states are now under threat from within. get rid of the enabling police states and you weaken the terrorists. Charest: Yes i think it is a bad thing when a government voluntarily goes about dismantling the traditional nuclear family by bringing in gay marriage, and by brining in a "physician" who is trained in partial birth abortions, and will require taxpayers to fund this horrific practice.

the governments in our excessively overtaxed jurisdictions should become more accountable for how they spend our money. As I said if New hampshire with no state income tax can build good roads, so can Canadian provinces.

Typical post Trudeau canada: Hoping to find utopia in the mushy middle. Trudeau sissified the country, and few people are willing to publicly take a principled stand on anything. The only thing many canadians seem to believe in is that they must show the weasels of the world that they are agaisnt anything the americans do. The new canada would probably have stayed neutral in the second world war (a Quebec appeasement attitude) "After all, who are we to judge tha Nazis? It's up to the germans to decide on their own goverment" would have been the mantra. or "The Poles brought it on themselves for refusing to use diplomacy and work out a deal giving the Germans what they wanted, ie the Polish Corridor and Danzig." Israel has repelled attack after attack by Arab police states, and repugnant terrorists like Yasir Arafat and his PLO. Canada should take the principled stand that until the Palis abandon terrorism and violence, and rescind their principle that Israel has no right to exist, they deserve nothing. Let's see some good faith. I wonder how safe Canadian Jews must feel

Terrible Sweal, Pierre Trudeau destroyed the moral fabric of this country. This is NOT the country my father and gradfather fought for in the two world wars. Quebec is holding the rest of the country back. Canada should be showing the class and backbone of the UK and Australia & Poland not kowtowing to Islamofascistsand globalists in the spirit of France and Germany. We have had a Quebec agenda foisted on us for too long. The country is becoming sissified, and i think the only to turn things around is to get rid of Quebec. Jean Charest's government is bent on making sure Quebec becomes the most socially liberal jurisdiction in North America. I live in quebec, and my house is on the market so we can get out and watch Quebec leave, and watch the Liberal party go down with them. The Liberals have been blessed with a gift called the separatist movement. They are able to scare enough people to vote for them lest the nasty separatists come up the middle, so as to ensure enough of those 75 seats to guarantee at least a minority government. BTW, Pierre Berton once said that 1967 was canada's last good year... since that time, 38 years we have had Quebec prime ministers (and the Quebec agenda) for all but 13 months. (7 months of Joe Clark, 4 months of Kim Campbell, 2 months of John Turner)

The best thing for Canada would be to let Quebec go. Quebec is ultra-liberal and European in mindset. Because of its 75 seats, the Libs can continue to ram quebec's agenda down the throats of the ROC. That's why our military is a shambles. That's why Canada US relations are in the dumper. Time to end official bilingualism, a policy whereby most Canadians are disadvantaged, and gives the inside track for all federal jobs to Quebecers. Quebec's 75 seats virtually ensure that a Quebecer will always occupy the PMO. It has reached the point where the LPC has abandoned its practice of alternating between Quebec and non-Quebec leaders.

Harper reminds many people of John Kerry, methinks. I think he lost support when he would not take a firm stand against abortion, gay marriage legal pot etc. It left most so-cons, except those with CHP candidates , with nobody to vote for. Some went and voted for socially conservative individual candidates without regard to party affiliation, since the Tories offered nothing but flip-flops. It would not suprise me to learn that Liberals ended up winning some seats because so-cons either stayed home, (a possibility given the record low turnout) or held their noses and voted for a candidate vs. a party.

August, I disagree that Holland brought it on themselves by being part of the coalition of the willing. Radical Moslems have been building terror cells covertly in Europe for years, because the lefty liberal regimes permitted it. Just like Canada, a good base of operations for them. Don't worry. they'll strike us too, once they deem the time is right. The Moslems knew the jig was up in Holland when the people finally threw out the loony left and elected the Christian Democrats of Balkenende, and sent a significant number of List Pym Fortuyn candidates to parliament. This is going to send liberals who post here over the edge, but it is high time we all wised up in the west. We are at WAR, whether our blissfully ignorant PM wishes to acknowledge that fact or not. It is time we ended the moronic practice of allowing Quebec to run its own immigration system. They are bringing in Francophone Moslems by the tens of thousands each year, from Algeria, Tunisia & Lebanon (now... who, recently deceased, operated from and brought misery and death to those very places?) and soon, given the negative birthrate and high abortion in quebec, Moslems will have considerable clout . And the problem is not confined to Quebec. many of them use Quebec's policy to enter Canada by the back door. and if canada changes its own immigration policy there will remain the leak along the Ottawa river. I think also, that we should place an immediate moratorium on all Islamic immigration to canada, and serve notice to everyone, that anyone caught engaging in terroist conspiracies, and knowingly assisting terrorists in any way, be it financial, through membership, or logistical even moral support, should be subject to immediate deportation, and in cases where citizenship already exists, citizenship is to be revoked. As for canadians born here who participate in terrorism in any way described above, throw them in jail, or offer them a one way ticket to the Moslem police state of their choice, that will accept them. I think the Dutch seem to be waking up to the error of their ways and hopefully soon will implement such policies. Immigration is fine when you have people who are willing to play by your rules. These Sharia courts have crossed that line. That shows clearly that they want to remake our Judeo-Christian based society in the image of the very Islamofascist police states they left. Let me make myself very clear: I WELCOME immigrants who want to come and enrich our society by being constructive participants, and accepting our way of doing things. There can only be ONE law in the country that all are subject to, regardless of race or CREED.

One reason for the state of our highways, is that we don't have weight restrictions on Canadian highways, except between March 15 and May 15th, which is the Spring thaw. Another probelm is that Canadian roads (especially in Quebec are poorly built and maintained even less. I go to New hampshire where there is not state income tax,ans their roads are top notch. They are built on proper foundations, and they don't cheap out on materials. For those who have never been there, New hampshire is a mountainous area, and you wake up to temps of near freezing even in summer, and winter conditions are more harsh there than in most of Quebec. I can say the same about Vermont and maine roads too. The only place in the USA that does not have weight restrictions on the roads is Michigan, and my experience driving there is that their roads are still better than Canadian, because they don't cheap out.

Bush will not bring back the draft.... Let's have a look at a few things: Nixon ended the draft. Jimmah Cartah (a Dumbocrud) brought back mandatory registration with selective servce. The Dumbocruds are trying to scare people with the idea that Bush will bring back the draft. First of all if he did, there'd (rightly) be riots. Finally, last week a resolution to bring back the draft was defeated 400-2 on the House. The two who supported it were Dumbocruds, including the Bill's sponsor, Congressamn Charles Rangel.

That is still avery Liberal voting record. When you are more Liberal than Babara Boxer there's a problem. liberalism is the one consistent of Kerry's career. And yes he is very unprincipled. I have trouble understanding how anybody would vote for him. Howard Dean may be a left wing extremist, but one thing I can say for him is that he IS the genuine article. ...and fortunately unelectable. Would somebody please tell me how it is MODERATE to support the slaughter of the unborn...or MODERATE to support the desecration of the institution of marriage to include tose who commit unnatural acts? Since when is it MODERATE to support Euthanasia? or stem cell research or cloning? If you ask me, Conservatives are the moderates, and if you look at the positions they take, liberal Democrats are the radical extremists. I could ask the same question about the liberal appropriation of the word "progressive".

The ACLUs take If the ACLU says it's so, then it must be so. /sarcasm off

When the courts are stacked with liberal judges, obviously they are going to interpret the law from a liberal perspective. The Trudeau Charter of rights isn't worth using for toilet paper. It replaced the Diefenbaker bill of Rights which was sufficient. Trudeau wanted to force his vile visiuon on the country long after he was gone. Parlaiment needs to reclaim its authority, before the tyrants in robes render parliament irerelevant. Interesting how you say that it is designed to protect minorities from majorities. where's the protection for the Christian? the unborn child? It's just a neat way for liberals to get their agenda passed, when they know they will not get the approval of the people.

I miss Reagan too.... You got it, the Bush haters cannot be reasoned with . I rjoice every time i hear of a bush Cheney ballot being sent out! Black Dog: Kerry has the most liberal voting of any Senator.. even more so than Ted Kennedy. The second most Liberal Senator is none other than John Edwards. Apart from his support for abortion (a la paul Martin) and gay marriage (he signed a letter along with Kenndy and the Mass. Congressman, in support of Equal Marriage, in spite of what he SAYS now) , he would sign the US on to the International Criminal court, and subjugate the US more to the UN than it already is. The Global test (take it here!) is a very disturbing concept. Apart from that he doesn't HAVE a policy except that which Terry Mcauliffe tells him to talk about on a prticular day. However, It would not be anything like the Clintoon admin (which was a far cry from conservative) since kerry is THE most Liberal senator there is. It seems to me that the moderate Dems have abandoned the party. So what if Michael Moore supported Wesley Clark. Wesley Clark is an ultra feminist pro-abort. Madonna suppored him too. Completely unprincipled.

When you threaten to use the state as an instrument of your will, that's exactly what you are talking about. Governments fine, imprison, and execute. I wouldn't call any of these guys "extremists." I consider very few people radical enough to be labelled extremist, the vast majority are just compromising somewhere on the same scale rather than on the polarised end of it. I didn't mention abortion. I will, however, say that legislation without universal acceptance is not going to be a solution. That's a fallacy of converse accident. What you have described is a separate offence - Mr. John's violation of his marriage contract resulting in bodily harm to his wife - and therefore is not an argument against prostitution. Prove it. That's not a priori fact. Once again, this is a failure of public goods and public space, not law or society. For instance, there's a McDonalds near my home that's near a sex shop. I take my kids to the McDonalds sometimes because there's a playground there and they can have a happy meal and play around while my wife and I have a coffee and a chat. If there were no public property, I could complain to the owners of McDonalds and of the street, and any neighbouring businesses, that I wouldn't be doing any business with them because I didn't want my kids to see the sex toys in the window of the sex shop. If enough people complained, the stores could sue the sex shop for causing them a loss of business, or could persuade the street owner to evict the sex shop by threatening to move elsewhere themselves. So there's a way around that problem without resorting to the violent activities of a state. And the solution will truly reflect what people want, rather than what some politician or judge has decided is best. I wrote about this at some length here. Rather than repeat myself, I'll ask you to read what I wrote and argue from there. The Libertarian Party will not get anywhere, ever. The main problem they face is that so many libertarians are opposed to electoral politics altogether, so they will never support the party or vote for them (or at all). Hugo, are you advocating anarchy? I think Governments do have the right to fineand imprison, though I have strong reservations on the death penalty, based primarily on the premise that life & death is too much power to invest in government, except where deploying the armed forces is concerned. However, I disagree with the idea that anti-abortion legislation won't work without universal acceptance. imprisoning abortionsits for murder for a good long time is a good place to start. nevertheless, abortion legislation needs to be backed up with supportive action by the government and people for the mothers and the children in question, and the fathers who helped conceive the child should be required to share the responsibility until a) the child is born and given up for adoption or the age of minority of the child should the mother decide to keep it, as opposed to giving the child up. I call anyone who believes it is fine to murder the unborn an extremist. Mr John has only breached the COVENANT (not contract) with his wife, AND placed her in grave danger without her knowledge or consent. He has also hurt any children there may be in the family by his actions. He has taken money that should have been used to feed, clothe and otherwise care for his family and spent it on something that can ultimately destroy his family. Pornography destroys families and hurts thoise involved in the industry by dehumanizing people and turning them into objects to satisfy their sexual desire. It often gets to the point where a man can't be with his own wife without the aid of porn, whether on the spot or conjuring up the fantasy in his brain. It is a betrayal of the family bond too, in the sense that a man (in most cases it's the men) is committing adukltery in his heart against the children's mother. What do you think about zoning laws? That municipality should e lobbied to rezone the area so as torequire the sex shop to open up in an industrial area . Zoning l;aws are the only thing that would protect you from somebody opening up a brothel, or rave or head shop on your street. The Libertarian Party: My experience with them confirms what you say. You couldn't get them to agree on very much. Look what happened on the life issues in the USA. Ron paul ( OB-GYN) ran twice for President on a pro-life platform, in that the right to life began at conception and was the foundation on which all other rights stood. The party steadily increased its votes with him as nominee, In the '90s and now, pro-choice people (Rothbardians) such as Andre Marrou and harry Browne ran and the party has been losing votes ever since. I will read what you say about drugs and get back to you later.