err

The law of supply and demand says that employers will pay what is necessary to get enough of the supply, in this case, labour. Clearly employers don't find a need to pay more to get employees, probably because of the flood of immigrants willing to take low/no skill jobs for minimum wages. So there aren't extra jobs for these "lazy Ontarians" to go out and get, because all the immigrants already got all the jobs ??? So you think Ontarians should take whatever jobs that are offered, no matter "however poorly paying they are". Should a single mom go off and get a job at the Becker's store for $6/hour and leave her child unattended.... or in a provincially run day-care ??? Well, if you have no shame then food is cheap at the food bank, and clothes and toys are cheap at the goodwill and sally ann. What if you have no choice ?? Then shame isn't an issue is it ??? I think that you have proven that you are mean-spirited, and have no compassion or empathy for those less fortunate, and rather, you'd derive pleasure from seeing them publicly humiliated.I can certainly tell you that most Ontarians would share my opinions of your attitutude, and will be extremely reluctant to elect another government as mean-spirited as that of the Harris Tories. I don't think that I need to "prove" that you are mean-spirited and uncompassionate, as you do an excellent job of demonstrationg that yourself.

Eureka, the sanctions were about more than vindictiveness. The USA didn't want the sanctions lifted becauase Saddam had deals in place with Russia, Holland, and France to exploit Iraq's oil... once the sanctions were lifted ... The USA and UK-based companies were not going to get any chance at the oil.... Allowing the UN to lift sanctions would mean lost access, no control, and no profits for the US-based firms. You'll have to remember who is running the Whitehouse, and what perspective employers will be rewarding Dick Cheney, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleeza Rice for securing 10% of the worlds oil for the said companies.... The administration will have to wait until their terms in office are done before they can collect any rewards though... from their old employers... the big oil companies.... I would imaging the rewards to be quite significant. If you'll remember, Dick Cheney was made CEO of Haliburton after he privatized much of the US army and contracted it out to Haliburton ($23 Billion in contracts). One can only surmise that similar rewards will await the others in the Bush administration once they secure 10% of the world's oil for their previous employers....

Maybe we should make those tarts work for a state owned prostitution network called "Ontario Hooks" or "PimpFare"... Then they could pay their way.. and guys like Argus would be a lot happier (that was sarcam, in case some of you didn't catch it) Maybe we could make a matching service... to supply all those companies that were just sceaming for employees. Just a thought, but if the "market rules" gobbledygook you guys always talk about really works, and there were thousands of jobs just sitting there that couldn't be filled by all these lazy Ontarians (who were obviously sitting at home drinking beer), shouldn't these desparate employers have raised the amount of money they were offering to the point that it would have attracted some empoyees ??? Well, at least we won't have an overweight population. With the paltry amount that these 'lazy louts' are supposed to live on, they would all get very thin, wouldn't they.... These people who have "no shame", I suppose they also don't mind having no decent clothes, no toys for their kids, and no lives outside the slum dwellings that they would be forced to move to, based on the pathetically small size of welfare payments (that Mike Harris dropped them to). And who cares that the desparately needy are made to live in these pathetic situations, as long as it gets a few more of those lazy ones out there making minimum wage.....

Err destroyed any credibility he had with this remark. How can you be so blindly ignorant of their links? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> MONTGOMERY BURNS IS Asking for MORe ON links about Al Queda and Iraq. Anyone care to help him ???

Did you read this month's Harpers magazine ?? This was one of the main topics. It's surprising whay you can learn. Here are just a few of Chief justice William Renquist's (1924-2005) accomplishments since 1995: I wonder if this is the right direction for the American public...???

Somewhat of a comparison, granted. Marijuana is traditionally smoked unfiltered, so it is somewhat harmful. Less so than cigarettes, because a) one does not smoke a 25 pack of doobies/dayand harmful, carcinogenic additives to increase addiction are not found in marijuana. In cigarettes, you'll find plastic... to coat the tobacco so it stays fresh (makes Cyanide when burned) In cigarettes you'll find saltpeter... to make sure the cigarette burns right out if unattended (tobacco would extinguish itself) There are about 200 additives put into the average cigarette's tobacco. And you wonder about cancer. The anti-drug NAZI's will tell you that pot is worse for you... but where's the study's to back them up... With Saddam's WMDs?? Not so, they are very comparable, with alcohol being the more harmful of the two. There are more significant comparisons. Alcohol tends to bring out aggression.... makes couple's fight, and regularly leads to violent tendencies... Whereas pot makes people more introverted, less violent, etc...Maybe they should legalize it and TAX IT. I've heard studies that say up to 10% of Canadian adults smoke the stuff.... It seems like a stretch, but hey... maybe it is true..... Deficits gone.... A huge increase in tourism, (especially American tourists, who apparently like the stuff too).

What a red herring that is. August: I think you misused the phrase. A "red herring" is a stinky fish, used to throw the scent off of what hunting dogs were following their noses to find" I don't see Black Dog's point as a distraction at all. You, who pretends to know something about economics should see the merit in what BD says. It will give the Euro more strength against the greenback....

So which is it August... "the real thing" or "such an embargo is meaningless after a month or so because US consumers can always go into the world market and buy what they need"... To quote you "Let's be clear"A funny thing about OPEC... Not to be racist, but the rag-tag bunch of third-world leaders riding camels couldn't have pulled off the embargo as well as the embargo was done... and they certainly cant keep the price up by restricting the production... They can't because half of them invariably start exceeding their quotas to make a few extra bucks.... I think that BIG OIL (the oil companies) have had to assist OPEC in keeping prices high, while pretending to the public... "we can't do anything... It's those Arabs".... So BIG OIL can reap huge profits and not take any of the public's wrath... Its a very good scam... IOW, Saddam collected royalties on oil produced. Maybe we have to explain this in simpler language. The USA desperately did not want the embargo against Iraq lifted because Saddam had arrangements with Holland, France, and Russia to exploit Iraq's oil. There was no provision for the USA or and US-Based, or UK-based firms to make any profits from Iraq's oil. The USA (and UK) would be allowed to buy oil from the Dutch, French, or Russian companies (if they would sell it to the USA), but there would be no profits for Dick Cheyney's old company...The only way to stop these deals from going through was to ATTACK IRAQ... So, now the American companies will have to bid for the access - and a new Iraqi regime will collect the royalties. That's right August... Access, yes...... but NO CONTROL, and NO PROFITS. Duh.... (that wasn't like one of your famous acronymns... it was a grunt of despair) Really... and you truly believe that...They're not just stealing it for the benefit of the general American public.... How about Haliburton, Chevron, Mobil... all companies that Dick Cheney's task force consulted about their plans to attack Iraq. All companies that the members of the current Bush administration sat on their boards of directors..... And have you read Linda McQuaig's "It's the Crude, Dude" I don't think that you'd be making the naive arguments that you are if you had. (PS. The book isn't about economics)... PPS. What books of hers have you read that allow you to comment so authoratitively on them ??? I'll agree with you on this point at least...

They ??? Who's "they".The USA doesn't just want ACCESS to oil. They want CONTROL of oil reserves. They don't want a repeat of the 1973-1974 "energy crisis", when their pals, the Saudi royal family bowed to public pressure (Saudi public pressure) to join the embargo against the USA. This was as a response to the USA's support for Isreal. They don't ever want this to happen again. How could they conduct a massive war without putting oil in their war machines. It would be a "national security" risk... Plus, they (the Bush administration) want the Iraqi profits going to American oil companies. Oil companies that had on their boards of directors, names like: George Bush Dick Cheney Condoleeza Rice Donald Rumsfeld. Not that I'm suggesting these individuals have a "personal interest" in forcibly obtaining extra profits for the companies they once served... companies that will more than likely "reward them" with another position on their boards of directors once they are voted out... and maybe a few additional perks that they shouldn't talk about....

It shouldn't be humiliating. You'd make a wonderful catchphraser for the national socialist party. Hey Mockingbird... I think you're going to need to explain what the "national socialist party" is to him....

Are you speaking to mirror or into one ????Montgomery.... in all my time on this web, I've not seen another poster so brimming with hate and void of facts as yourself.

And if they did, the left would be screaming bloody murder - just like they did with Iraq. They have a deal with Saudi Arabia to keep democracy out.... I think you'd have a long way to go to find a more gullible nitwit than you.... Now you're drowning in the Kool-Aid. The US has repeatedly said that Al Qaeda and Iraq were linked. There is absolutely no doubt. This is an undisputed irrefutable fact. Is the proof just hidden with the invisible weapons of mass destruction ??? Are you on drugs ?? And how many did the USA kill.... They've got the record... they fried 140,000 Japs in just a few milliseconds. But more specifically, in Iraq, they USA killed over 500,000 babies between the first and second wars... by not allowing anyone to bring in water purification equipment..... The USA has killed how many tens of thousands of Iraqis in their quest for oil...But I suppose you think that's ok.How about the 100,000 American citizens who Bush lets die every single year by not providing health care... At least Saddam did that much... How about the USA's assistance in gassing the Kurds.... The Democrats tried to block the sale of the helecopters Saddam was going to use to kill the Kurds, but the Republicans blocked the bill, (Prevention of genocide act). So the USA helped kill those people... how are they morally superior in this case... because they didn't actually fly the choppers ???? Are these the same Islamopussies who took out the World Trade Centres ??? Canadian style ?? I think you are a bit confused. Maybe you should go lie down....

Saudi Arabia is one of the starting points for the whole problem. In the 1950s, the USA made a deal with the Saudi royalty. The US-based oil companies would do all of the work, build roads, hospitals, palaces, and give the Saudi's 12.5% of their revenues. In return, the USA would protect the royal family with military and any other forces necessary from any challenge to their power... including democracy. The Saudi people have had to live under a regime supported by the USA for generations now. Only for a brief 2-year period did the Saudis cut off oil to the Americas (1973-1974) because the royal family had to bow to pressure from the Saudi people who were extremely displeased with the USA's support for Isreal. Ever since then, the Saudi royal family and Washington have been close. The Saudi public has not been thrilled by this relationship, especially due to the American support for Isreal. In the spring of 2001, the Americans began amassing troops on Saudi soil. (Dick Cheney (Defence minister under George Bush senior) had been plotting the Iraqi attack for some time, long before Bush was elected, it would appear). The growing American presence was the last straw.... The Saudi people, especially ones like Osama Bin Laden did not want his country to be the home for the American infidels... On 9/11, Osama Bin Laden and his followers lashed out at the infidels. This was just the fantastic opportunity that Dick Cheney and George Bush were hoping for. They could attack Saddam under the guise of reprisal for the 9/11 attack. When no link between Al Queda and Iraq could be found (other than they both had the letter "Q" in their names), they used the WMD excuse.... Drats, that wasn't going to pan out either... That nasty Hans Blix was killing their excuse... .. Oh no... wait, I've got a good Idea ...... we'll say that we're freeing the people... no... even better, bringing DEMOCRACY to the region.... but not to our good friends in Saudi Arabia... because the American deal with them was to keep democracy out of Saudi Arabia.... The real reason for the war wasn't the Iraqi people... you'd have to be really naive to believe that... The reason goes back to the 1973-1974 "energy crisis". If Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, or even Canada cut them off of the fuel for their big manly SUVs, then they'd really be in trouble... their war machines all need oil and its derivatives. So while they currently have ACCESS to all the oil they need, that ACCESS could be cut off as it was in the '70s.... and that would be a "national security threat". So they opted to get CONTROL of one of 10% of the world's oil.... because CONTROL is better than ACCESS.

The RUSSIANS beat Hitler.... The British and Canadians fought Hitler... 75% of all Hitlers forces were on the Eastern Front (that's the side Russia is on.)America entered the war at the last minute to try out their new toys.... They had to settle for Japan to try them out though...

Why bother killing him, Operation Iraqi Liberation was successful, wasn't it ???

Excellent reply Black Dog.

Based on you responses, you probably weren't around in 1973-1974, when the Arab world, (including Saudi Arabia) cut off oil supplies to the USA) This was in response to the USA's strong support for Isreal. The net result was an "energy crisis", where the shortage of oil raised North American fuel prices considerably.The USA considered any future occurrences like this to be a threat to "national security". They could never let this happen again. The USA wanted CONTROL of oil, not just ACCESS, so they could ensure that there would not be a repeat of the 1970's "energy crisis". That is why they attacked Iraq.

Hugo Chavez - A brief background. Chavez was born into a poorer family. He is unpopular with the US administration due to his emergence as a leader of a movement of Third World countries, trying to challenge today's prevailing economic policies. For instance, he denounced Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). He proposed a counter-deal, that would allocate less power to corporations and retain more for sovereign governments. (He insisted that the FTAA would be a violation of the Venezuelan constitution.) Of course, Venezuela's elite have close ties to Washington and US-based corporations. One of Chavez's greatest accomplishments was to clean up and take proper control of the corrupt nationalized oil company. Previously the financial gains of the company (PDVSA) were not making it back into the country's coffers, and trickling down to help the poorer citizens. Chavez changed that. Venezuela does provide oil to Cuba, in exchange for Cuba sending doctors to Venezuela. Chavez is a champion of the poor, which is the majority of the population of the country. Chavez held a referendum, on re-writing the constitution of the country... and received 70 percent support. The new constitution provided strong protections for women's equality, rights for indigenous people, and a ban on the privatization of the nations oil. On April 11, 2002, an armed faction took over the presidential palace in Caracas and took Chavez prisoner. When the public caught wind of this, they took to the streets. The coup had the support of the Bush administration. According to Chavez, "Washington applauded. The American ambassador (Charles Shapiro) came here to the palace and supported the coup". Only the next day, after Latin American leaders strongly condemned the coup, did US secretary of State, Colin Powell come out against it as well. Evidence has since emerged that the US may have been involved in the coup.

Al Queda attacked the WTC only after Cheney/Bush started to amass troops on Saudi soil, as a response to having their country's government (and hence Saudi citizens lives) controlled by the USA... There were no terrorists in Iraq until the USA, in their quest to control Iraq's OIL the USA made a mess of that country. And you have the nerve to call "commies" dangerous... Your moronic redneck remarks really show you for what you are.. or Iraqi civilians I suppose ??? Maybe you should spit into a fan, you insensnitive, unthinking low-life.

I think that the answer is: Who cares, as long as we get control of the oil.It's not like they give a hoot about the Iraqi people... as long as the USA has control of whatever government that is installed (and hence the oil supply), why should they care. They don't care about democracy in Saudi Arabia.... They have a deal with the Saudi royal family.... guaranteeing access to Saudi oil, so who cares about the Saudi people (except perhaps a few radicals like Osama Bin Laden) They helped topple a democratically elected government in Iran in the 1950s, and installed the Shah of Iran .... Who cares about the "sand niggers".... as long as the USA has access to the oil... However, the Saudis turned on the USA in the early seventies over Isreal... and the USA can't have that happening again... what they need is CONTROL of oil, not just ACCESS....

Translation again: I don't like it when people point out our ugly side. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think it's more like mirror is frustrated, having to try to have an intellectual debate with complete retards.

Why doesn't he wait until it looks like he has a chance, instead of just irritating Canadians with an election that will not change anything.... except maybe put the NDP into a controlling position..... The NDP is the only party that appears to have done anything positive in the past several months....

Actually, pulling out of NAFTA would be preferable. The neo-cons in this newsgroup may think that I "hate trade", but I'm afraid they wouldn't even listen to either the facts or a good argument....

What the United States did to Iraq had nothing to do with democracy or the "war on terror".... However, if we were to look at the situation in the middle east, we might see why some Islamic fundamantalists want to hurt the United States. We don't have to look far from Iraq either...... Just south to Saudi Arabia. The ruling monarchy in Saudi Arabia made a deal with the United States some 50 years ago. While all of the specifics of the deal were never made public, some were all too obvious: The United States would protect the Saudi monarchy from any challenges (including democracy) in return for guaranteed access to Saudi Arabia's oil. The American oil companies would also build roads, hospitals, etc... to keep the people from revolting.... Except for a brief spell (1973-1974), the Saudi's kept their word. In this time, the Saudi royal family bowed to public pressure to retaliate for the USA's support of Isreal. Any repetition of "energy crisis" that resulted would be considered a "national security" issue. This set the seeds for the idea of not just having ACCESS to oil, as they though they had assuredly from Saudi Arabia, but they wanted CONTROL of oil.... and Iraq looked like the perfect fit, with at least 10% of the world's oil reserves. The 9/11 attack (planned and carried out by Saudis) came right after the USA started a buildup of "infidels" (American soldiers) on Saudi soil, right after Bush got into office. (The buildup that was part of the plan for the take-over of Iraq, a plan devised by the "Dick Cheney task force on energy" starting in the spring of 2001, in which Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, and other oil companies provided advice in top secret meetings). The 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with "hatred of freedom", as some morons have suggested. The attacks surely had more to do with the hatred of the control that the "imperialistic forces" had on Saudi Arabia.... the imposition of the "American way" on Muslims, and the American support for Isreal.... If your view that "democracy" and/or "freedom" is the imposition of American values and way of life on Muslims, then yes, they don't want it.... And spreading of this type of "democracy" is not something that Canada should be participating in...

It's funny that the USA has never been interested in democracy in Saudi Arabia... The've given the Saudi royal family their guarantee, military protection, etc.. to prevent the possibility of a change of government.... It's also funny how, in the 1950s, the USA helped overthrow the democratically elected (Mossadegh) government of Iran because that government nationalized the country's oil, a move to help the people... and they loved the Shah of Iran... real democracy lovers... Most people don't realize that Saddam Hussain actually treated most Iraqis better than portayed by the US press. All Iraqis had free health care under Saddam. All Iraqis had free post-secondary education.... Something that Bush won't ever give Americans.... But you won't see the Bush-lovers ever mentioning things like that.... This is Canada, Rochelle Wilner. We have more important things to do, like changing the 2000 year definition of marriage, despite the majority of Canadians being against this. Gay marriage is the single most important thing to Canada's Liberal Party. Screw those dumb "mericans and their so-called fears about "terrorism". What terrorism? Don't these morons listen to Michael Moore? Speaking of morons.... The War on Iraq was about OIL... Control of Iraqi OIL.... Even the USA admits that there is no link between Al Queda and Iraq (other than the letter "Q" that they both share) American actions against Iraq have actually increased the number of terrorist incidents dramatically since the illegal invasion... according to the Pentagon.... There was no terrorism in Iraq until George Bush brought it there... Yeah right. That would make Canada like America; an absolute no-no in Quebec and Ontario. If America is spreading democracy, Canada is against it. Thank God that Canada is not like America.... America is using morons like you who are stupid enough to think that their war was about democracy.... to try to make them look like their illegal invasions was in some way justified.First their war was about "weapons of mass destruction"... then it was disproved, it was about "the War on Terror".... and when that was disproved it was about "bringing democracy" to the middle east... It's too bad there are so many gullible morons out there.... because anyone with half of a brain should be able to see through this one....