geoffrey

A great many things in the world will happen whether we agree or not but that does not make the act of agreement correct. There are various terms for this view: "passing the buck", "ethical void", "lack of principles", "mercenary attitude". In any conflict there are people who believe in one side, people who believe in the other and people who side with whoever they think will be the winner. I thought you were a "principles guy". I have nothing against building a defense system. If it were an offensive weapons system I wouldn't be in favour based on principle. I feel the biggest argument against the shield is that it doesn't work. I know it doesn't work and won't do anything. But remember, we don't have to care if it works, because we realise we don't need it. I feel Canadian jobs and revenue are more important than political posturing against the Americans. I believe strongly in the side that Canada needs job and heres a big job creator. I view whatever we are building as a non-issue, especially when that system doesn't even work.

Come on Sparhawk, be more optimistic . Heres the deal. The Ontario voters (ie. important voters) are going to vote Conservative more so than the current polls are showing in order to get their representation in the house. Ontario will not allow a majority government without being represented themselves. Most of the close votes in Ontario will go CPC (where the CPC has a close chance of winning). Throw in a snowstorm on the 23rd and the seat count increases.

Thats what all the Ontario and Quebec voters are saying about the Liberals. We let them get away with this too long, shame on us. Lets vote for some real change in government. I don't think Harper is as 'American' as you make him out to be. Nonetheless, I'd rather live in the U.S. then a country with a ruling party that openly steals from the public purse.

The Liberals can't even be honest in quotations? How can anyone take these ads crediably? I thought the quotes were out of context and unfair. Now I find out they aren't even real quotes. Got to love it.

It is asburd to suggest this missle shield will accomplish anything useful. It is basically a make work project for the US military industrial complex funded by US taxpayers. That said, Canada should sign on because it does not hurt us (the US is not asking for us to pay for anything) and it would win us some friends in Washington. And win us some money in building it. We have tons of techonolgy and manufacturing firms that would love to jump all over this, create some high-tech high paying jobs. I can't really see any reason to oppose this, especially since it will happen regardless if we agree or not.

The Geoff Prediction v2 CPC 159 BQ 63 LPC 60 NDP 25 IND 1 Lotbiniere-Chutes, Louis St. Laurent, Beauce and Pontiac all going conservative in Quebec. I also argue that Martin could be in for trouble in his own riding Lasalle-Emard. Who ever thought Quebec would play such a critical role. Some other interesting ridings I'd predict (the controversial ones anyways): Edmonton Centre -> CPC Esquimalt- Juan de Fuca -> CPC (Troy has appeal to the military base folks here, and the CPC policy on the forces if by far the best. Keith Martin will lose his seat here) Churchill -> Bev Kings-Hants -> CPC (Brison will lose his seat) Saint John -> CPC Tobique-Mactaquac -> CPC (Savoy is gone) Etobicoke-Lakeshore -> CPC (Mostly unjustified, just don't like Ignatieff... though apparently some minorities in this riding don't either, the CPC should have run a better candidate and they would have picked this up) Kenora -> NDP (Closest 3-party battle in the country) Newmarket-Aurora -> CPC (Bye bye Belinda) Papineau -> BQ (So happy to see Pettigrew gone)

If we didn't live next to the US, speaker, I would agree. But training all these doctors at a huge cost to society, and then having them ship out to US hospitals where they make up to ten times the money, doesn't solve anything. Don't let the government fool you on this one, we train alot of doctors (could be more, yes), but our real problem in Canada is retaining the doctors from going south. And the only way to do this is dramatically increase their pay, which isn't possible in the public sector, it would bankrupt the system. So my question to you, if we opened up all these extra spots, what would you suggest as a way to retain these people in Canada??

Not to mention the clinics are way nicer. Had some diagnostic stuff done at this one clinic, and they had cookies for me. A big platter of cookies and other food, and it wasn't like eat this for the test. It was like just eat. Had some nice music playing and friendly people. None of this exists in a public hospital. Cookies. In a hospital. In Canada. I'm not making this up. The cookies in themselves convinced me that private clincs are definately the direction we should be moving in.

My opinion on the shield has never really changed since it was first talked about. I know it won't work, the test results are just shameful. I strongly doubt as well any rogue nation is going to fire a salvo of missles at Canada. With this considered, I still support the idea. Lets be realistic, the Americans are going to pay for the thing, Canadian jobs are going to be created in building the thing, and at the end of the day, one of the thousand missles might actually get shot down... If they are paying for it, why not?

Well I express my apologies for the misunderstanding, I was basing that view on your defense of some of the Liberal views expressed in this campaign, and dismissal of some of the conservative proposals. I wasn't intending to label you as a Liberal, more as a small-l type liberal (however convoluted this term has become). Your description of yourself as a socialist would be more fair and accurate, and for this, I apologize. I really hope you didn't take offense because none was intended, I actually find your opinions on the issues very informative and accurate. One of the few from the left (and right for that matter) around here that I listen to their criticisms and ideas because they are about issues and not induviduals attacks. I also strongly agree that real conservativism to the point where I truly would agree with hasn't been seen in Canada since I've been alive. I just find that the current situation with the Conservative Party is the best compromise possible, in a country thats population is against alot of conservative thinking. The West has been the only real supporter of conservativism in Canada for the last few years, and from this we have this 'evolved' (not positively) form of conservatism, which is far different from the historical conservative parties in Canada. I hope one day that these real conservative values can return, but I don't see this in the near future. Your going to find alot of these 'automatons' in both the Liberal and the Conservative parties these days. Both parties have their faithful so trained to dismiss all ideas that aren't brandished with the party logo. Even when both parties offer relatively similiar concepts. Sorry about the off-topic nature of this post, but I felt an apology and clarification was in order.

Sage be careful there. There are alot of hard working NDP members especially. The NDP does represent a very large sector of Canadian society, the working poor. I am probably one of the most fervently conservative members here, but there is no chance I'm going to start saying that all lefties feel entitled to everything. The Liberals also represent a share of this working poor and hard working immigrant population (and yes, I know many many small-business immigrants that work harder than 99% of Canadians by birth). There are rules to protect those that actually need societies help (and these people really do exist). Our previous governments (notice the plural, not just the Liberals) have just extended this to everyone and their dog. I do understand what entitlement brings (unemployment and the stuff), I have a solid grasp on economics. But people are entitled to human rights. And if your going to take a right-wing perspective, I'd hope you start considering the very important other aspect of small-c conservativism, charity. Without compassion for those less privledged then yourself, it turns conservativism into fascism rather quickly.

I'm pretty sure eureka is the last standing Liberal in the forum. Congrats on your devotion, highly respected (actually not being sarcastic). On another note, anyone care to venture a guess who'll win the power struggle out of the Liberals leadership convention? I think we can all be fairly sure that the Liberals will not win a majority, so Martin's job is definately done come the 24th. I was really trying to think of some good possibilities... except none of them are projected to win their ridings. Thats really not a good reflection when your top deputies are struggling to even win their seat. Anyone that says Ignatieff I immediately declare as completely crazy.

Well of the parties that have a chance of being elected, heres my list (I assume your not voting Bloc ). This is from my perspective as an Alberta in post-secondary that also works in a small-business environment (could you say any more conservative ). CPC Pros:-Tax Relief, especially the GST, they will create more jobs via their methods -$10,000/year tax exemption on scholarships (this will be a godsend for me) -Accountability Act, clean up all that trouble -Harper is very smart, and will run this country effectively -Trade benifets with not only the US but around the world -Military and foreign policy will give Canada more credit on the world stage CPC Cons: -Environmental Policy is sketchy -Bringing up same-sex marriage (I don't agree with Same-Sex Marriage, but this does turn off many Ontario voters) -Still have a child-care program (I don't agree with any child care program) -Will have trouble in a minority system LPC Pros: -Track record on keeping Canada fiscally sound -Paying for half of first and last year of degrees LPC Cons: -Criminal investigations into the party -Proven track record of corruption -Simply been in power too long -Again, they have a childcare program NDP Pros: -Environment, the only party that'd actual do anything. -If your in a Union you'll benifet NDP Cons: -If your not in a Union... you might as well just pack your bags and move.

The appearance, if you're having a hard time following, is that this person Joe Ng paid Tony Valeri far more than the property was worth. Perhaps Joe Ng is just not a very smart guy and had no idea that he was paying twice market value. Who knows, maybe Joe just made a foolish purchase. However, the article seems to indicate that Joe Ng was a successful businessman who was able to arrange government financing to land a big contract, so I'm somewhat skeptical as to whether he was really so naive as to the actual value of the property. Suppose for a moment that Joe Ng did know he was paying Tony Valeri far too much for the property. Think about reasons why he would do so. Think about that for a while and write back to me if you're still puzzled as to why this has the appearance of impropriety. -k All this thinking kimmy, sounds like a Liberal ad. Just add a "He's not saying" and your on your way to being a Liberal ad director. I have no doubt that there is some questionable activity here, but nothing can be actually proven, thats the problem. I'm more concerned just with the plain and simple ethics of flipping a property from an old sick man. If Valeri wasn't one of the most dishonest ministers out there I'd give him the benifet of the doubt, but even by Liberal standards I don't like the man. In the end, it won't matter, he will not be re-elected in his Hamilton riding, so Ng just wasted his money buying this favour.

Short story, yes. They are still candidates for the party, they can't change this now (ballots are printed, all that jazz). However, there are definately ethical concerns for keeping that money, and I think we'll see both parties refuse the money for those candidates. Even the Liberals aren't that bad (other than Valeri ).

I feel most Canadians aren't voting (I guess they are actually voting now, advanced polls are open) on scandal, they are just voting for change, removing a tired party from office to get some new fresh ideas going on there. I know I'm voting for a party platform, not because of any scandal. The Liberals have fired that candidate, just saw it on 'Politics'.

Suicide generally implies that the person chose to end their life. Whereas euthanasia doesn't always clearly have the consent. Even in cases when someone says they want to die, do they really? How can we be clear when someone is loaded up on painkillers? It's risky to allow people to euthanise people, just based on the legal issues. On morality, both are equally wrong IMO, because killing yourself is always in our own worst interest, no difference if you pull the trigger or get someone else to.

One of the problems with religious thinkers is they assume that religion is necessary to have morals. Our a-religious society must have some moral underpinnings or it cannot function. However, the process for deciding what these morals should be is complicated and requires dialog amoung different groups to come to a widely accepted consensus. I am pretty sure the moral argument against beastiality would be part of that consensus. I'm not a religious thinker, if that's something you meant to imply. Regardless of how a moral code is informed, the hypothesis still stands. If you remove the moral component from laws against bestiality (for instance, saying that it's wrong because a broad public concesus has been reached to the effect that it's indecent) there really isn't much left. There isn't really a convincing legal argument against it. Against the animals best interest??

It's weird, I used the same data from Strategic Counsel, used their model calculator and got a different result then they did. Awfully funny.

There was a story in the Herald today about Alberta Liberal candidates distancing themselves from Martin. One said they were "ashamed" of the tactics used be the party. Pretty sad when your own candidates don't back you.

The RCMP isn't campaigning against the Liberals, thats ridiculous. The Liberals might be as anti-Justice and anti-Police as you can get, but I'd be very hesitant to call into question the ethics of the RCMP on this. Anyone that conducted themselves in the manner that Goodale did on the income trust leak, would be investigated promptly by the police. The RCMP isn't campaigning agains the Liberals, its just simply that the Liberals broke the law.

I actually for once found Mansbridge to be to the point and unwavering in his questioning. I had no problem with the format, it was fair and accurate. I also found Martin flustered, defensive, and aggressively anti-Harper. No real new positive ideas yet again.

Using the Hill and Knowlton Model, I got the following (based on SC poll results nation-wide from the G&M today): CPC 166 BQ 64 LPC 52 NDP 26 I wouldn't take this as accurate, because it seems too generous to both the CPC and the BQ. This is pretty much saying the Liberals will win only 3 maybe 4 seats in Quebec, and call me ignorant, but I just can't see it being that low. This also assumes an extremely strong showing in BC, which may be possible if the BC'ers wait to see the results before they vote. Who would have thought my 159 seat projection 2 weeks ago for the CPC might actually be low balling it? Still, I have worries about any further gains past the 152 mentioned in the G&M today. The rest of the riding will be a struggle, some hope in BC and maybe some in the Maritimes, but I fear we might have gained all there is to gain.

Not hard when your Opposition to the Liberals.

Or whatever happened to guilty by association? How come it only doesn't apply to the Liberals? Liberal party steals money to fund campaign in Quebec... yet Liberals aren't responsible, only Guite and whatever other induviduals. Our governing party shouldn't be above the law, they should be treated along with the biker gangs and mofia groups that misappropriate and racketeer funds. I honestly can't see the difference. Just because not EVERY biker in a biker gang touched the money, doesn't mean they all aren't part of a criminal organization.