Scotty

This entire conversation is pointless. Skin colour has never been, at least, not in a generation or more, the basis for racial divides within Canada. It's got nothing to do with opposition to immigration, and virtually nothing to do with real prejudice. Someone who won't hire a Black man is not basing his choice on his dislike for the pigmentation of that man's skin but his presumption about the cultural traits and behavioural baggage which he assigns to Black men. People who despise immigration (and that includes me) don't hate it because of the multi-coloured people it brings in but because of the social problems and cultural and religious baggage of the newcomers (as well as the economic costs and problems).

Your miserly social programs are not the problem. Your low taxes to fund them are the problem. Because, as miserly as your social programs are, America is a third world country which can't afford such programs for the poor. Every other western nation can afford them, can afford far better than the ones you have, but YOU can't afford them. Because... uh... why again? So your solution is to just let the poor die. Let them die from lack of medical care. Let them freeze to death in the dark in winter. Let their children starve. It's not like it's your problem.

And if the only example you had was America, and you knew nothing about the rest of the world - which is basically the problem - then you might buy that bullshit. But on the other hand, if you were to look just about anywhere else and see that they have higher taxes, much more generous social safety programs, and yet don't have high inflation, don't have a currency which is falling apart (like the US$ is) and se that their social safety programs have vastly reduced poverty, you'd just laugh. Where are the slums in Germany to match what the US has? Where is the massive poverty in Scandinavia caused by their generous social programs which help the poor? There are probably more people living in genuine slums in the United States than in all the countries of the western world combined. And you think this is the truly excellent result of not being too generous with social programs?

The mean income tax rate in the US is about 28%, which is among the lowest in the western world. Germany's is over 50%, by comparison. And that doesn't even tell the full story. Americans have no national sales tax, unlike most other countries. In European countries it's often around 15%. Americans don't have to pay the high gas taxes which exist in most other western countries either. In short, Americans pay some of the, if not THE lowest taxes of any industrialized nation by a long shot. But you'd never know it listening to the bleating of the tea party types, constantly squealing about how hard done by they are and how immensely unfair are their onerous taxes. Of course, most others get a hell of a lot more out of their taxes. European social safety programs are far more generous than American programs. Most every other western country has more generous programs than Americans (in fact, as far as I now EVERY western nation is more generous). If you're old, poor, frail and inform, or disabled, you'd be better off being almost anywhere in the western world rather than in the United States. The home of God fearing people seems curiously lacking in Christian charity, being more concerned with accumulating more consumer products than helping their fellow citizens. So here you have the contradiction. The Republicans, who basically represent rich America, are determined to lower taxes further. As for all those "entitlement programs" in the American social safety net - they don't care about those. Those are for poor people, for minorities, for people who don't vote Republican, so they don't see any problem at all with slashing them to the bone. Again, this is a party which prides itself on it's bible thumping adherence to God fearing Christianity. Yet it has no problem slashing programs which feed poor children, which subsidize poor people's heating, which help states pay for education, which helps disabled people get work and adapt their houses, which takes care of the sick and the elderly. "Screw em all", say the tea party. "We're tired of paying for those loafers! If you can't pay for your own heat, then freeze to death in the dark! If you can't feed your children, let them starve! If you're sick and can't pay for an operation, then just die! It's our money and that's it!" God bless America. Jesus would have been so proud. I can see Jesus now, kicking a homeless beggar in the face, then laughing as he gets into his BMW for a drive to the golf club.

Yeah they do. I'm sure any kind of statistical study would show wide variations between criminals and regular citizens in a lot of areas. But the principle area of concern is that criminals are those who are willing to hurt other people to enrich or just to amuse themselves. They have no problem robbing people, beating people, raping people, defrauding people, killing people, whatever, according to the degree of criminality and lack of empathy within them. Criminals tend to be very selfish people who don't care much about others.

Harper, Mr. Practicality, basically caved to Quebec, willing to whore himself for the Quebec vote. I've said as much before. He lavished them with everything he could think of and they turned around and gave him a knee in the groin. To his credit, he seems to have learned how fickle is the bought vote in Quebec and has stopped making much effort.

You and the NDP are soft on separatism. We get it. You always have been. You might not be able to be honest about it in the rest of Canada, but you won't say a single thing against separatists in Quebec for fear of angering Quebec nationalists.

You don't go to a walk-in clinic for a broken bone. They aren't equipped for x-rays or plastering.

I didn't say she was stupid. I said she was a dull speaker whose English sucked. Chretien had an accent. Turmel would need years of practice to be as good as Chretien.

My sister is a shop steward over there. In one of their components. The vast majority of the membership knows nothing about their union and takes no part in it. Her particular local is basically all volunteer. She volunteered to be a shop steward about a year ago. There was no vote. She's been working there ten years and she can't recall ever hearing about any votes for the local leadership. Last week there was a big convention in Montreal where all the locals voted on regional representatives and such. She didn't go, though. I presume that at some point the regional representatives vote for those above them, but the actual basic membership has virtually nothing to do with any of it. No, all they said was they didn't agree with separatism but that they respected Quebecers' rights to make that decision themselves. But they kind of had to say that for public consumption, whether they agreed with it or not.

And Jew haters.

Odd. I don't see that. What I see are left wing ideologues who are desperate to use this tragedy as a political tool to smear all right wingers as violent extremists.

Suppose you own a warehouse, and you hire a security guard to watch over it at night. But the security guard instead goes up the street to a bar for the night. If the warehouse is looted while he's away, do you hold him blameless, and say it is merely the thieves who were at fault? Or do you fire him?

He DROVE there in half an hour. How is it the Oslo police couldn't get there in less than an hour?

One could also make the point that the same crowd which wants government to solve all our problems and insists that throwing more and more money at any and all problems is the best solution is oddly acting like penny pinching conservatives on the issue of crime. It's funny, how none of you ever shows much similar concerns about any other programs or departments - except perhaps the military. But suddenly you're all tight fisted people who don't trust government to do the job right. Odd, that. Oh of course it is. Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, and thus hold criminals at fault of their behaviour. You lot on the Left are all weepy over the fate of poor, misunderstood outcasts who clearly only need some therapy and understanding to see the error of their ways.

I was born after 1960 and I don't remember spending any real time waiting in emergency rooms until sometime in the mid 80s.

I'm all for treating addiction, but as far as I've ever seen those who break the law do it because it's easy/fun, and profitable, and because they don't estimate there's much risk or danger. Increasing the risk/danger seems to me to be the most likely method for convincing them to do something else.

The point she's making is stupid anyway. We're not equipped to punish people other than through prison. The idea of community service is actually something of a joke since it's not really enforced, and the people doing it do a lackadaisical, piss-poor job of whatever it is they're assigned. Maybe she'd feel better if we used Singapore's corporal punishment methods instead of sending people to 'con college'.

That crime costs Canadians $57 billion a year is not an emotional story. Canadians want a system which adequately punishes criminals and protects the rest of us. And they don't care if it costs a little more.

Your single experience is rather irrelevent in light of national standards and statistics which show the majority of waits at emergency rooms exceed 6hrs. Yes, if you have chest pains or something similar you are moved to the head of the line. But that doesn't help you if you've merely got, say, a broken wrist, and have to wait for ten hours to see a doctor.

I agree. You don't support separatists, period, no matter what you think of other parts of their platform. Their entire reason for existence is seperatism. As for Nicole Turmel, I can't say how she is in French but I've seen her speak in English. She makes Harper seem charismatic by comparison, and her command of the English language is easily surpassed by most of our local taxi drivers.

Uh, no. PSAC members have little to do with the selection of their union leaders, let alone who those leaders endorse.

Because union leaders are all separatists and won't support a party which isn't.

How is it anti-quebec to point out that the woman appears not to have a very strong commitment to Canada? This is the person who leads the official opposition at the moment, which is the government in waiting for all Canadians. I don't think it's irrelevant to question whether she is doing so merely out of expediency to get the most for Quebec if she's on record as supporting separatist candidates.

It might be a factor, but I'm not so sure it's a primary factor. As an example, I know two young women in their early thirties. Both are married. Family income for both couples is well over $100k. Neither woman a particularly jet-setting lifestyle, mostly staying at home at night. Neither has any children, and neither expects to have any. They both have dogs though. They have pictures of those dogs on their desks. They take the dogs to training school. One of them has a dogsitting place where she drops the dog off every day where it can "play" with other dogs. They talk about their dogs all the time, laughing about this or that thing their dogs have done. And it's kind of sad, because it's like they don't seem to have a clue what a pale shadow of satisfaction, fulfilment and enjoyment the dog is compared to children.