Scotty

The alternatives, of course.

So if an enterprise hires ten thousand workers, pays them a dollar a head, and makes a million dollar profit, those workers shouldn't consider that they should dare ask for two dollars a head. Is that what you're saying? Because profits don't belong to them. They belong to the owners of wealth. There's no evidence I've seen that European companies are in any way less stable than American ones. And, frankly, establishing a corporate culture which says that if you can't get workers for virtually nothing you should, wherever possible, transfer those jobs overseas to third world countries is not exactly conducive to keeping ANY well-paying jobs in America. Even your software engineering and technology jobs are being shifted overseas now. Just what jobs do you think you'll be able to hang on to other than service industry jobs? Or do you believe the answer is for American and western workers to reduce their lifestyles to the same as that of third world denizens?

I'm sure that has nothing to do with the way the owners of wealth in America have destroyed its manufacturing sector and exported the jobs oversees to where the workers can be better kept in line and fed scraps.

And - JUST A COINCIDENCE! - wealth continues to flow upwards and away from the middle class in America, as the rich get richer and everyone else lags further and further behind.

You are suggesting the items manufactured at the plant were required for the war effort? I'm thinking that's highly unlikely and perhaps the employer simply did a "Rha-Rha! America! Number One!" routine to justify trying to screw them. Not to say that there aren't unions which are poorly led and make dumb decisions.

You evidently define these things differently than those of us who look to dictionary definitions.

Stats Canada makes no such claim. We;re not as misguided. American sentencing can be ridiculous. No one has proposed we go that route.

He was not a conservative,and that's irrelevant anyway. In a matter of influence, the only thing you'll have as evidence are either direct written statements (rarely) or testimony. Obviously any orders Chretien gave were filtered through loyal subordinates who refused to testify against him. But one can infer things, as in the fact that no matter what rules were broken, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Public Works could not seem to do anything about it because his cabinet minister was protecting the individual responsible. Further, when he went to the Clerk of the Privy Council to complain about his minister it became evident the PMO had no interest in reigning him in either. All this is a matter of record. You can't get away with egregious violations of the rules and regulations in government without protection from on high.

It's interesting you don't understand what criminal acts are.

How and when and where you spend money you've collected for political purposes is a matter of law. Interpreting the law is a matter for lawyers. In some cases (many cases) the law is not entirely clear on certain things. It is patently obvious that the Tories obtained legal opinions that this was legal and went with it. It may or might not be legal, for you can be sure the recent appeal will be appealed again. But since it's not even obvious to lawyers - or judges - what the law says I can't find it in my heart to criticize laymen in that regard.

The Sponsorship affair was a criminal matter involving the outright theft of government funds, and we still do'nt know how many were involved since, like the Mafia, the Liberals never were willing to talk about it. Most Canadians have little doubt that Jean Chretien and Paul Martin were involved. The cops just couldn't get any of their underlings to turn on them. The in-out thing is not a criminal matter.

To begin with, violent crime is NOT dropping. There's no evidence he knows a damned thing about the laws in Canada. He was brought in by the opposition, who are unlikely to have given him much of a briefing. To me, he has no more credibility than Michael Moore demanding we not elect a conservative government. I like Moore, but he clearly hadn't the first clue how different conservatism was in Canada as opposed to the religious right conservatism down south.

Yeah, a high tech company competing for the very best, most highly educated technical geniuses is EXACTLY like a RTW state!

You know, as much as I'm a very peaceful man and generally abhor violence, I have to admit that a part of me doesn't wonder if the peaceable nature of today's unions has a lot to do with how they've shrunk in size and allowed themselves to be herded out of existence in some of these states. I know I was very unimpressed with the Steelworkers when we were locked out. That was a situation which really begged for, if not violence, then at least a lot of vandalism towards the employer's property. On the other hand, we were on rotating strike a few years back (different union) and I remember this guy in a suit coming up to our side door and we, as usual formed a line to block him. This guy with us was like Cool Hand Luke, and just chewed his gum, stuck his face in under the suit's face and said "You're not gettin' in,' in a very flat, convincing voice. There is a place for, if not violence, then a certain assertiveness in these things, at least, where the employer is acting like a bullying jerk.

It's not about the scab's political opinion. It's about their harming the union and prolonging the strike by their actions. They are quite literally taking the bread out of the mouths of the striking workers. Small wonder they are hated.

How about contempt? Scabs have no self respect, though, so contempt and scorn ought not bother them.

Oppression? What sort of 'oppression'. Scabs in our union are not allowed to vote until they pay fines or some such, but they're still members of the union, still get the same benefits and pay, and still have to be represented in any dispute with the employer.

Your arguments are really not very important given the undeniable fact that everywhere there are no unions the workers have lousy working conditions, lousy pay, and lousy benefits compared to those jurisdictions where unions are strong. Nor is there any compensation in the form of lower unemployment. You can spout philosophy about freedom and economic success all you want, but the facts are very clearly telling an entirely different story.

Are you saying scabs are being whipped?

I can argue since I've never made any claim of 'amazing wages and benefits', nor has any other person on this thread defending unions. Unions have been responsible for a general improvement in wages, benefits and working conditions over the past century. That is not really debatable. And as the percentage of unionized workers has shrunk, those benefits and wages and rights are being rolled back. To repeat: The minimum paid vacation for an American workers is NOTHING. It is the only country in the western world that miserly towards workers. Meanwhile, in those socialist hellholes, workers can count on 5, 6, 7, 8 weeks of vacation each year. Poor bastards!

The laws Harper has proposed and brought in are nowhere near as severe as what the U.S. has in place, for drug crimes, for violent crimes, or for white collar crimes. There are a lot of people in the U.S. serving scores of years, even hundreds of years, for non-violent offenses. The sentences sometimes handed out for small, non-violent drug crimes is particularly ridiculous. If 'this guy' had a look at the situation in Canada he'd probably urge stiffer sentencing here.

And who has suggested doing that?

I would submit that doing it my way would be considerably better than what has been done as it would likely result in far more prosperous immigrants - which means immigrants paying more for the services government supplies.

Giving preference to a particular area is not a quota. I'm not at all sure why you think it is.

So why haven't we been doing that for the last thirty years? And I'll point out again that at no time has the government ever justified the need for any particular number of immigrants based on either economic or demographic data. At least, not that it has ever been willing to show anyone.