Esq

A bullet from a railgun can. the slow speed for standard rail guns is mach 10. fast speed is much higher. put some small ones on some air blimps and make sure the range is greater than the figher jet and you have dead fighters. I won't go into great detail on this type of alternate defence. however here is a little bit of lead in. http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/9-1311.aspx even for standard air defence railguns have a range of 400+ km. meanwhile the f35 - as far as I have seen are all close in weapons of under 200 km.

Didn't they pay for a new secret base in Cyprus? (people take more note of secret bases than normal bases) Why is the closure of Mirage costing more if they already paid for another operating base? Or is this just "making it sound like" the UAE is costing the government money, when in fact the UAE was saving the government money. Now they are stuck actually paying for something they should of had to pay for in the first place. Now is more landing rights for $90-300 million sound ok to you? You can look at it that way - was the seat on the UN security council, and an operating base in the middle east - and not having to pay $90-$300 million - worth having a couple more planes land in Canada? If you were the government and could go back in time via a magical time machine - what would you do? (attacking the UAE instead of stan ain't an option either) Then they bought planes that could fly between Canada and the Stan.. and now they arn't even using them to do that. Or could there be a deeper reason to being on an island in the mediteranian rather than the UAE? Hmmm.? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Middle_east_graphic_2003.jpg I don't get why Turkey isn't being used as a base of operations.. don't they have mega old US military bases there? Turkey is afterall a member of NATO in this "nato war on terror.. or rather rebuilding afghanistan" Or as I like to call it "American venting by beating up a small destabalized state in a civil war - Constructive Oppourtunism " http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-21/canada-to-move-military-base-to-cyprus-in-march-politis-says.html

I support free market capitalism. If the government wants to provide cheap broadband they should invest in a public backbone. The lines were paid for by these companies, and it should be those companies that regulate the costs. Of course where these cables go may be through public land, and in that case the government may be more prudent to create a leasing fee for the land that the cables go through, then rebating "all" canadians for the use of public lands or paying down the debt or reducing taxes with this line property lease fee. (this would spur comms to more satalite and wireless technologies perhaps) I really disagree with the federal government overruling the "independent CRTC" this is to me like overruling the RCMP or courts or military. Outside of an emergency I don't think this should occur - example the emergencies act. It is the government interceeding in private business, a big no no. The approach is what bothers me. I don't like cabinet to rule on their own discretion - I think that parliament has the capacity to make laws.. but cabinet should not be exercising orders in council if it isn't an emergency. They should consult with parliament. Cabinet should only be there to execute the will of parliament, not create rule. They are suppose to be enforcers not creators. There is a certain amount of unwritten grey areas, but this isn't one of them. If the costs are too high, leave it to the market - we don't need state socialism perpetuated by the likes of the conservative party of Canada. Let the market regulate if costs are too high, there must be room for a new player providing lower cost services.

What happened from the meeting?

I'm appalled that a take note meeting on Egypt is being held but none on This Security pact the press is already saying will be signed at the next meeting coming up very shortly, TOMMOROW ACTUALLY between the PM and Obama. Agreeing to things like changing immigration law really does need Parliamentary approval - we are stepping into a whole new world, with the PM overriding parliamentary laws - Canadian laws. It is unfathomable that Canadians could accept the PM ruling without any parliamentary consent on issues like border security, immigration, and trade. Laws were made in parliament for a reason, and for the PM to change those without parliament is truely concerning. It is illegal and unconstitutional. Canadians are within a day of seeing rule of law in Canada disappear to dictatorship. It is easier to see values of freedom and democracy when they don't exist anymore in Canada.

I saw a protest today here in Waterloo, it was suprising to see Egyptian flags and protest going on by students who must be from influential families going on right infront of my eyes in Canada. There was a sizable protest too, like the size you see for a moderate size protest from Canadians about Canadian issues...... It is protest in effigy - I'm very nuetral on this issue, but I'm suprised anti government protests are going on here in Canada - by what must be the priveleged people of Egypt. --- Or maybe this protest was by Canadians.... due to being against the government of Egypt. Regardless why protest in the middle of a University if you can protest at city hall or infront of government of canada buildings? A large group of egyptians linked to militant protests in egypt actually made me exercise caution and had me question my own safety. (being circumsized and growing my hair like an orthodox jew.) It doesn't belong on campus - target politicians not students. I think it is totally fine and a right to protest, but it is still distressing... I don't need stress. I can respect both sides of this situation.

Taking the fight to the enemy is one thing, setting up camp in their back yard for 10 years is another. Also Canada never had nor did it ever loose this Capacity. Buying a few billion dollar jets could have been done without attacking afghanistan. Also Canada is still not that effective at force deployment as far as I am aware in a warzone. They need the US and British to clear the way. Sure they were fighting an insurgency. I'm not saying the generals are stupid but perhaps you can maybe take a hint at what works and what doesn't. Afghanistan Ain't Germany. Some of the same principles apply though. Failure by design is likely the answer. NATO isn't stupid, generals arn't stupid, but lying is. Going there and saying, we have a timeline and it may be a long timeline, it has nothing to do with anything but the timeline we want. I wouldn't be upset with that, I could respect that, but making up lies and just flubbing things and leading people into false impressions is something that doesn't perpetuate a good society. Saying you are ineffective at combating insurgencies isn't reputation building. Is that world a coalition world? You know the only people you've likely had contact with. Attacking the honour of the forces ain't what this is about, but trying to shine up the glories of Afghanistan comes from a bats rear. No doubt you have the clout, and no doubt I have my opinion, the difference is, you are in the propaganda machine, I'm not. Who has the critical view. Not saying Canadians can't fight, but I am saying the whole way the war is being represented is corrupt. Just admit it is engineered, and isn't about "winning a war" It is about making this happen, and putting that person there, and getting people to do this, etc.. that is all it is.. it is imposition of foreign governance, trying to tilt the public view, because you guys don't like it. Even though it is the public will, you guys don't like it, so you are there changing the public capacity. That is all it is. It ain't about war, it is about imposition. Afghanistan ain't so big the war couldn't have been done right fast. I am not disillusioned in the halfarseness of the last 9 years in afghanistan. - and now pakistan and maybe down the road Iran. The thing that gets me, if it ain't a strong point - what it ends up being is either a puppet state, or a failed state or ---- well an enemy state when it goes right back to islamic fundamentalism or "baseline islamic belief" as the islamic world calls it. Honestly it is an embarsement when I think about it. Not because of what you guys are doing but because of what you havn't been able to do. I'm actually very PRO Canadian Military; however, I'm also blanatantly a realist in the overall image of the forces. Big enough to kill me, but one that really can't do much in a real war in their current form. And no Afghanistan ain't even a real "war". It is a bunch of the worlds biggest nations beating on a country in the middle of no where k. For 9+ years now because some bearded dude wasn't handed over illegally as was demanded.. sure that is it. Its ok if you can't see it you are suppose to have rose tinted glasses, or maybe just a narrow to the point view, for lack of better words. Its complex, but to say the least I'm not impressed I'm offended (as a result). Just way to much BS. And your glory be we are hero's junk is just that. Hero's in the fold of those who are blind, plain to see. While acts can be heroic in individual minds there is no heroism in error, it is a war lacking honour, a war lacking justice, and a war lacking morals. It is a disgrace on any heroic form. If heroism is measured in disgrace and folly, then blah blah blah. Shine it up no doubt. I'm not your enemy. I'm your result. If you see me as your enemy save me some time. I see it as ending an otherwise extended inaity in the form of a stupid world, with the people behind these things only perpetuating an ever greater awareness of that. You are the invader. Conquering is contradictory to modern western thought. Otherwise it is just bs. It ain't moral. End of story. People are allowed to have different values. Time is a funny thing. You only got so much of it to get things done. Seasons change, get a clue. If afghanistan was/is a threat to Canada in 2001 I'd like to see that information, I'd like to see how that threat has progressed or changed in weighing of other threats to Canada. I'd like to see that.

I thought I'd add a chastity belt would be more of a deterent than a conceiled carry as to prevent rape. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity_belt also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-rape_device

The text I typed was "Also prooving there was an attempted rape may be difficult" This doesn't mean it can't, it means prooving it is difficult. Certain elements need to be established. 1. The person who needs proof saw it happen (beyond a reasonable doubt) or experienced it. 2. Everyone dies and god said it happened. I wasn't actually refering to that, what i mean is that if women go around shooting guys or guys women (and with molly's statement that men are being raped too..) a dead body and some type of rough intercourse suddently becomes circumstancial unless there are witnesses. Just because violent crime in the US goes down doesn't mean you take that same approach somewhere else in the world means it would change things. Also the more guns you have out there, I would think the chances of violent crime especially gun related violence would increase. There are already guns in the US... Crime has gone down in Canada over that same period with stricter gun laws.. The only corelation is likely that increased enculturation is reducing certain types of crime, not making guns more or less available. Rape to begin with is more common in gun rich America. You seemed to avoid that 490 rapes in Canada vs 89000 in the usa? "Some types of reported property crime in the U.S. survey as lower than in Germany or Canada, yet the homicide rate in the United States is substantially higher." Canada's gun laws are not severe, they are there to allow people who need guns and can be trusted with them to get them. Taking a gun test and not having people say you might try to kill them is all that is really required. True the costs aren't really necesiary but that is the governments fault. I think if there was no cost involved many people wouldn't care about IQ testing and actually learning about their gun before they can shoot it on their own.

A 10 year timespan and not getting it done, isn't a reputation builder no matter how you look at it. It took less than a year to go from Normandy to Berlin. And we are talking about a small country against the biggest militaries in the world. NO sorry, this is not a reputation builder NO MATTER WHAT WAY you look at it. OH hold on from a taliban perspective yes it could be a reputation builder for the afganis resisting the occupation - something they DO mujadeen et al DO have a reputation for. It is difficult to have failure by design and success unless you've gone to yale. http://opac.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=2158

In Canada they can say the have HPV and Aids, carry a knife or bat or learn jujitsu what is your point? In most instances of abduction a woman will not have time to grap a concealed handgun. Also prooving there was an attempted rape may be difficult - putting a certain level of doubt on whether the woman killed the person or not. I'm all for weaponization of society but it is not a solution. If a woman can get a concealed carry so can the rapist.. then what? While it is true the rapist could reply "so do I" There are solutions and concealed carry hasn't stopped rapes in the US. There are probably more sexual assaults in the US military than in Canada per capital .824 USA vs 0.733089 Canada (about 1 in 1500 people. or perhaps 1 in 750 women) 1 of 6 U.S. women has experienced an attempted or completed rape. 1.5 per 100,000 apparently are raped per Canada.. The figures are all over the place. The UN recorded 491 rapes in Canada vs. 89000 in the US in 2009. Your concealed carry does seem to encourage more rape reporting in the US. It leaves one to wonder how many rapes "do actually occur"

Why not just order in Pizza and get their students to supply their own school supplies, saves the need for toilet paper too? The "issue" here is that politico totally lied and gave a false impression of the mission. It is very difficult to take away "combat" potential from a warzone - unless you have another country doing your security and convoy. It is irresponsible otherwise. Operation Get Bread and Butter still has a combat requirement Operation Gaurd Posterior is still a combat operation. There is little doubt in my mind that if this isn't in a "green zone" Canadian soilders will have the potential for ground based assaults on their positions as well as mortar and other attacks such as sniping. In order to secure an operation facility you need to have a zone of control that requires both patrols and hardened combat locations away from the locus. SO in my mind there either needs to be another country involved doing the combat side of things, or the Prime minister and cronies are lying about the nature of the operation.

Or you can jump on the Social Wagon and try to create a nationally acceptable line of candidates able to form a government in the time between now and the march writ. http://williamashley.info/SOCIAL/SP/SP.htm There is always another option. The smallest thing people should maybe look at is joining the "online party of Canada" - a populus based party - free to join - where members have a vote and it allows online correspondence and a "consensus" where there is a defintinite whiping. I'm more in support of a party where the party shares my views on key issues, rather than a party of majority rules. http://www.onlineparty.ca The other option of course is to nominate someone you think would be good. Take them aside and say - Hey you, you would be a great person to represent me in Ottawa, if me and 99 other people all thought this, would you run in th next election if we paid your bills to run? http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=can/bck&document=index〈=e

"The Camera is still there is it not?" http://my.firedoglake.com/jimwhite/2011/01/25/a-peek-at-secretive-firm-behind-failing-gorgon-stare-surveillance-technology/ http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=1682359 http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-04-01-borderfence_N.htm Of course they are also flying predator drones too. Not exactly a balloon. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/302998 As stated these can collect electronic data... including cellular and wifi information. - in addition to tracking and adding people into individual personally identifiable information - example... biometrics facial recognition to tracking movements - cross linking intelligence information for license plates as well as other things that get more technical. This is in part the whole perimiter security pact stuff. Atleast 20 drones are already slated to the Canadian border.

Here is a little on the idea of a rail gun to launch stuff to space. Mine is different though in that it places the railgun on a moving airship - rather than say a stationary point or ocean going ship. http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/02/railguns-for-space-launch.html Yes these things really do launch things at around "mach 20.5" for an estiamted $500/kg. Payload shots could go from toronto to halifax in 2 and half minutes. Pretty much as fast as a peace keeper missle. The US is starting to railguns on their new battleships - perhaps not the same as that one, but like it in some ways. Compare that $500 1 kg mach 20 object to a 1 to 6 million dollar patriot missle? Then you have the next gen x2 (xxx) things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Falcon_Project you don't need stealth if you can't be intercepted. You could build 10 SUPER railguns for the price of the 65 aircrafts The prospect of stealth rail guns seems far more forward looking than "signature reduced aircraft" http://www.dailytech.com/US+Hypersonic+Glider+Sets+a+World+Record+of+Mach+20+Then+Crashes/article18240.htm

What are 100,000 people in Cairo that is a day shopping. As long as he maintains active military support and any attacks on government and state facilities are repulsed - really that is that. The upcoming election in egypt is another story though. If they were armed with more than rocks it might be another story.. CAIRO POPULATION upwards of 7,786,640 (metropolitan area 20+ million - Density 17,190/km2 It may seem like a lot of people but for Cairo it is notable but not exceptional. Some of the rioting is notable but it is hardly "civil war" level. I have no doubt mubarak could maintain control if there arn't more attacks. It is stuff like this that is worrysome http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2011/01/30/VI2011013001729.html

I had the urge to email Mubarak (just before he asked his government to resign), and tell him to ruthelessly put down the revolt, but I wasn't at peace with the suggestion so didn't. I stopped in the international section to say "What the heck is going on in North Africa?" What started out in the Ivory Coast as a focus leapfrogged along the north - and it seems it is an fundamentalist Islamic movement - but maybe it is disconnected? The Ivory Coast leader is christian (gbagbo)... while Outtaro is muslim. Probably disconnected.. Really what is going on, and would I also suggest leaving israel right now too?

Yes, sarcasm. *eye bobble* Hey was it Sarnia or Windsor that was upset about American spy blimps recording them? Nothing like a dome to keep out the spy blimps. Might increase tourism too. WINDSOR THE CITY WITHOUT WIND. I bet they'd love not having to shovel snow either.

Rail gun them from a floating rail gun into space. The whole space elevator thing is in the works too. 2008 http://www.cracked.com/article_16477_5-famous-sci-fi-weapons-that-theyre-actually-building.html

Teaparty could be seen as fringe in America also. - even if it is the americans that are the fringe these days in america. Social Health care is all provided through a national health insurance plan - that private companies can compete with or resell. The medical community itself is in the first line to pay for those in poverty and subsidies for low income persons. Medicaid and medicare are provided for those who cannot afford it. It is isn't completely synonymous to obamacare, but it doesn't take away anything that medicare in Canada already provides - what it does is, it asks doctors to be more conservative in how they go about treating people. I would hope it would also provide for medical research and alternative medicine practices, by having more clinical trials. the thing is that a lot of medical issues now can be treated that 10 years ago were only able to be mitigated. We have far more cures today than we did 10 years ago let alone 20 years ago. This is a trend that will only increase as time goes on. we don't need treatment and screening. We need to implement cures. Also we need healty lifestyles, not preventative medicine. - the basis of rebating a portion of peoples plan costs who don't use their insurance in a term period is a way of rewarding healthy people by giving them their health care dollars back for not using the services. The portion that is kept goes to medical research (for public patents on technologies and medicine, and buying rights to some medicine to provide it at lower costs), and lowering the overall costs of providing health care. Also through social credit individuals can earn a better medical service. It is true that poor people would not have necisarily access to all the expensive things for non emergency screening purposes - but I think that there is over use of some technologies and treatments. So I don't think it jepordizes peoples health, it actually protects exposure to things like xrays. It also allows the medical community to invest in more cost effective medicine, rather than the best most expensive medicine that may be overkill. The public patents and buying wise low technology, AI programs, and more cost effective screening, more funding to research centers in cutting edge medicine like nanotecs, gene therapy, and tissue cloning, it is a future based medicine. Also through "pay fors" charity aid outside the NHIP basic plan can be raised for those. We have fund raisers for people already. The bottom line here is that. The rich can afford a better plan if they want it, but do they want it, if they can use that money for something else - some yes, some maybe not. That should be their choice. If middle income people want better health insurance they can opt, but if that is a difference between 0% taxes and 20% taxes, I'd rather let them take that 20% taxes and pay at their own local level or for what health issues they may have. The NHIP allows people to pick their plan based on their health needs, not everyone needs diabetic care in their plan, or rare disease treatment. Those who need these things get to pool this. It is all about most efficient use of resources, and it is that way with medicare anyway. So it isn't a loss, it is actually an improvement due to more clarity on providing services people ask for instead of services the government wants to pay for. Access isn't reduced, - more care is made available by opening things up to private health providers, but under the premise that they have to give the public rate (or less) for emergency care in emergency situations or where there is a life threatening situation that their services are required and they are equiped to reduce the level of harm. (without endangering anyone elses health) Socially things are very libertarian - because it lets people live their lives without government intervention if they arn't breaking the law, if they arn't infringing someone elses rights. I don't see why you would want the government to but into your lifestyle? I also don't see why you would want to but into someone elses. If we wanted a totalitarian society the population would be declining quickly. If it was just a matter of fullfilling the majorities whim irrespective of individual rights. http://williamashley.info/SOCIAL/SP/healthpolicyplan.htm (you can click on the text boxes to read more about that item)

I'm currious what the atlantic party of Canada thinks about creating an oil/gas pipleine project that would go from the acrtic It would stretch across baffin Bay (connecting to any oil/gas fields discovered there. A secondary link N/S would go from baffin bay to labrador, and from labrador to quebec and newfoundland. - likewise - a link to the 3 major oil feilds hibernia/hebron and terra nova. This line would continue with a greenland to iceland line, and a iceland to faroehs/shetlan to the uK and scandinavia. Each. It would serve as the first step in an "arctic pipeline" from North America to Europe. Would the Atlantic Party support this type of pipeline project --- It would connect to the montreal portal from the north, and meanwhile Connect Canada with oil and gas pipelines of europe. Providing a non nafta gas/oil source. Even though there is potential for free trade with europe there are no trade restrictions on source of oil. also the artic oil sources and a pipeline from north to south in the east would allow more domestic oil for eastern canada removing all the oil canada imports from the US simply because it doesn't have the capacity in eastern canada and is blocked from importing western canadian oil..also it would remove the dependence on a US based oil line. . Likewise in the maritimes it would connect newfoundland, novascotia and newbrunswick to european and canadian artic oil. Making the east the source of future arctic boon rather than the west. (although this pipe could late be joined with the proposed mackenzie pipeline. It would connect with the North Sea pipelines in shetland et al http://images.pennwellnet.com/ogj/images/off/55051401.gif Here is the MASTERPLAN green is already existing lines red is the proposed megaline and pink is the "connection" to link up to "the deltaline" http://williamashley.info/SOCIAL/SP/POLITICS/biggerline.gif It is forward thinking. http://gheorghe47.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/arctic-boom-towns-in-2050-gas-pipelines-across-the-tundra/ take a look at this to get a better idea http://www.cepa.com/images/Liquid%202008.jpg Also take for instance http://www.canadabyte.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/oldharry280709-500x2551.jpg Hey, and no trees to clear above the tree line! Russia is building a 4600km+ long pipeline in siberia 1,963km is estimated at under 20 billion. The mackenzie delta pipeline alone is estimated at $16-billion and that is only to supply oii to the US, not Canada, or Europe.

People make mistakes. Its repeat offenders that are the troublespot IMO. Perhaps I just don't understand Rape - but in my mind it just plays off as relatively limited body interchange that lasts a short period of time. the only downside is that you have sex with someone you don't want to. People do that in retrospect all the time after a night of drinking. Heck some marriages are founded on it. (in some cases it might just make an absence of forplay a crime - no does mean no of course - not all rape cases are that clear cut though) This is not me saying rape isn't a violation, I'm just saying it - as far as the physical aspects are concerned - seems not as bad as aggravated assault. Where someone is actually physically hurt. Of course the repercussions are the issue, but rape is actually fairly common. A lot of people get away with it. As far as murder is concerned, sometimes murder is justified, it just may not be acceptable as a response to most. Often people who are victims end up hitting back in the extreme, then get penalized for it, because you arn't allowed to kill, because a lot of people would be dead if it were acceptable, because the world is full of anuses. Of course there is a lot of "bad murder" too. However I think the notion of "only self defence" is ok. Yet justice is left to "society" in long drawn out super legalized situations. It really is just creating a constrained society that serves a professional class of people who determine - the way is based on words and interpretations of what someone else ment- rather than society, and what the individual thinks. Yet it was some other individual - who may very well be dead, or a law that was decided before you were even born to determine what is right for you. I think this is a false notion. I think individual choice trumps state control. It is dehumanizing really to be delegated by a political machine rather than your own reasons. I'm not saying go out and kill the person who cut you off yesterday and gave you the finger. I am saying though that say if people actually are conspiring to destroy your life, blowing their heads off or drowning them in a toilet isn't really "bad" it is just a natural response. Also sometimes people do things in anger - after anger management courses or otherwise they can potentially not be prone to killing in anger again. Often it can be drug or alchohol related. Prohibiting access to drugs or alchohol could prevent future offence. It is a case to case thing. Just saying RAPE is the worst thing, isn't necisarily representative of every rape. Some may be misunderstandings rather than forcable confinement and aggravated sexual assault. Some leave no scars but knowing that they were a donut. The spiritual and other aspects are something else entirely I'm sure but physically that is as stated above blown way out of proportion on cultural grounds. So yeah I still think that the death penalty would be on compasionate grounds. With the convict having the option. And I think that not every murder or rape is really "deserving life" let alone jail time. God didn't say thou shalt not kill and if you do you shall be put in a tomb forever. I think victim impact is part of that. Like there are some very very mentally issued people who would put people in jail for looking at them the wrong way if they could. It is just a facet of Canadian soceity that there are morally corrupt people who don't respect individuals right to freedom. ------------ The justice system itself tends to build that into it, so it is probably a loosing context. I'm more so for informed vigilatism. 1. Give them a warning you will kill them if you see them. 2. If they show up near you, they had warning. Doesn't mean the system can't help it. I'd rather have freedom and chaos than limitation and hierarchy. its a facet of life but death is really the only compassion from an otherwise morally corrupt system. But no forced death penalties arn't moral. (it should be in the moment, not meditated) death by consent is moral though. But one sided death, is murder. Murder in the moment is justified as an emotional response, if it is defence of ones own freedoms. An individual's freedoms however cannot infringe on the other person. The other person has to be infringing on their freedoms to justify it. Really meditated murder is "the worst moral crime" (when not in self defence) so inbeding that within the state is a little false. Compasionate grounds and meditation ain't the same.

I could care less about your so called powers that be. They havn't got it right yet anyway. Also there are environmental refinery means. Government run refineries run via a public (with options for minority stock ownership for dividends on capital investment into each refinery) would have no incentive to jack prices, when all that is being done is providing the goods, not working for a profit. It means that overhead profit is reduced. And people still get their investment back and long term returns. People get cheaper gas, win win for Canadians. Companies could do this also but if they are selling out Canadians for conglomerate status shame on them. This is not in the public interest. I'm all for strong industry in Canada; however, they could still sell their oil. If they can't produce gas for as much, then it means they arn't as efficent nor as competitive, and best practice wins out. We want competition not monopolization. Its about the public interest, that includes the business environment but it doesn't include price jacking. Canadians don't want higher prices than they could get. -------- So do it, right. It is better as a public service, when private companies get involved the gearing can change. The government has the ability to safegaurd public interest. So yes, perhaps it will end up being the social party going into the microrefinery business if enough time elapses, I don't see it happening tomorrow but it is on the blocks. It really IS an issue of national security for Canada to have secure strategic materials. An integrated national security framework doesn't work when your partner can't be trusted or dependended on, and that is what Canada faces with the US. ---------- You don't get more money for Canadians by giving it to Americans. Take for instance http://www.companylisting.ca/Soquip_nergie_Inc/default.aspx

"Bernardo claimed the deaths were accidental, and later claimed that his wife was the actual killer." How is keeping someone in an 8'x4' jail cell ever going to prepare them to reenter society. It relaly is a form of torture. i'm wondering if he was given the choice between death or life in an 8'x4' jail cell what would he choose? To me it seems like something that would cause mental and physical incapacity - a more or less a form of cruel and unusual punishment. It just seems unhealthy to me. The option of death by acceptance of it should be there. This judaic eye for eye in the justice system is pretty mentally unsound as far as I'm concerned, if indeed it is intended that way. It is a form of brain rot. Creating even due to evil is rather backward. That whole fire with fire thing. Lortie: CFS Carp "Diefenbunker" did not have room for separate weapons and ammunition lockers. Lortie pleaded guilty to reduced charges of second-degree murder in 1987. "In his efforts to destroy the Parti Québécois, Denis Lortie killed three government employees" Lortie was paroled in December 1995 "Lépine's suicide statement" Picton: He pleaded not guilty homolka: pleaded guilty to manslaughter release from prison in 2005

The Social Party is fiscally conservative. It puts social issues into the "provincial sphere" to decide. Priorities are: -Elimination of the Debt -Removal of Income Taxes -Removal of Goods and Services -Public Safety Concerns Major Initiatives are: Creation of An Advisorial Council that maintains a 1 vote per voter, and pool voting mechanism (Also using this mechanism to do things like appointments that were once partisan to allow populus based voting) Example Judges, Sentators, the Governor General that would previously be political appointments. The Social party is for all intents and purposes the most fiscally responisible party in terms of Policy. They aim to make the government self sustaining without taxes, no reduction in required services, and opening up government to Canadians. This is partly accomplished done through enfranchisement of the public. http://williamashley.info/SOCIAL/SP/SP.htm The Social Party is a federal party, since it thinks that pronvices are more or less for business and community issues of a more regional basis - in this respect it opens up regional councils. Pronvincially the objectives are a little different: Creating a partnership for the right to work. More stakeholders through private public/corporations for health and education - as already exists but with more capacity for involvement of the public in voting on issues that effect them on a more localized basis. Meanwhile health care is seens a lifestyle option, the provinces would have access to National Health Insurance - but could opt for private insurance if they had it. Only those living under the poverty line would get free basis preventative and emergency care, while those just above the line - low income would be subsidized, a little like Obama care but it would be a federal health insurance program that covers subsidized and poverty care. Corporate and personal income taxes would be droped - and instead fees for non essential services. Essential and non essential services would be opned up to voluntary participation - with a portion of the service reduction from volunteers going back to them. Post Secondary Education would be a priority to make free for Citizens, and within the provinces to permanent residents who earn social credits - meaning they earned a certain amount of community service. This would remain free as long as they have earned the social credits. Some things that may not be popular are opening up more toll roads - but making "provincial vehicle insurance" an option - at a "group rate" for those not opting for private insurance. Property taxes however would be maintained - but these could be reduced by social credits. Property owners could however lease out sections of their land for development under developmental plans -such as co-op farming, sustainable agroforestry or otherwise. These projects are aimed to provide direct aid rather than monetary aid to those in poverty, as well as provide them with skills, it also allows them to build social credit for free post secondary studies or the ability to live on land their own land even without employment. The provincial governments profits would mostly come from royalties, licensing, and service fees. A reduction in overall beaurocracy, and "voluntary support" is the central focus. Government of those with the time or interest to be part of government. Both levels provincial and federal support divesting the debt into individual responsibility. People would be responsible for servicing their personal share of the debt. Likewise on a federal level the debt would be paid down by printing off the debt for any delinquint accounts. An inheritence tax rule would come into place also in that the personal portion of debt had to be paid down befor providing inheritence - however, there are some hardship allowances, as well as survivorship. It seems a burden but when people can pay down their debt in 5 to 10 years while getting the services they want it really isn't hardship. Its the only way it is going to get done though, getting the people to do it. It also allows people who pay it off, to never have to pay it again. Socially though the party is libertarian, in that it feels individuals make social lifestyle choices, the governments role is only to provide for public safety concerns, in the laws it makes effecting individuals, not cultural and social laws to regulate society. Bylaws can be created at lower levels of government to address local cultural issues. --- Things like same sex marriage arn't really legal concerns because there is no reason why law needs to be involved in marriage. Issues like abortion if medical are medical concerns, if not, why would a doctor perform an unneeded non publically funded procedure. Only needed medical procedures would be provided for those in poverty or under subsidy. Most social issues really are none of the governments business. Leave it to society to decide things not related to governance, don't let the government be your cultural totalitarian police state, that is the bottom line. Freedom for the people in determining their own practices, in as much as it doesn't violate the safety of other members of society.