err

Your heartfelt rendition of "The Wonderful Life of Bob" was ended by the very people that voted for him, when they voted him out. The Unions. Going by what you have said in the past, it was not the unions who voted him out... And if you'll notice, the unions do not make up the majority of the voters in Ontario... Again, you ignore the facts and blindly choose whichever version of reality that you want at the moment. The province was in a severe recession when Bob Rae was elected. Incidentally, Bob Rae was elected on a "protest vote" because the public wasn't happy with either of the other two choices. As a consequence of the recession, Rae had some very difficult choices to make. I think he made responsible choices, but I don't think it would matter to your camp... When Mike Harris got in, he had decisions to make, you your camp applauded the firing of all of our environmental monitoring staff, the privatization of water supplies for communities like Walkerton, and the fire sale of our electricity generation capabilities. I would think it a safe wager that if the public were asked which government did the most damage, that your Mike Harris would the majority vote selected....

I suppose that's a relative matter.... depending on what you make your comparisons to. Relative to the US, Canada is safe. conversely, Relative to Canada, the USA is Dangerous.... My justification follows: Using the statistics provided by Newbie, we see that in California, with roughly the same population as Canada, the murder rate is approximately 4.25 times higher. (note, this is the state where you tried to show that it was safer than Canada, demonstrating your regular practice of deception). If you are to compare the USA to Canada overall, there were 26 times as many murders in the USA as in Canada, or 2.6 times as many per capita.... WTF? PocketRocket, American politicians think about Canada about as often as Ontario politicians think about Labrador. The real problem isn't Americans here, it's redneck Tories going overboard, trying to paint Canada as the worst place in the world to live because the people of this contry reject his redneck party, its leader, and its policies....

I'm afraid I have not made myself clear. I was not referring to the running of the welfare system by either provincial or federal government. I was referring to the fact that you standard of forced sharing through welfare which you advocate at the individual level, does not apply to nations. Canada as a rich nation is not forced to share with poor nations. Yet it is a behaviour you defend, quite contrary to your position at an individual level. Given you acknowledge that Canada is in good financial shape, your position is even more hypocritical in that you suggest that Canada should expend its resources at home. The Canadian financial picture is not too bad, as I have stated, so as a result, I think that our government should put more money in to funding healthcare (which it has plundered to achieve the surpluses), education (which has been plundered to achieve the surpluses) and our welfare system (which has been plundered to achieve the surpluses). I also agree with Jack Layton that upping our foriegn aid to the levels recommended by prior Canadian prime ministers would be a good idea. (Acually, if you look at the thread on NDP policy, you'll see a few other good ideas of the NDPs to help foriegn countries).

I can. If the government is going to deem certain types of work equal to other types of work, i.e. janitor v. secretary, then the government is getting into an area in which it has no clue. All it does it increase regulation, adds bureaucracy, makes the labour market less flexible and certainly increases the costs to the taxpayers. It also sets a very bad precendent if the concept of equal pay for "equal value" becomes enshrined in law as it will drive up labour costs and thus unemployment, all while making the Canadian economy less competitive. I'll agree that there would be problems with implementation... It would be interesting to see how they would propose to pull it off... I think that looking at programs for low-income, single parents is a good idea, but only for those people. But I don't know why the government has to run a for-profit center. I doubt the cost would be much lower than private care. Paul Martin is already entertaining bids from "big box" day-care centres, as Martin has been promising "day-care" for years. The NDP is actively trying to fight the importation of huge American "big-box" day-care in favour of government run (or at least locally run) day-care. The government run or locally run models will be much better for our economy, and for our kids...

AMEN !!!

Change for the sake of change is not necessarily a good thing. Improvement might be a good thing, but that improvement should be defined before we drop what we have to jump to the improvement.... (actually, there are several significan improvements listed in the NDP policy thread)

It's almost amusing how you can distort reality by not including key facts with your statements. When Bob Rae got into power, there was a huge recession... not of his doing. Rae could have used Conservative philosophy (as Mike Harris did when he was in power) and just fired thousands of people to keep the province's books out of the red. Instead, he guaranteed every civil servants's job, but they each got a temporary 5% pay cut, until the books were in order again. This was a small pain when shared by everybody, rather than devastation to thousands... and destruction of provincial services. I have to take my hat of to Bob Rae for his handling of a horrible inherited situation.

Clueless self-important chick: Confusing delusions for reality, speaking for sense, deciding she is smarter than everyone, even when she is proven wrong...

All the Mormons will move to Canada. Can't wait to see the NDP defend polygamy. Ridiculous... Myth... Polygamy is not practiced by Mormons... Maybe 200 years ago, but in the USA, like in Canada, it is illegal... This is nice, but recall the posts about about the Left offerring idealized solutions without fully understanding the secondary effects. The topic appears to be marijuana useage... Try having a record for getting caught with one joint when you were a teen in the '70s, and see if you can take a holiday in Florida... Or if you can attend your uncle's funeral in Michigan... The idea is to protect Canadians against ridiculous right-wing draconic, hypocritical laws. Good idea It's been needed for a very long time... Why not pass a policy mandating better programing so people actually watch the damn channel? Based on your wording, maybe Fox new would be more exiting... pretty girls, more exciting story-telling.... However, a huge number of Canadians tune into the CBC... including me...

What does this mean? Does this mean equal pay for equal work or equal pay for equal value of work? Cost? you can play with words, but you cannot argue with the sentiment... Cost? How about the cost of not doing it.... How many single moms will have to stay home if they can't get affordable day-care. In a publicly funded modle, the cost can be far less than in a for-profit centre, so it can be an economically viable entity. Why don't we make EI a true insurance program, like the word is supposed to mean? So if someone is continuously using EI, that person will see his premiums rise. This will give the worker greater incentive to find permanent employment. It's way harder to get, and way harder to stay on than back in the 70's... I don't see, with the strict rules they have, how anyone can 'continuously use EI'... Great idea. (to be continued_

They aint gonna have no homos runnin fer them... no way boy... In fact, when we get in, we're gonna put in a law that will put those fruitcakes... um, ... Like the abortions thing, we're not gonna do nothin... before we get in anyways... We only like decent folk in the Conservative party...

NDP government, right.Well, the police would have instructions ... blah, blah, blah... no instructions or data-collection about racial profiles. Then, the NDP Revenue Minister would blah, blah, blah... waits for returning Canadians. Then, the NDP Justice Minister would ... blah, blah, blah... be extradited to Texas because there is the possibility of capital punishment. When the NDP government is ... blah, blah, blah... being "true" Leftists. What was that about ??? Have you been to Mark Emery's web site ???---- Do you know the best way to prevent pyromaniac children from burning your house down... You can punish them, you can yell at them, you can bring them to therapy, but if you don't want a fire, the best way is to keep the matches away from them.... Your deceptive use of statistics (excellently demonstrated by newbie) has shown you for what you... and your arguments are...

Your second sentence just shot any credibility you could have tried to earn ... You've lost it... completely Counting is not one of your specialities either ???? And I would argue that he was one of the most important people to keep out of office ever in Canada.... "If he wins..." ... If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle... not very likely....

Well said. However, it has to be said that as the "right" stretches further off to the right, the supposed "centre" party correspondingly has moved in that direction. What we need is a sharp shift back in the leftward direction...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Can someone post a link to the origin of this statement? I want to read it in context before I say anything. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...indpost&p=72004 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...indpost&p=72814

I agree. It's embarrassing that Canada seems to constantly blame its crime woes on the USA. There's gangs freely strutting around in my city--with usually not a cop in sight. Thank you NDP for lying when you said that you were going to hire 200 more cops for the province. Typical pantywaist appeasers when it comes to enforcing society's laws. :angry: Well Montgomery... if we had elected an NDP government, maybe we could hold them accountable... but seeing as that is not the case, maybe we pick some other arbitrary target to blame...I wonder if Montgomery has a theory on whether gangs with guns shoot people more often than gangs that don't have guns. You'll always hear these pro-gun nutbars saying that guns don't kill people... people do... Well Montgomery, I'll take you out of suspense... People who have guns shoot people way more often than people who don't have guns shoot people.. But where do they get the handguns... They're rather hard to buy over the counter in Canada... But it's just a skip over the bridge to an American Wal-mart, isn't it...

And I suppose neither of them would know how to build a dog house, but that shouldn't take from their ability to lead the country...

Only a mentally retarded employer would 'make an example' of somebody asking for a raise. How idiotic is that concept? I guess there's a lot of mentally retarded employers out there....

There is lots of competition,just look at your choices from all the car companies. Your few reasons are only your opinions.Foreign vehicles still sell well regardless of the import duty,people feel safer in SUV's,Higher sale prices?Yes, everybody wants to pay more for a SUV because it makes them a manly man. Give me a break, who wants to pay more for anything? Well, yesterday's losers (the people who bought the econo cars, mini-vans, and foriegn "rattle-traps") are now looking to be a little smarter in the eyes of a lot of SUV owners.... They will learn,they will learn that other places are far cheaper to produce cars without the excesses that they have to pay in North America.Cars will go the route of cameras,tV's, stereos, and the latest is appliances that will soon be made in Mexico instead of the US or Canada.So will the unions learn, when more of these jobs are eliminated and lost to places that will produce them cheaper and better. And if nobody has manufacturing jobs in America... who's going to have the money to buy these "cheaper cars" that will be made in Mexico ??? Yes it is too bad that seven people who work in one small bank in a small town outside Sudbury who are happy with their working conditions and their employer now have to get involved in a union that they don't need or don't want. And you rant about equality for people. And it's too bad that the NDP that I voted for didn't get in... but that's democracy, isn't it....

Where do you get this from? Your link.... Teen smoking is hardly relevant to buying big ticket items. Has tobacco advertising made you smoke? If it has then you have to be pretty gulliable if you believe enough to buy an item just through advertising. There are a lot of gullible people sitting on front of television sets... Adveritising sells... I don't think you can realistically dispute that.... People make the choices they do for all kinds of ridiculous reasons... A terribly effective advertising campaign convinced an incredible number of people that they needed these big mombo manly trucks for driving around in the city... not off-roading... for in the city.... The vehicles are impractical city vehicles because they are so large... They are dangerous vehicles to have around the city because the driver's visibility is impaired by the height and sheer volume of vehicle around him... They are harder to park in the city.... They get horrible gas mileage... They pollute umpteen times more than cars... where's the up-side... Well, your neighbour will think you're really successful to drive one of these expensive vehicles... They'll be impressed by your frivolous nature, not buying a practical vehicle, but a "fun", sporty, prestegious, not to mention very expensive one... You must be pretty successful if you just pull up to the pumps and fill them up every week without flinging... So millions of people who want to appear to be successful to their neighbours bought these big macho gas guzzlers.... So Canuck, if you want one, the Auto Trader is jam packed with these vehicles now (and so are the new car dealer's lots) because people found that they couldn't afford to appear so successful anymore....

ERR , The Big Three and foreign car companies sell cars of all kinds not just SUV's.Take a look at their vehicle lines.GM has Cavaliers,Chrysler has Neons,Ford has Focus.Take your pick. The people of Noth America WANT SUV's. People are very suggestible... and advertising works very effectively. The Big 3 have a big interest in swinging interest to SUVs. I wasn't going to list some of them again, but for you, here's a few:1) Reduced manufacturing cost due to reduced emissions and safety standards. 2) Reduced competition - 25% duty on imports. 3) Higher sale prices - Big manly vehicles not for penny conscious wimps.... Doesn't it make good sense to steer the public in a direction that you don't have competition in.... Personally, I think that people who drive these big manly machines around the city to show eveyone just how successful they are.... are idiots... complete and total idiots ....I think it was extremely irresponsible of our governments not to tighten standards for both safety and emissions from these big contraptions (especially with the global warming crisis) I think it was irresponsible of the automotive companies to promote them as they did.... (You can say that it is the purchasers' fault only, just like the tobacco companies have nothing to do with teens smoking) all eggs in one basket is pretty dumb... and they have a 25% duty when brought into the USA... and the auto companies banked on this for their future, promoting the big mombo SUVs.... The auto companies made this deal in return for cutting 500,000 jobs. A deal is a deal... Just because the auto companies gambled foolishly, and lost because of it... they still have to keep their deal... Hopefully they learn from it next time.... It's too bad for them that they couldn't prevent the majority of workers in their offices from getting their way, isn't it... but I guess that's democracy... Most of the workers voted for the union... I'm sure there are tons of non-unionized companies they could go to if they don't want job security or group benefits....

I'll agree that it could be run at a federal level, but it is not. So our provincial governments have to run it. Thankfully, we have our social safety net, or this could easily describe Canada as well. Actually, Canada's books aren't in too bad a shape. My comment that Canada has "limited resources" was directed at your challenge, calling me hypocritical in that I suggested that we help those at home first, before helping other countries' people. A more subtle, but positively charged insult... I would certainly advocate reforming the welfare system, however increased funding is not a position I would advocate. We all know your position...

And as risk-takers, as you call them, they should assume some risk. If their investment works, they can "get rich". If not, should they get all their money back, and have the employees bear the loss... lose their pensions, pay, etc... The "Heads, I win, Tails you lose" scenario just doesn't cut it.

That's the opinion of the liberal Canadian Press. However, the US took in $70 billion more thatn they expected from the 2004 tax year. The Bush tax cuts; more jobs; more people paying tax, CPP and EI; staying out of trouble; staying off EI and especially welfare; companies expanding, making more money because of the good economy and also paying more tax. It's just common sense. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of a $1 billion drop in revenue per percentage point. When Martin announced this, I felt that his corrupt-to-the-core govt was trying to bribe me. Your dialog seems confused... Bush's tax cuts caused more jobs in Canada ?? more people paying tax in Canada ??? CPP, EI... Your statement "It's just common sense" doesnt seem to apply to your post...It is Paul Martins that has had control of the reigns of the Canadian economy for over 10 years now, not George Bush. It seems ironic that you should be talking about the great state of the Canadian economy that has been under Martin's watchful eye... However, Montgomery, it should be quite obvious (using a first approximation) that an N percent drop in the tax rates should produce an N percent drop in total revenue. But, as much as I hate to agree with Montgomery on anything, I will agree that Martin is trying to buy votes.... Conservative votes....

Good for her... However, I doubt she took a poll of her constituents to get a realiatic perspecive of the percentage that were for or against. A few squeaky wheels, who incidentally, probably did not vote NDP may be all she heard. As I pointed out earlier, the constituents voted NDP based on the NDP platform... and she went against that platform, and one of the key policies of the NDP... so she effectively went against the wishes of her constituents in favour of the opinion of herself, perhaps her pastor/priest, and a few homophobic right-wing conservatives in her riding. I think what the NDP is saying is that the party's representatives better represent the party on key issues. It's pretty simple. Yes, simple and wrong. In fact, it is what's wrong with Canadian politics, why so many have turned away from the political process. She is NOT supposed to be the party's representative to her people but her constituent's representative in parliament. Too many of them forget that, as do the parties, all too often. If she has actual poll data from her riding, this may be the case, but in nearly every single instance, it is the election poll that expresses the constituents wishes... during the term, if the politician shifts stance, it is usually a personal whim, or steering by a lobby group... If she has poll data, more recent then the election poll, she should show it... otherwise the election poll should stand, and she should do as promised to her constituents when elected under the NDP banner.