PocketRocket

We not only CAN put a limit on health care cost per person, we DO. The limit being the resources available in the area where the person is hospitalized. For example, a patient in Timmins, Ontario will be cared for within the limits of the resources in the Timmins hospital system, with the exeption of a few who might be sent to a dedicated cancer-care center. Outside of a Terri Schiavo-type case wherein the person has been declared brain-dead, we should endeavour to keep patients alive as long as the resources are in place to do so.

One thing seems certain; It's gonna get worse before it gets better. Another seems certain, at least to me, Canada will take a hit before all is said and done. The radicals who are doing this seem intent on putting the entire world on notice with a simple message; "No one is safe". But some people have realized that simple fact for years. Society is a thin veneer. When things start to break down, the "civilised" man turns into quite a different animal. What comes will come. As one individual, I feel fairly well prepared.

That may or may not be true, but sometimes it is cause for a long string of posts with two people sniping at each other about who is the better debater, and does nothing but distract from issues being discussed, not to mention wasting space, and the time of people who want to read the really relevant posts.

And therein lay the biggest difference (possibly) between Martin and Harper. Martin stands back (publicly, anyway) from the fray, and makes diplomatic "that's too bad" noises. Harper jumps in with both feet and starts yelling "corruptiont, corruption", which he continues to do week after week. I can't even count how many times I've heard him quoted as saying the Liberal party, not individuals, but the entire party, is corrupt. In so doing, he simply makes himself look like a very angry individual, and not a very likeable one at that. I believe this has hurt his credibility with many Canadians. I'm not sure if this is meant to be sarcastic. The tenor of the rest of the post makes it appear so. But either way, the Liberal mindset, like the mindset of any party, is to keep their own heads above water. To do so, they must give the appearance of doing what they think is right for the country. This is politics. It's all about public perception. The Liberals have proven to be better at appearances, hence their continuing popularity despite Gomery, etc. The fact that the Conservative party doesn't seem to have figured this out yet does not speak well of Harper et al.

I stand corrected, and I thank you again for the education. That sounds about right. I believe it goes beyond that. A polarized debate is one thing. Personal barbs and insults, innuendo, demeaning comments; these are all becoming far too common and tend to snowball once started. What's worse is where they leave off in one thread, they often tend to pick up in another. I mean seriously, who cares that "I beat you in the ***** thread". Nobody's getting any prizes for "winning" or "losing" here, so who really cares. Make your point, address any comments you feel need addressing, and leave off with trying to belittle your adversary. That's the kind of thing that grows out of control and takes over a thread so that it becomes a pissing contest and totally loses sight of the topic. Okay. I'm done whingeing for today

I agree that he sometimes makes sweeping statements, sometimes with little to back them up, and likewise often speaks in black-and-white absolutes, when there are often shades of gray to consider. As for the "fools" comment, I had addressed that one post before yours. {(edited to say): Sorry, make that one post AFTER yours.} And please, I don't need a dissertation. It's late, I'm old, and I have to go to work tomorrow. I'm off to bed. BTW, check your PM's.

I find I have to agree in principle with EUREKA in this. In my current job, I do tech support. It's amazing how many people cannot be bothered to read something so fundamentally simple as how to set up an answering machine, or how to use the remote control for their tv set. If people can't take five minutes to read a simple 2-page manual for something so simple, and would rather wait 10 minutes on the phone to have someone hold their hand and walk them through it, then how do you expect them to go through several pages of data to be able to make an informed decision on an important national topic???

Regarding "whingeing", it's a word I like. Being a fan of British humour novelists, most notably Douglas Adams and Tom Holt, I have read the words a multitude of times, but never actually used it in conversation. After some controversy here wherein someone was accused of being a previously-banned member returning under a different name, the word "whinge" was cited as evidence against that person. I jumped in and took the opportunity to ask exactly how it is pronounced. I believe it was Kimmy who educated me in that regard. Nonetheless, I continue to use the word when I see fit. I like it. It's colourful. Back to topic, I think it IS as bad as I paint. I've said many times that a person can say ANYTHING, if they choose the right words. Likewise, a person can make any point, and do so in a non-offensive fashion. Many people here choose to be antagonistic, which leads to the aforementioned pissing contests. Many others make sweeping, unsupported comments, like a few I just responded to in another thread. We should be endeavouring to raise the level of discourse, and thereby raise ourselves, rather than trying to drag each other down into the mire. Humour is not the issue. There are plenty of very witty people here. What spirit they choose to use their wit to get across IS the issue.

Perhaps they consider it fodder for news because this guy is already in the public eye over the whole doctored-tape episode. Maybe if it were some obscure back-bencher who no one had ever heard of, then it might have merited just a passing remark. But Grewal is already under media scrutiny, and like vultures, the media will cirle a wounded man until they see an opening. This is true of any news media. I don't believe we can single out the CBC here.

And replies in kind will hardly do anything to elevate the level of discourse.

So the main contention, in this rather protracted and partisan bicker, is whether this one incident should even be considered simply because it is not of the same scope as the sponsorship scandal. To those who make this their contention, I say "fair enough". But also you must consider the fact that Gomery had been an ongoing story for quite some time. Each and every time a Conservative puts his foot in it, someone says "This is nothing compared to Gomery". And in saying this, most times you are right. But the fact remains, it is a story, and it is a black mark against at least one Conservative MP. Also, take note of the fact that most of the previous negative press about Conservatives in the past several months have mostly faded away, and this is fresh and new. Whether or not the Sponsorship fiasco was a bigger wrong is not the point. Wrong is wrong. Grewal is center stage because of the whole tape episode, and just as that's starting to fade from the public's attention, this jumps up to slap him in the face. Bottom line, if Grewal is corrupt, it does not mean all the Conservatives are corrupt. Likewise, some of the Liberals who were responsible in the sponsorship scandal are indeed corrupt, but that does not make all Liberals, or even the Liberal party corrupt. Not even, ARGUS, the "ones who were in power", unless you want to be more specific and name names. If you choose to do so, please cite evidence supporting your claims. .....is hardly a rational argument, and is not any form of debate. Nor is it a worthy representation of your considerable intelligence. To the Liberal types, enjoy your time ranting on Grewal. To the Conservative types, relax, Gomery will still be around for a while yet.

When I first came to MLWeb several months ago, I had been used to prowling around a couple American forum websites. They were invariably full of partisan bickering based more on party lines than on substance. At times they would degenerate into ad-hom-filled attacks, personal insults, and pissing contests. Then I found this place. I reveled in it. I gloried in the fact that this, my first Canadian forum site, was filled with (mostly) intelligent adults who could discuss, debate, disagree, etc, and all in a civilized and mature fashion. I took pride in the fact that my fellow Canadians were capable of a more civil level of discourse than our American neighbours. Over the past several weeks I have seen a marked decline in the quality of the posts. Invariably, if a thread manages to reach three pages, you will find that a large percentage of the posts will involve two or three or four individuals (and these vary, I'm not saying it's always the same few) who abandon the points they were originally debating and start in about who is beating whom in the debate. Then it degenerates further into whingeing on about who won which debate in some OTHER thread. That isn't what it's about, people. There are no points scored here. No referee. No net. No goaltender. This isn't your high-school debating society wherin teacher kept score. And if it were, half the people here would have been disqualified by now for a variety of infractions. Terms like "Knee-jerk Liberal" or "Neo-Con" have no place here, at least not when they are aimed at other participants. Neither does innuendo like "the ignorant claim that...." followed by a quote from the opponent's post. Numerous posts which simply contain a quote of a previous post, containing a couple-hundred words, followed by a snide remark are also of little use, and have no contributing value. Hell, take a couple hours and just go through some of the longer threads with an eye towards which posts are of no value and contribute nothing to the topic at hand, and I'm sure you'll find that over 50% of the posts in the last 2-3 months could be completely jettisoned without losing any relevant content whatsoever. I am not completely innocent of any wrongdoing, but I attempt to limit my childishness to making the occasional good-natured facetious remark which is not aimed at dragging anyone down. I acknowledge one exception to this, of which I am still ashamed, and even it was mild by comparison. If anyone can point it out, fine. If not, I'll let sleeping dogs lie. This was a GREAT forum. WAS. It could be again. Just about all the people here are quite intelligent, and I'm sure most, if not all, are adults. Why don't we all try acting like it???

Well, if I can get back to the original topic question without offending anyone who is involved in the little bicker above..... Boy oh boy, you said a mouthful. Robert A Heinlein pointed out this dichotomy in two statements. I'll paraphrase as best as I can recall them "Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men" "Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser that one man" "Who decides???" I believe Heinlein was paraphrasing someone else in these comments, but I don't know who it was. As a whole, I'd tend to agree with the first statement. People, as individuals, may be intelligent. As a group, they become less so, and the bigger the group, the stupider it gets. Anyone who wishes to argue this point would do well to first attend a large sporting event or concert or the like. Increase the size of the crowd, and you lower the common intellectual denominator. Additionally, the larger the group, the harder it is to reach any sort of concensus. But my concern goes beyond either of these points. We elect representatives to run the country. These reps are supposedly dedicated to doing this job, and spend the bulk of their working time doing so. I do not know every issue that's going on within the hallowed halls of Parliament. I'm sure none of us do. Nonetheless, given the chance to vote on each and every little item, people will do so. But as a group, they will surely not vote wisely. I don't recall the name of the philosopher who warned of "Bread and Circuses", which is what he claimed the general populace would bring about given a popular vote on all issues. After many years in the entertainment industry, working with groups ranging from a few people up to crowds of 50,000 or more, I would tend to agree with his sentiment.

The link provided by BlackDog (thank you very much) does not seem to show anything that would force someone to perform a wedding ceremony of the same-sex sort. Already in many churches weddings are not performed for those who are not members of that particular religious sect. Example; the Catholic Church, or at least many of its parishes, will not perform a wedding ceremony unless both participants are Catholic, or agree to convert to Catholicism. I ran into this roadblock with my own marriage. I was born and raised Catholic, and was non-practising at the time. My bride was raised Protestant, and was also non-practising. We approached 3 different Catholic churches (mostly to please my mother, may she RIP), and all 3 turned us down. So, being that a church can already refuse to perform a wedding ceremony based on the tenets of that particular religious institution, I'm sure they will continue to be able to do so based on the premise that homosexuality is a proscribed practice within said religion. Others, such as Justices of the Peace would probably be able to do the same if each individual could provide credible evidence that performing such a ceremony would be an offense to his/her own religious beliefs. All that being said, I'm sure that the SSM crowd will not have too much trouble finding someone who is willing to perform a wedding. After all, wedding ministers charge for their services too, and not all are bound by particularly stern religious beliefs. Hmmm. There might be a career opportunity here. Maybe I should dust off the old Bible, and take that mail-in theology course

Has anyone ever bothered to ask which policies they want changed???

.....which contributed nothing.

In my Godfather's case, it was six days from diagnosis to surgery. That was about 2 years ago. This is a contribution to the subject at hand??? Perhaps I'm missing something. If so, please educate me.

"Terrorist" is what the big, powerful army calls the small, sneaky army. Notice how for quite some time, attacks on US troops in Iraq, AFTER the USA had invaded, were called "terrorist attacks" on the news. When you attack a soldier, you are carrying out an act of war. If you are doing so in plain clothes when your country is occupied, then it's called "guerilla warfare". Otherwise, we could well describe America's war of independance as a series of terrorist acts as few, if any, American soldiers had actual uniforms. Besides, they hid behind bushes and sniped, whereas the accepted method of warfare at the time was to line up in nice neat ranks, facing your apponents, and then simply blow the hell out of each other. Sorry about getting facetious, but this thread is starting to annoy me with its circular arguments.

Personally, I agree completely with this statement. However, history shows exceptions to this, committed by many nations at many times. When a cause is hopeless, when you're vastly outnumbered and out-armed, sometimes you must resort to extreme measures. In rare occasions, even when a country KNOWS it is going to win a war, it will sometimes commit atrocities for the sake of expediency, ie; to haten an end to said war. Example??? Sure. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. Considering these two bombs killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, men, women and children in an instant, and left an equivalent number of people dying a slow and painful death from radiation poisoning, it puts a bit of a reverse spin on America's tirade against attacks on civilians. America would have won that war. No question. But they chose to kill innocent civilians to bring about a quicker surrender. This has been argued many times, in many forums, and in the public eye via various media. Why the USA went into these two countries will probably never be known. But in the case of Afghanistan, the official reason was to go after Bin Laden and Al Queda, who were thought to be hidden inside it's borders. Afghanistan itself did nothing to dissuade the USA of this idea, now, when given an ultimatum, did they budge an inch on their refusal to hand over any A.Q. operatives or figureheads. Iraq was a completely different kettle of fish. If you go back, and go over the reasons Bush and Company gave for invading Iraq, you will find that "bringing democracy" was a reason given only after they failed to find the much-vaunted WMD's. For several months, it seemed that Bush changed the "reason" for invading Iraq each morning along with his underwear. To synopsize, the USA went into both these countries to serve USA's interests as deemed "necessary" by BUSH & Co. Overthrowing the "corrupt, dictatorial" governments was a convenient justification which was not even used until after the fact. 1))) I agree, wholeheartedly. 2))) Again, I agree. 3))) I hope you're right. It certainly hurts their cause in the eyes of most western countries and people. Unfortunately, it seems to glorify their cause in the eyes of those fanatically-twisted few who may not otherwise make a viable recruit for such a cause, but willing join to follow the same fotsteps.

In your own words, "that is not an answer". You have justified your "scathing" style as being "Nothing personal, that's just the way I write". The beauty of an internet forum is that you can review your posts before hitting the "add reply" button. It not at all like saying "that's just the way I speak", wherein you cannot take back your words once they have left your mouth. ANYTHING can be said at any time, if it is said with the right words. You are obviously VERY intelligent, HUGO, with a great command of the english language, and so could easily make your point in a fashion that would be less provocative. But you CHOOSE not to. Why you, or anyone else, make such a choice is a mystery to me. Provoking someone you are debating with simply polarizes the argument further and makes it MORE difficult to reach any sort of accord. Often, there will be no agreement between two parties, but debating WITHOUT such provocation often leads to agreements on other topics later. Hell, it can even lead to friendship. But belittling opponents in debate says more about oneself than it does about the victim of the diatribe.

(Had to split my reply into 2 parts as the 10-quote-limit was giving me error messages.....) The difference between the Koran and the Bible, it has seemed to me, was that Jesus was a wandering preacher who willingly sacrificed himself as a lesson, while Muhahmed was a warrior and a ruler in some fairly nasty times. I can't imagine Jesus telling his people to go out and cut off the heads of those who refuse to believe in him, for example. Jesus, no. God, on the other hand, told Abraham to go out and sacrafice his own son, relenting onoly at the last moment. But God also (according to Kings, I forget which chapter/verse) also sent bears to maul and kill several children who had made fun of one of His prophet's baldness, calling him "Old bald, thou". Hell, even Noah's story shows God indiscriminately killing off nearly the entire population of the planet, down to the smallest animal. The Old Testament is simply fraught with violence, incest, polygamy, child abuse, you name it. If you consider that any prophet is simply a messenger, and also consider the acts attributed to God/Allah/Jehova etc, shall we blame the messenger for the message??? Because I'm me. I don't give the self-serving diatribes of dictators, mass-murderers, wacko cultists or goofy hollywood scientology actors a helluva lot of consideration because I don't think they merit any. *chuckle* The scientologists we agree on, at least. But if you look into scientology and its history more closely, you'll find that most of its adherents are a sad, brainwashed bunch. Have you heard about all the threats to various publications which tried to do stories on the scientology movement??? Even Time pulled the second part of an article they had begun which was to have been spread over two issues. Scientologists scare me nearly as much as organized terror. Maybe more, because we NEVER hear anything bad about them, probably because of the threats mentioned above, IMHO. We can have that discussion as soon as he straps explosives to himself and runs at an American patrol. Unlikely that he will ever do so. But with the wealth he was born to, why would he bother leading such a movement, when it forces him into exile, living the life that you claim others are seeking to escape??? Why did Paul Bernardo become a rapist while none of his family did? Why did John Wayne Hinkley try to kill Reagan to impress an actress he'd never met? Why do certain people join cults and drink Kool Aid? I'm not looking for deep philosophical meaning as to why certain wackos become wackos. They just are. You are citing individual examples of twisted depravity. These can hardly be applied to a situation in which there are thousands of people willing to fight and die for what they feel is a valid cause

These people claim to have a cause. Whether you and I disagree with their cause or their methods is irrelevent. Paul Barnardo can hardly claim to have been raping and killing helpless teenage girls for a cause. They certainly claimed to be. They were trying, like bin Laden, to create an earthly paradise. Except their earthly paradise would be achieved when the prolotariate threw off the invislble reigns of oppression by the capitalist enemy. Unfortunately, the prolotariate seemed disinclined to do so, and thus needed to be prodded along. Terrorising him was one method, forcing the government to clamp down on liberties - hopefully establishing a tyranny, was the other. With a tyranny in place perhaps they could then prod the lumpen prolotariate to get on with destroying capitalism. The IRA???? Trying to achieve an "earthly paradise"??? I seem to recall saying something about "sweeping generalizations" being a disservice. Have you ever read the Quran??? Have you even ever held a copy in your hands??? Only portions, and what you might call the highlights. I've never ready Sexy Sally and her Studly Dog Brutus either, but I suspect it wouldn't be proper reading in Church. Judging by the title, I would tend to agree. But then again, when the album "Jesus Christ Superstar" first came out back around 1970, it created a furor and was denounced by the Vatican. Until someone actually LISTENED to it and read the lyrics. Within a couple years, it was being used in some Catholic schools. Remember the ruckus that "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" raised when it was first published??? Banned in many parts pf the USA. For what???

The question was posed earlier in this thread whether or not Canada should be concerned about an attack. Consider that (according to CTV evening news Thurs July 7) Canada was one of 6 countries which were warned of being on the terrorist "hit" list. Apparently this list has been fairly well known for some time, although this is the first I heard of it. If the list is given any credence, and if we consider the other 5 have already been attacked in one form or another, England being the last, then I believe we DO have cause to be concerned. Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, all would make good, high-profile targets. Toronto, I believe, would be most likely. Think of the furor should the CN Tower be hit. Ottawa is another possibility. Or maybe not. If they bomb Ottawa, they could very well end up taking out Parliament completely, and it could be argued that this would be no bad thing, given our current state of governmental affairs. Outside of these 4 cities, I can't really see anything they'd care to go after. But I do believe an attack is nearly certain, it's just a matter of time.

But then again, perhaps these "evasions" were simply attempts to not get baited, which seems to be one of your games, and which you have, by your own admission, used against SWEAL. Another is taking a valid argument, and twisting it by applying some ridiculous-sounding analogy in a vain attempt to belittle your opponents, or simply anger them by trying to put words into their mouths. Some come here to discuss matters in a quest for reason and/or truth. Others come here to debate to test their verbal mettle and political knowledge against a variety of opponents. And some come here to puff up their own sad little egos with "victories" over their opponents, so they can feel good about how they have "beaten" someone in a faceless war of words. And yet another type is the intellectual bully, who, through a strong command of the language, a good general knowledge of history and current events, and the ability to twist words, seeks to push others around verbally, regardless of whether or not there is any merit to what they are saying. Which of these do you consider yourself to be, HUGO???

ARGUS made two great points, as long as the first turns out to be true; "It won't cost us a thing". If GWB and his merry band of I-won't-say-whats are willing to install the whole defense system, FREE OF CHARGE to Canada, AND give Canada control over the portion of the shield that lay on Canadian soil, then I say go for it...... PROVIDING........ (Again, as ARGUS pointed out) they ever get the bloody thing to work. As of 2 months ago, there had been 3 tests, all heavily rigged in the system's favor, and all 3 had failed miserably. I haven't kept up on it since then. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the score so far is: dummy missiles 3, defense shield system, 0.