Scotty

They paint a picture of frustration and anger. They tell tails of outrageous conduct by their exes and lack of interest in any rights they, the non-custodial parent, has with regard to their children, along with inflexible insistence on support payments, regardless of economic ability.

No, in fact, they will not.

Honestly, how many men "wouldn't care enough" for their children to get visitation rights? Why would you even suggest that? The problem is that visitation rights are not enforced in Canada. It really doesn't matter what the judge says. The mothers are perfectly free to ignore any and all orders regarding their children with relative impunity. Only very rarely are any such orders enforced. Yes, that's the theory. Unfortunately, it comply ignores human nature. . What benefit does he get with a child who doesn't know him, and who is taught to hate him? There was a case in the papers not that long ago about a judge condemning both sides in a custody dispute, and then awarding full custody to the mother because, the judge said, she and her new partner had done so much to turn the child against its father that the child refused to have anything to do with him. So the custodial parent turns the child away from the father he never sees, tells them how evil and nasty their father is and how he doesn't want to see them, and the law awards custody on the basis that the child is now estranged from the father. Nice. And he's supposed to continue to make child support payments.

No. My view is indeed jaundiced and comes from reports of people who have, and media reports.

I'm a little confused about why you keep insisting on bringing this up. Clearly Air Canada was the primary lobbyist AGAINST extending landing rights. The most appropriate metaphor I can think of is you claiming that it was absurd for a woman to resist being raped when clearly she like the guy and wanted to date him. . The UAE is a big trading partner? I think not. The UAE isn't a big anything. They sell oil and that's about it. We export about as much to them as we do to Singapore or South Africa, neither of which are a huge priority for us. By contrast we export about 200 times more to the United States. Are you similarly determined we submit to American political and economic demands?

The UAE's actions were unreasonable, and an attack on Canada. Siding with them over Canada is certainly anti-Canadian. It appears to me that those who do so simply hate the Conservative government so much that if there was a dispute between Canada and Hitler, or Satan, they'd STILL side with the other guys. The level of hate for Harper among some is probably worthy of some sort of psychiatric term. "Yes, he is, to a certain segment of the population. You should read the vitriol, hysteria, hatred and abuse in the comments section of the online Globe and Mail some day, whenever a story even remotely touches on the federal government in some way. It's obsessive and bizarre. When our country is unreasonably attacked by a corrupt dictatorship then most Canadians would reflexively feel obligated to take their country's side. Others, obsessed with hatred and fear of Harper, seem to jump instantly onto the side of whomever is in dispute with them. I'm sorry but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. There are simply no reasons why we SHOULD give them all those extra landing rights. Landing rights are something negotiated, country to country on a quid pro quo basis. Your airline and my airline both get one flight apiece between your country and mine. There, that's an agreement. There are already flights between Canada and the UAE which adequately service the demand. What the UAE wants is dozens more flights for its airline which would not really be between Canada and the UAE at all. Those flights would be about the stopovers between here and there and transporting people between them. No reason why a plane flying to the UAE can't stop at Paris and Rome along the way, after all. What the UAE wants to do is fly Canadians from Toronto to Paris, not from Toronto to the UAE. And there is no quid pro quo involved. It's would be an entirely one-sided handover of Canadian business to a foreign entity with no reciprocity involved. Almost none. There just isn't a lot of need to fly to the UAE.

I know a number of men involved in disputes with their exes. In my experience, their willingness to contribute depends on two facts. The first, of course, is their monetary situation. The second is their relationship with their exes. If the relationship is bitter, they're far less likely to want to pay a dime. For example, one man's ex wife left him one day, right out of the blue. He had no idea there was even any problem in their marriage. He got legal papers from a lawyer demanding a divorce. His wife wouldn't even talk to him. He found out later she'd been having an affair with a guy she met at work. They have one child, and she rarely lets him see her at all. Is he cooperative in paying child support? Not especially so. The narrative in these cases tends to be surly men who won't help out their sainted ex wives living in poverty with their poor children. In most of these cases it tends to be more like the surly man won't help out his bitch of an ex living with her boyfriend while both do their best to turn the children against him. Note that I'm not saying the first type of situation doesn't exist. I know very well it does. There are some ripe bastards out there who won't do a thing to meet their responsibilities. But it would be easier to condemn such a situation if all such situations weren't lumped together painted with a broad brush of martyrdom for the mother, and if the guilt weren't automatically assigned to the evil penis-wielder. That is what the courts and FRO tend to do, and it can certainly lead to deaths by men driven beyond the brink.

You have to remember, JBG, assuming you know it to begin with, that there is likely no more incompetent agency of government at any level in Canada than the Family Responsibility Office. It is notoriously backlogged, its computer systems unworking and unworkable, its staff obdurate, uncaring, and often unreachable. It cares no more what the custodial parent (the mother) says or wants than it does about what the non custodial parent (fathers) says or wants. It care about no one. It cares about its rules and regulations and answers, apparently, to no one. In addition you have the family law courts. One must remember that lawyers often are attracted to areas of the law which is their preference. There is a certain crusading mentality to a lot of those female lawyers who go into family law, and the Ontario government has been quite content to appoint these crusading people onto the benches. This only adds to the marked unfairness of the legal system in dealings between men and women. A system which was heavily biased to begin with becomes more so with biased judges added to the mix.

What's the point of asking this question? The Liberals said they would. The Conservatives also said they would. Once they got into power, other priorities asserted themselves.

Yes. An attack ad is just that. Rather than touting your own platform, policies, ideas or candidate, you attack the other guy's platform, policies, ides or candidates. You don't say your policy will save the country, but that the other guys policy will destroy it. The Liberal campaign and advertising against the PCs 7cent gasoline tax would be an example.

I would if there was any way to do so, but so far as I'm aware there is no facility which stores ads from previous election campaigns, particularly campaigns from ten and fifteen years back. I think most of us of a certain age remember the "scary scary" campaigns the Liberals launched against the Reformers, though.

It's an explanation. The Liberals have been doing it for years against them. Why such indignation that they do the same in response? Do you feel similarly indignant that the Liberals have no rolled out their own attack ads?

You'll note the screening is back on because the Harper government ordered the Library to show the film.

The Conservatives bear no resemblance to the Republicans I can see. In fact, the Tories are further to the Left than the US Democratic Party. On some issues, quite a bit further. Perhaps you forgot the united opposition threatening to bring down the minority government if they didn't institute a massive incentive program? So we should punish the Tories for the resulting deficit and -- reward the opposition? ls.I believe the economy and a massive incentive program were mainly responsible for that. I'll grant you that some of their cuts were not wise. On the other hand, the government was taking in many billions more than it needed to pay the bills and to pay down the debt. Lowering taxes returned that money to Canadians, which, in theory, helps to stimulate the economy and bring more jobs - and thus more taxes. One might note the Conservative always take power after the Liberals have screwed up. I don't think a reasonable person would blame the Mulroney conservatives for the huge deficits which started under Trudeau and continued under Chretien for four years (many people seem to forget that). As for Harper, every budget was in the black until the most recent one last year. And given the economic problems and the demand for a massive incentive program, they get to share the blame for that one with the opposition.

All I'm saying is that the Opposition rarely seem to ask a straightforward question, preferring to precede their questions with long-winded accusations and denunciations.

I understand your indignation, but one must remember that the Liberals used far worse ads for many years in a deliberate, and largely successful effort at demonizing the Reformers, and then the Alliance. Those efforts were neither honest nor fair. For a party in power for so many years the Liberals, rather than touting their record or advocating policy, focused each election on portraying the reform/alliance as cruel, pawns of big business (which is ironic given all the corporate money was going to the Liberals) racist and unCanadian. Who can forget when Manning pressed them over what % they would accept in a referendum to make Quebec separatism legitimate, and the Liberals furiously said they hated Canada and wanted to break Canada up. And Liberals still bring up Harper's "firewall" speech from when he was out of politics, using it to try to show he doesn't care about Canada. With all that, I find their indignation to be somewhat silly.

They work. Everyone says they hate them and pay no attention, but they do, that's been proven repeatedly in the US. If they didn't work, these spin masters wouldn't recommend spending millions on them.

That's as may be, but the truth is that when you phrase your questions along the lines of "Have you stopped eating your wife yet you scum?" you are unlikely to get a civil response.

All parties have to agree to play nice or it doesn't work, much like this forum. If one side starts hurling insults, the other side is certain o eventually respond in kind. The Reform party did try to play nice years ago, but the other parties heaped scorn, insults and abuse on them and they eventually gave it up.

No.The attack ads are fairly basic, and designed to keep the opposition popularity down. One thing you can be certain, if the Liberals popularity ever rose to the point where they thought they had a chance at forming the next government, there would be an election. besides, its a use it or lose it thing with the Tories. They have way too much money to spend during an election campaign, so they might as well use it now.

Why police should all be six feet four Bystanders save officer

Not quite. The claim I made was that when you lower your requirements, as for example, the police and fire services have done with strength tests, and then hire applicants based on reasons unrelated to their ability to do the job you must inevitably wind up with a less capable workforce. We know the requirements have been lessened, and we know that, on top of that, people have been hired ahead of those who finished well above them in combined testing scores. Do you really think it is such a stretch from that to say that a less capable workforce will affect work performance? Really? Okay. I don't know what city you're living in, but I simply cannot imagine any municipal politician having the balls to raise such a question. I CAN imagine the firestorm which would result.

About half of natives live on reserves TODAY. I don't think it unreasonable to suppose that figure was far higher 50, 60, 70 years ago. Do you have figures which show otherwise? Your failure to appreciate or accept the argument exists has little consequence to the argument itself. It merely makes discussion extremely difficult.

I have read many times that it is needed to combat the legacy of slavery and racism, and what that did to the black community in the united states, that, in effect, their descendants still suffer, as a community, from the legacy of slavery and then the extreme racism which followed. Affirmative Action is intended to help combat that. And yet, evidence that this happens, or has happened any time in the recent past, seems vanishingly scarce.

AA was developed to address the consequences of the slave trade. It was imported to Canada largely by overzealous, well-meaning people, who felt the need to address what they thought were social inequities here, though there is scant evidence that such programs were or are needed.