cybercoma

That's what happened when Deputy Prime Minister Herb Gray left office. Windsor-West elected Brian Masse NDP.

Screw the minority is exactly what you're saying when you say that people who were unable to or not willing to vote don't count. As for the rest of your nonsense, I have no clue what you're trying to say. Bill C-43 (the original Liberal budget) was voted for by the Liberals, NDP, Conservatives, Parrish, Kilgour and Cadman. The Bloc were the only ones to vote against it. Bill C-48 (Layton's Budget) was the vote everyone watched and was supported by 50% of the seats in the house. If 61% of the population voted then that amounts to somehwere between 30-35% of Canadians supporting it. So, 1 in 3 Canadians supported your tax and spend carelessness.

What I don't understand is how Toronto can get a 1-2 billion out of the budget; meanwhile, Windsor which desperately needs to implement its border plan for the good of the entire nation gets next to nothing. Exports are being stifled by horrendous gridlock at the ambassador bridge, yet the government continues to sit on its hands.

I hardly see how this budget amendment is what the majority of Canadians voted for. When you figure only about 61% of Canadians actually voted, the Liberals were only voted in by roughly 25% of Canadians. That means the NDP has a much smaller fraction of support....to the tune of under 10% of Canadians. So, if you want to go around saying Canadians got the budget that almost 10% of them voted for....go right ahead, but don't try and sell this budget as something everyone wants when that's obviously not the case.

You attach too much altruism to the Conservatives motivations for calling an election. When Brault testimony first came out they ran to their pollsters - once they saw their support rising so they pushed for an election. If that blip in the polls did not occur then they would not have pushed for an election. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It would be a waste of taxpayers money to call an election if it wasn't going to invoke change. If they called an election, knowing full well the Liberals would win it again...that would be completely careless on their part. So, of course that had something to do with it, but I think it's more a combination of the two.

Sorry, I had to....I hear it my head everytime I see that quote.

You're quite right. Which is why no one will ever elect the NDP. Never has a party cared less about human rights, or been more willing to sacrifice the lives, property and freedom of others on the alter of ideological purity. Scratch an NDPer and you find someone more than comfortable with the world of Farenheit 451 and the world of Orwell. Big Brother, whether you like it or not, because it's good for you - because they say so. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Argus, you don't really think he's going to understand that forcing people to give up their property to pay for the ideals of another group of people is comparable to the world of Fahrenheit 451 or anything Orwellian, do you? He thinks this is a perfectly reasonable concept to obtain peace and harmony amongst everyone. Take more of my property by force, so someone who isn't as productive or hasn't worked nearly as hard as I have may live in comfort. Sounds like utopia to me.

True, but insisting on an immediate election which would give a large strategic advantage to the BQ is a funny way to show your love for the country. Conservatives could continue to oppose the gov't and demand changes to important policies without an election. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're right, but those Canadians who strongly oppose the corruption would see the Conservatives as being inactive and allowing the Liberals to stay in power longer than they needed. They were caugh tin a catch 22, look like you're willing to allow the corruption to continue or force an election which will allow the BQ to get more seats. With the particularly damning evidence that was coming out of the Gomery Inquiry they really had no choice but to call for the government to go to election. Had Belinda Stronach not crossed the aisle the day before they would've went on to victory in the vote against the budget amendment. So, the better of the two options (even though they were painted into a corner) was obviously to try and force an election, with the obvious downside of making them appear to be supporters of the BQ. Of course, this is logically flawed. Not supporting one thing doesn't automatically mean you support something else.

I think the simple fact that the Bloc voted down C-43 while the Tories supported it shows that they're not as chummy as you claim. My enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend. :edit: And just to clarify, being an opponent to the Liberal Party does not make you an opponent to Canada...contrary to popular belief.

...did I just agree with eureka?

You see, this is the other thing that I failed to mention in my first post. I don't think EVERYONE should be forced to support religious schools. Why should a person of one religion pay to support a school of another religion he/she does not have any belief in? I agree that education should be a provincial responsibility and the provinces need to take ownership of this problem. If various religions want their own religious schools they're entitled, but they should receive no funding forcefully taken from the general public through taxes. They should be private and students of those faiths and their parents should be footing the bill for the "special" education they want their children to receive. These schools should also be licensed by the province to ensure that children are learning the fundamentals that everyone needs. Of course, everyone should be required to fund public education because it benefits everyone equally since all children must be educated.

Hmmm. I have two reactions to that. First, I don't think you really believe that as an absolute 'right'. Second, and I hope you will reply to this, I wonder on what basis you argue that one person has a 'right' to control the mind of another. On the basis that the first five years of a child's development will mould them into the person they will be for the rest of their life. It's the parents' responsibility to raise their child as they see fit, not as you demand they raise them. A parents' NATURAL right to raise their child as they see fit is inherently "controlling the mind of another" and inevitable, regardless of religion. You're completely ignoring the importance faith has to some people and by saying people shouldn't be allowed to raise their child according to their religious practices is a denial of a basic human right. Curious comment. Do you think religions would not survive if childhood indoctrination were halted? The survival of the religion is neither here nor there. The point I was making is that you're denying people to practice their religious beliefs. You might as well make all religions illegal to practice because they may warp the fragile minds of children. It has nothing to do with a fear of religions not surviving because I think once people gain life experience they become well aware of the world around them and are capable of making the choice of having faith in a religion or not.You're talking about denying religions like Christianity the sacrament of baptism and so forth, which is just ridiculous. That would be like forcing someone who is Jewish or Muslim to consume pork. The problem is that the child's opportunities are thereby foreclosed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You make it sound like no one has ever dropped out of school then gone back at a later date and become successful. You're also making it sound like some of these kids taking over multi-million dollar farming businesses is a punishment. If these kids feel they're being mistreated, then they can go back to school once they make that determination. But what you're talking about is going from one form of control (from their family and communities) to forcing government control on them that goes against their faith.

You can't honestly be serious? This is one of the most ridiculous posts I've seen on this forum yet.

I think it's the parents' right to raise their children according to whatever religion they believe in. You may as well move to ban religion altogether if you're going to take that right away from parents. Not only this, but would it even be advantageous for everyone in society to be a doctor or lawyer? Who then would mop the floors or pick up the garbage? If certain families withdraw their children from school so they can help on the farm, because that's what the kids are going to do for the rest of their life, what's the problem with that? You're not stunting their educational developement, you're stunting their real-life work experience (it would be awfully difficult to argue that no one learns from experience) in the field they will undoubtedly go into. Terrible idea all around, imho.

A lot of the questions had a largely social slant to them, which forced you to answer in a double negative if you chose any sort of rightwing type answer. Anyway, here's my results.... Your political compass Economic Left/Right: 1.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.69

I really hate how people hold this documentary up as an "anti-capitalism" flag. The documentary simply explores the question of whether or not corporations should have social, humantarian and environmental responsibility as well as financial. It's not a comment against capitalism.

Does the fact that US soldiers torture prisoners in Iraq, Guantanamo and Afganistan mean that all Americans are 'bastards'? I don't think so. Similarily, it is racist to imply that abuses of Japanese soliders during the WW2 mean that all Japanese living during WW2 are bastards. The fact is the vast majority of Japanese were victims of a military dictatorship that controlled information and gave them a very distorted view of reality (much like the Chinese gov't is doing today). Regards <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There is no excuse for what was done to the Japanese during the war; however, much like the fight against terrorism today, people were uncertain as to whether or not the Japanese living here during the time were "sleepers" or informants for their government. It was all a bunch of hysteria and the treatment of Japanese Canadians was inexcusable, when simple surveilance would've sufficed. Hindsight is always 20/20 though and it's impossible to speak on the gravity of the situation unless you lived through it. To call the Japanese military or government of the time bastards is a fair enough assertion considering their actions during the war. This is hardly racism and more a comment on the government's stance during those confrontational times. Just as it has become fashionable to call Americans "arrogant bastards" nowadays, it's not really each individual citizen that is being referred to, rather it is the government and her policies that we're talking about.

That enriching the wealthy part is amusing. A quick calculation will show you that $569 of $15,000/year is 3.79%, $4000 of $125,000/year oddly enough is 3.2%. That's over half a point lower than the percentage the single mother is getting back. Who here supports equality?

This is taught in highschool economics bub... at least thats where i learned about it first. The rpoblem is most people are deadset on taking bird coursed throughout highschool so they can get the highest marks for post secondary <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Should your high school have an economics class, which I would say very few if any do.

I just think people are sick and tired of the same group of bastards running the show for years, while the other half of people are perfectly happy to allow them the opportunity to steal the money we entrust to them to spend on our behalf. The government has taken for granted that we allow them to take our money with the expectation of service in return. Now they feel it's their god given right to rob us at gunpoint (try not paying your taxes for years, when they come knocking on your door...trust me....they'll have guns) and give us nothing (of what we expect) in return. So, I'll tell you what we all have in common. We all busted our asses off to get jobs to support ourselves and our families and we're all having our money stolen right out of our bank accounts to fund this organized crime ring who claims it has our best interests at hear so they can shut us up long enough to take more moeny.

She was the CEO of a billion dollar corporation that her daddy started. All without a post-secondary education (from what people have been saying, I'm not entirely sure about that). I don't think she has any shortage of cash. It's awfully difficult to become something you already are.

Her award should be an ounce of credibility, she would appear to have lost all of hers.

I'm going with PATHETIC on this one. Romps in the sack have no place in politics; frankly, I don't want to hear about it, nor do I want to see him sobbing like a baby in the media in the wake of a difficult breakup.

Kinda tough to believe a party listens to its constituents when they all vote the same way. I find it hard to believe that every riding has the same opinions on an issue as split as this one was.

All I can hear in my head is that woman half-singing, "TRUST the midas touch"