In Before the Election

[PIK]

So willian ,you are not going to vote, then STFU, you don't deserve to say anything if you don't vote. Nothing more lower then someone that does not vote, unless they have a great reason, and not liking anyone does not count.

[PIK]

The money the liberals took from corps was tribute money! Chretien was heard saying privately, "Pay up bitches, there is an new sheriff in town!".

The conservatives get it for being cronies.

(Sorry, even I know, that the biggest rip offs in this country’s history of the public are under PC leadership.)

Not even close and no goverment of any colour will be as arrogant and thieving as the chretien goverment, and that is fact.

[scouterjim]

You are deluded to think that the Tories don't pander to a specific list of corporate interest. You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake. Who do you think is the guys cheif of staff right now? The list goes on and on.. it is all corporate interests. IMPERIAL OIL, a slew of US military companies, and US owned companies.

We are talking BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to military and construction firms and the banks.

While cutting corporate taxes by Billions - all while lumping more taxes on the public through hidden taxes like air security tax, HST amongst others.

Look to the people pulling the strings in large part... there is a very developed upper structure.. and if you look at "Grass routes" I say look back to the era of power corp and others and look who is really pulling the strings, and it ain't you or your neighbour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadians_by_net_worth

and no I don't have it out for these people on the contrary - I want to eliminate "personal income taxes"

Take for instance:

according to a plan devised decades ago by Thomson Corporation founder Roy Thomson, when Kenneth Thomson died (June 2006), control of the family fortune passed on to David.

Like you might want to ask if Gerry Schwartz has any strings on Harper right now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Schwartz

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/managing/strategy/article.jsp?content=20070323_101620_5300

I belonged to a union for 38 years, and I was always pissed off that some of my union dues went to the NDP (both provincial and federal parties). I have NEVER voted NDP in my life, nor will I. I complained several times about it, and was once told that if I didn't vote NDP, I would be expelled from the union. I told them to bring it on, because I would take it to court. They backed down, but still sent MY money to a party I disagreed with.

[segnosaur]

While cutting corporate taxes by Billions

You know, it may surprise you to know that no corporation ever pays taxes, regardless of what the tax rate is.

You see, whenever a corporation has to pay tax, it will do one of the following:

- It will increase its prices (thus transferring the 'tax' on to the consumer)

- It will lower profits (thus giving lower dividends to shareholders, transferring the tax on to them. This includes retirees and others with pension funds invested in the stock markets)

- all while lumping more taxes on the public through hidden taxes like air security tax

Given a choice, I'd prefer taxes to be directed so that they are paid by those who actually use the service (e.g. air security tax) than general revenue.

HST amongst others.

Actually, the decision to implement an HST is largely done by the provincial governments, not something that the Federal government has final say on. (I also believe its the provinces that benefit from any increase in tax revenue.)

(I could also point out that the previous Liberal government also implemented a Harmonized tax.

The only victory is a world without oppression of right values. I can't have that with a division of social value in which my own rights are infringed. I recognize that for everyone else also. that is why I am libertarian - that is why I am SOCIAL. It is about social liberty - without governmental infringement on peoples lives for "control" of peoples lives.

Me thinks you don't quite understand the definition of 'libertarian'.

A libertarian believes in maximizing all freedoms. That includes both economic (taxes, 'red tape', etc.) and social (freedom of speech, drug laws, etc.) If you support 'social' freedoms but exhibit little or no concern over economic ones, you are not a 'libertarian', You are probably a social democrat.

[William Ashley]

Did you ever consider that the reason they don't seem "responsible" is because they have a minority government, and as such have to alter their policies in order to avoid confidence votes?

No, but government has nothing to do with Parliament. They are people given the duty to preform their duties as best they can, not for the good of partisan policy, but for the good of the laws of Canada, whatever their source may be in regard to legality be it orders from any lawful authority, such as the Judicary, Parliament or the Queen or Governor General or a host of others.

You have a corrupt way of looking at things.

Why exactly does "voicing a minority" earn them the right to earn seats?

All Canadians deserve voice and representation even minorities. This is why I support the creation of an advisory council with more input into what type of legislation occurs, as well as a means of having a public record of opinion of Canadians.

I thought parties earned seats by having policies certain voters agreed with.

It is 99% image. Most voters probably don't even know half a parties policies or half of the policies they will actually attempt to implement.

Ummm.... "madman"? Did you ever think that such rhetoric leads to a demise of proper political discourse?

No I think it is a start though. Its not like people arn't alienated or destroyed by labels elsewhere. In his most recent push to "not have an election" he stated, since Japan is having problems, it isn't a good time for an election. That bridges madness.

Harper wants an election when world peace is acheived apparently, he wants to die before an election, what does that tell you. /

Really... there are valid reasons for voting against the conservatives. But applying labe[ls like "madman" and insinuating that "when elected really bad things will happen" is not really that valuable. Here's a suggestion... why don't you try concentrating on individual policies the party has?

Harper is their leader, that is a policy enough. I've voiced many an issues I don't agree with.

1. Giving 150 billion to the banks while saying banks are healthy in Canada

2. Introducing HST (yes it was a federal initaitive)

3. Increasing air taxes so my flights cost more in tax than the flights themselves.

4. Criminal justice stances that don't improve the justice system and cost more money.

5. Increasing income taxes.

6. Stupid policies regarding tax credit programs such as ecoenergy (and privatizing this program adminsitration)

7. Privatization of the mortgage sales (so private indivdiuals get funds from it)

8. US military purchases that amount to billions - mostly unneeded

9. Afghanistan (completely pointless war that doesn't serve any benefit to Canada)

10. Defence policy

11. Ruining the image of Canada - turning it into a redneck land that has lost its place in the world and made enemies.

12. selling out to america (recent perimiter security deal is a shining example)

13. Unwillingness to involve consulate staff to help with administrative issues in the US - for instance while I was held there on an expedited removal that took many weeks.

14. The policy of mega debt spending for 10 years.

15. Bad program adiminstration and grants to "you pick where money should go but you must go in debt the same as us meaning provinces and municpalities also spent over 50 billion each, meaning 150 billion of taxes exists somewhere for as far as I can tell mostly completely political and self serving infrastructure. And although I may not have contributed to it, if I ever make money in Canada that 150 billion of debt will likely be taxed from me down the road plus interest.

16. The running of groups like the NSLSC which didn't even have working email or phone for a period.

17. The absence of a sane cyber security policy (as represented in all our government ministries were hacked by china and peoples personal information such as tax filings are with the chinese now).

18. The unwillingness of one local MP con to be "sane" in insuring government websites and communication systems functioned (insuinuating that they didn't want them to work)

19. The policy Stupid advertising at the cost of millions in tax dollars.

20. Lies lies and more lies.

21. Censoring and refusing to release information

22. the policy of shuting down parliament when they didn't like what it was saying or showed corruption.

23. blame it on the staffer game. while not overseeing these said staffers.

24. Various partisan placements

25. renigging on senate reform (harper could of held an election for each seat he filled if he wanted)

26. the policy of cheating during elections

27. the policy of doing things wrong then saying the liberals did it too, instead of saying it was wrong and responding accordingly

28. Parliamentary interferance into legal issues like scheriber and mulrooney.

29. Afghanistan torture position of lying to the public.

30. 50 million in personal security costs for harper policy.

31. the break the law strategy

32. secret trials policy

32. THE LIST GOES ON AND ON.. my time to write them all down does not.

(And for the record, I also disagree with conservative supporters who likewise engage in childish insinuations rather than dealing with issues.)

I see... You do realize that while Mulrooney negotiated NAFTA (a trade deal that has seen Canada's GDP and trade balance remain strong), it was Chretien who was in power when the deal came into effect.

Nafta has ups and downs... there are somethings in there that I don't agree with. Overall it was a bad deal, and completely unneeded. Because of it, Canadian wealth isn't Canadian wealth. It may look good on paper but that GDP is foreign companies mostly American, not Canadian owned wealth. It can be moved out of Canada, and it is controled and distrubuted by foreigners. It is make beleive.

Please point to any proof that you might have of this (party web site, official statement by the party, etc.) Otherwise, it is nothing but pointless rumourmongering.

Do you follow the news, Perimiter Security.

Yup, they have been spending big. But then, much of the spending was stimulus spending that was pushed for by the Liberals/NDP.

Stimulus spending for what debt? It is a wanker government. Oh this stimulus is so good.

It ain't making the public money, it is putting it in debt. in order of it to be good it needs to make money not loose it. -----!

So, you have problem with "big spending", yet you also have problems with "cutting". Care to make up your mind?

Spend where it has a return while lowering taxes. Cut things that don't. Government isn't charity, charity is. Government should facilitate charity by giving people more money to donate to it, by removing income taxes, and creating PAY FOR PROGRAMS. That are adminsitered from publically donated funds. Then people 1. Can't complain about taxes. 2. only blame themselves when they don't have special interest programs - that maybe just maybe special intersts can payfor themselves. I think government should be free and generate its own revenue. If there are needed services there should either 1. be a willingness to pay for them 2. a need for them that can be translated to product directed to attain them.

So, are you in favor of disbanding all of our military?

No. My mlitary policy is as follows

1. Allow Payfors where the military can put out spending requests to the public. Example we want htis equipment donate so we can get it.

2. Legalize militias (or reinstitute it) allowing people to save their own buts in case of invasion.

3. Encouraging people to enroll in the UK MOD if the state of the Canadian Military was not sufficient to their needs of training. (since commonwealth members can enroll in the UK MOD.)

4. Institute a Canadian Military Industrial complex program that allows for the military to raise its own capital by allowing for crown land to be used free of charge to generate income.

5. To employ the military as refugee work camp and criminal ghulag administrators (subsidizing the cost from any ghulag proceeds.

6. Creating a Canadian Security Company that employes the CF as security gaurds. (from those willing)

7. Outsourcing the CF as mercenaries (from those willing)

8. Having the military work in a civil service Capacity to increase military size while keeping costs down.

9. Giving other percs to reservists and regular force officers.

10. Making Canadian equipment only come from Canada. 100% canadian sourced only. (except in emergencies)

11. Basically I would seek to have the military migrate to complete self sufficiency. While some proceeds would be raised from

12. Youth would opt between a civil service or military service training between 16 and 18 "for a merit" and rewards.

13. More active recruiting into reserve and militia.

14. soilders would arm themselves. but have access to cost of manufacture if not given to them by donation or by the military corporations that are established through the grants program that would award funds each year to suppliment the militaries own income earning plans.

More technology to reduce essential personnel needs.

Overall the aim would be to incrase the capable size of the military while realgning it to home defence instead of force deployment.

And for less.

The bottom line here is that the printer is always a last resort if donations don't come in.

But I have a number of ways of raising a lot of revenue even 50 billion is enough to run government after cutting out all the special interest junk that if they people really want for they can pay for themselves. I have budgeted on 50 billion and accomidate policies to raise that amount. The rest depends on funding of programs through payments for services or revenue from other activities.

You do realize that sometimes equipment needs to be replaced, don't you?

You do realize it doesn't, but if it isn't then the means of fighting changes. It is about combat effectiveness, and the economic benefits based on defence objectives. Having a bunch of standard equipment that isn't the right equipment doesn't help much. Also replacing bad equipment doesn't help much if it is replaced with more bad equipment.

In 2002, bin Laden released a tape where he specifically mentioned Canada as a 'target'. And Chretien was the leader at the time. (See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2455845.stm) Heck, even before 9/11 that CSIS suggested al Quaeda was using Canada as a launch pad for terrorist attacks. (See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/793178.stm). So Canada was a 'target' long before Harper got into power.

Of course, I could point out that there may be times when the 'moral' thing to do is to take a stand to help others, even if it does make you a target.

I could care less about the mythical Bin Laden. No man has any concern over the plan itself The war conduct is horrible it is a bad joke that NATO couldn't "win the war" in 10 years in butt---- no where middle Asia.

Every party has plans/policies that run contrary to our rights/freedoms in some way. Ummm.. how does support for Israel have anything to do with taxes/social programs?

What of SP policies do?

Support for an enemy of other states increases the need for readyness and level of security in Canada that translates to direct costs.

Its the difference between defining yourself as a combatant or as a bystandard. Likewise voicing support isn't enough. Canada should take a stance of neutrility. Canada by its nature ought to be in support of all states it recognizes and is at peace with, not pick favorites. You got enemies get on with it. It does cost more money to support something unless you are negligent of the real costs of backing up yourself and defending yourself for what you support. Communication has a cost. Even this has a cost.

If Canada voices support for policies like building in the west bank, it isn't recognizing palastinian independence or the state of palastine this is one example. It also is making an enemy of itself with Iran and various other groups. These are WARS, not debates. The government speaking for the State or Parliament (something that should be the body to legitimize wars) is wrong if it is not sanctioned by the bodies that have the authority to declare those things.

I don't like the idea of public servants making war without public consent. That is what the pro zionist stance is doing if it is coming from a party rather than the people. it is a clear bias.

My personal stance is one of human dignity in respect to all who try to establish a peaceful coexistence among humans. I have no qualm of death to all else. (my own beleifs strongly match the jews... I'm more of a goat though.... God is supreme not YWH or else, YWH is only my YWH if in my interests and me in YWHs no idol or identity is required only that it is. My faith is what is united and in concordance between man and supreme.) The word is in the breath. The breath is life.

If god wills it and I am gods will so it be done.

Edited March 16, 2011 by William Ashley

[segnosaur]

Did you ever consider that the reason they don't seem "responsible" is because they have a minority government, and as such have to alter their policies in order to avoid confidence votes?

No, but government has nothing to do with Parliament.

Ummm... yes they do. Parliament sets the agenda/policies to be implemented by the civil service/government as a whole.

Why exactly does "voicing a minority" earn them the right to earn seats?

All Canadians deserve voice and representation even minorities.

But that does not mean that a particular group or party deserves more of a voice just because they are in a minority position.

A small group of people like the NDP and/or their policies. But if X% support them, they don't deserve >X% of the power just because they're a minority.

It is 99% image. Most voters probably don't even know half a parties policies or half of the policies they will actually attempt to implement.

Does that include all those people who voted Liberal? Could they have been voting strictly for "image"?

Ummm.... "madman"? Did you ever think that such rhetoric leads to a demise of proper political discourse?

No

Yes it does. It replaces what could be a valuable discussion on policies and practices and replaces them with vacuous name-calling. Its no more useful than when a conservative reduces their evaluation of the Liberals/NDP to "Evil communists".

I think it is a start though.

Ummm... start of what? You said "No, it doesn't lead to a demise of proper discourse". Now you're saying you "think its a start"?

So what is it? Is the application of insulting names/rhetoric detrimental to proper political discussions or is it not?

Its not like people arn't alienated or destroyed by labels elsewhere.

What happens elsewhere is irrelevant. I would like political discussions to be useful. Slapping a label like "madman" does nothing to show me if there are any problems with conservative policies. Instead, it just makes me view the individual applying the label (i.e. you) as someone who probably doesn't have a viewpoint worth discussing.

In his most recent push to "not have an election" he stated, since Japan is having problems, it isn't a good time for an election. That bridges madness.

Nope it doesn't.

In fact, there are precedents for prime ministers trying to avoid elections during times of crisis. For example, Pearson claimed the financial markets were too "fragile" when there was a potential confidence motion by Stanfield, and strangely enough Canadian society did not collapse into chaos.

Harper may or may not be right about it being a "good time for an election". But don't look on it as anything more than politics, something every party engages in.

Harper is their leader, that is a policy enough. I've voiced many an issues I don't agree with.

(list of issues cut)

If you think those are issues worthy of debate, then fine... bring them up. There is probably value in discussing them too. But there is no value in slapping the label "madman" on anyone, nor in suggesting "bad things will happen" should a party get elected if it has nothing to do with the party's policies.

Nafta has ups and downs... there are somethings in there that I don't agree with. Overall it was a bad deal, and completely unneeded.

Except it gave us better access to U.S. markets, increased our trade surplus, and helped boost our overall economy. But hey, who needs a booming economy?

Because of it, Canadian wealth isn't Canadian wealth. It may look good on paper but that GDP is foreign companies mostly American, not Canadian owned wealth.

Actually, as of 2004 counts for less than 1/3 of all corporate assets. (They do own a much larger part of some industries, such as manufacturing, but overall they are nowhere near being a "majority owner".) And of course, you are totally ignoring the fact that while Americans can own Canadian assets, Canadians can also own American assets.

Please point to any proof that you might have of this (party web site, official statement by the party, etc.) Otherwise, it is nothing but pointless rumourmongering.

Do you follow the news, Perimiter Security.

There is nothing inherently "evil" about a desire to synchronize some of our border policies, except by those who would rather deal in rumors and innuendo rather than facts. I have seen nothing in the 'perimeter security' discussions that indicates either country will be giving up significant control of its policies.

Yup, they have been spending big. But then, much of the spending was stimulus spending that was pushed for by the Liberals/NDP.

Stimulus spending for what debt? It is a wanker government. Oh this stimulus is so good.

It ain't making the public money, it is putting it in debt.

To be honest, I am having troubles figuring out what point your making due to your grammar/wording.

However, assuming you're saying "stimulus spending is bad", then perhaps you should go back and read the part where I pointed out that the stimulus spending that was pushed for by the Liberals/NDP.. In fact, the original Conservative plan was to have no significant stimulus spending.

So, are you in favor of disbanding all of our military?

No. My mlitary policy is as follows

(some items deleted from the list)

1. Allow Payfors where the military can put out spending requests to the public. Example we want htis equipment donate so we can get it.

2. Legalize militias (or reinstitute it) allowing people to save their own buts in case of invasion.

. To employ the military as refugee work camp and criminal ghulag administrators (subsidizing the cost from any ghulag proceeds.

6. Creating a Canadian Security Company that employes the CF as security gaurds. (from those willing)

7. Outsourcing the CF as mercenaries (from those willing)

14. soilders would arm themselves. but have access to cost of manufacture if not given to them by donation or by the military corporations that are established through the grants program that would award funds each year to suppliment the militaries own income earning plans.

You know, some people would be a little hesitant at putting Canada's security only at the hands of "private mercenaries", and would favor more, not less, government control.

And soldiers arming themselves? How many "private Canadian soldiers" will be able to afford an F18/F35? Or a C17?

10. Making Canadian equipment only come from Canada. 100% canadian sourced only. (except in emergencies)

Noble thought, but impractical. Some equipment is incredibly specialized and trying to "go it alone" will lead to high development costs and limit economies of scale.

You do realize that sometimes equipment needs to be replaced, don't you?

You do realize it doesn't

Actually, yes it does.

Every piece of technology more advanced than a pointy stick will eventually break down. Jet fighters (you do realize we need some of those, don't you?) usually get used for about 30 years (and our F18 fleet is nearing the end of its life). Helicopters and transport planes also have a limited life span.

It is about combat effectiveness,

Yes it is. And jet fighters (e.g. to intercept potential threats), transport planes (to transfer men and supplies from one geographic location to another) and helicopters (for local transport) are all necessary for 'combat effectiveness'. Not having those items means that we don't have "combat effectiveness".

In 2002, bin Laden released a tape where he specifically mentioned Canada as a 'target'. And Chretien was the leader at the time. Heck, even before 9/11 that CSIS suggested al Quaeda was using Canada as a launch pad for terrorist attacks.

Of course, I could point out that there may be times when the 'moral' thing to do is to take a stand to help others, even if it does make you a target.

I could care less about the mythical Bin Laden.

Ummm... "mythical bin Laden"? What, do you assume he's just some actor they hired? Think 9/11 was some "inside job"?

Support for an enemy of other states increases the need for readyness and level of security in Canada that translates to direct costs.

Yes it does. But as I mentioned before, sometimes the "moral" think to do is to take a stand, even if there are "costs" involved.

Its the difference between defining yourself as a combatant or as a bystandard. Likewise voicing support isn't enough. Canada should take a stance of neutrility.

As long as you understand what "neutrality" would actually mean in a historical context.

If Canada were "neutral" in (for example) world war 2, we would not have had as many Canadians die. Yet I'd like to think getting involved in the conflict was the moral thing to do. I have more pride in Canada's role in World war 2 than I would have had we been "neutral" like Switzerland.

My personal stance is one of human dignity in respect to all who try to establish a peaceful coexistence among humans.

Ironically, your concept of "respect for human dignity" is at conflict with your desire for "neutrality". By being "neutral" when dealing with countries like Iran, North Korea, etc. we are exhibiting a lack of respect for the dignity of individuals who may be living in those countries but who are oppressed.

Edited March 16, 2011 by segnosaur

[William Ashley]

Ummm... yes they do. Parliament sets the agenda/policies to be implemented by the civil service/government as a whole.

I did not say Parliament has nothing to do with Government I said Government has nothing to do with Parliament.Get it straight.

But that does not mean that a particular group or party deserves more of a voice just because they are in a minority position.

All Canadians deserve voice and representation even minorities.

A small group of people like the NDP and/or their policies. But if X% support them, they don't deserve >X% of the power just because they're a minority.

Trying to place a percentage value to sociopathic power or giving the most sound position or correcting flaws in a failed premise isn't a measure of power, it is a measure of worth.

Does that include all those people who voted Liberal? Could they have been voting strictly for "image"?

Your line of lining up parties is completely irreleveant to my comments, as I am non partisan. YES IT INCLUDES EVERYONE CAN YOU NOT READ?

I stated:

"It is 99% image. Most voters probably don't even know half a parties policies or half of the policies they will actually attempt to implement."

I should reiterate that policy does lend to image.

Yes it does. It replaces what could be a valuable discussion on policies and practices and replaces them with vacuous name-calling. Its no more useful than when a conservative reduces their evaluation of the Liberals/NDP to "Evil communists".

Ummm... start of what? You said "No, it doesn't lead to a demise of proper discourse". Now you're saying you "think its a start"?

So what is it? Is the application of insulting names/rhetoric detrimental to proper political discussions or is it not?

You are questioning a position as being invalid,I am saying it is. To devolve my comment is mad, some might say self convoluted and inane. If you don't recognize this you only support the premise not through your words but the identity of your actions.

What happens elsewhere is irrelevant. I would like political discussions to be useful. Slapping a label like "madman" does nothing to show me if there are any problems with conservative policies. Instead, it just makes me view the individual applying the label (i.e. you) as someone who probably doesn't have a viewpoint worth discussing.

Unfortunately thinking a politician is a madman is relevant. Also what happens elsewhere does matter as all knowledge should effect position otherwise it is an ignorant position, and thus mad or more so feeble and thus nearly worthless.

Nope it doesn't.

In fact, there are precedents for prime ministers trying to avoid elections during times of crisis. For example, Pearson claimed the financial markets were too "fragile" when there was a potential confidence motion by Stanfield, and strangely enough Canadian society did not collapse into chaos.

They havn't got it right yet.

Harper may or may not be right about it being a "good time for an election". But don't look on it as anything more than politics, something every party engages in.

Harper is a total self absorbed oppourtunist stooge. If an election wasn't about him, there wouldn't be one, because he doen't give a damn about Canada, it is him and his party NOT the majority of Canadians. He can't even manage a budget that the parties are happy with and he's had months to prepare. Most people can sit down over the course of a night and have everything that is go or no go a must or not. This guy has caused 4 elections in 5 years. He is a stooge who can't hold together a government for more than 2 years, and this is with the opposition supporting him and him shutting it down every time it doesn't.

If you think those are issues worthy of debate, then fine... bring them up. There is probably value in discussing them too. But there is no value in slapping the label "madman" on anyone, nor in suggesting "bad things will happen" should a party get elected if it has nothing to do with the party's policies.

Sure the value is the truth.

Except it gave us better access to U.S. markets, increased our trade surplus, and helped boost our overall economy. But hey, who needs a booming economy?

It sold Canada out to foreign powers. Canada doesn't control its own economy.

Actually, as of 2004 counts for less than 1/3 of all corporate assets. (They do own a much larger part of some industries, such as manufacturing, but overall they are nowhere near being a "majority owner".) And of course, you are totally ignoring the fact that while Americans can own Canadian assets, Canadians can also own American assets.

I do not believe you are counting share ownerships - in addition to outright ownership. As well as imports and percentage of sale of product of origin. In media for instance share of American media intake vs. Canadian - TV, movies, internet websites etc.. amount of time a Canadian spends doing things via American products be it internet webspace, content american movies, american products such as black and decker or other american brand x box or what have you, american golf clubs, american fruit, etc.. etc.. as opposed to Canadian time.Also if the product is made in a foreign country is it the company owned by an american one for instance dell manufacture in China but it is an american company. GE for instance is one of the largest companies in the world and is american, so is microsoft.

There is nothing inherently "evil" about a desire to synchronize some of our border policies, except by those who would rather deal in rumors and innuendo rather than facts. I have seen nothing in the 'perimeter security' discussions that indicates either country will be giving up significant control of its policies.

IT WORKED BEFORE. AMERICA HAS TOO MUCH POWER IN CANADA AND IT CHALLENGES CANADIAN NORTHERN SOVEREIGNTY CLAIMING A HUGE CHUNK OF CANADIAN WATERS AS THEIR OWN.

To be honest, I am having troubles figuring out what point your making due to your grammar/wording.

However, assuming you're saying "stimulus spending is bad", then perhaps you should go back and read the part where I pointed out that the stimulus spending that was pushed for by the Liberals/NDP.. In fact, the original Conservative plan was to have no significant stimulus spending.

DEBT SPENDING IS NOT STIMULUS IT IS DEBT, that is what I am saying. DEBT IS TAX. 50 BILLION OF TAX IS A 20% increase on taxes.

You know, some people would be a little hesitant at putting Canada's security only at the hands of "private mercenaries", and would favor more, not less, government control.

And soldiers arming themselves? How many "private Canadian soldiers" will be able to afford an F18/F35? Or a C17?

CF would have oversight of militias (a little like the US milita system). People who are part of militias would be able to own restricted and prohibited classess of firearms as long as they are in an armory such as a militia site (which would be located on CF bases that operated, as well as opening up non sold closed bases for militas. Or local police firing ranges etc. In a time of crisis they would be allowed to take them out of the armory. Or during training operations. Militias as I said would be oversighted. It would not be "the same as a reserve" because they would be self organizing and self funded. They would own their property and where legal be able to sell or transfer it. Some training on request could be provided, likewise direct lines of recruitment

would be established with the militias. Likewise militia members would be encouraged to be volunteer police and peace officers, as well as civic bullitens would be posted, and they would be kept informed - in essence the idea is that it would be a shooting club, and people would be given training on request such as fire response, first aid, all for free. So there would be an advantage to taking part in the milita not only to shoot restricted firearms but also to receive training, and access fitness facilities that the military might otherwise only have access to, and access to canteen excess for private consumption (meaning food that is being removed from Canteen would be available to them for free. As well as any surplus that is not sold from military stocks. They would also get first bid when any military equipment was being tendered for sale.

------------------------------

The payfor system works in that some funds are provided from the Emergency Services Budget - since there are some funds available from the ~50 billion annual government budget - since parliament costs around 250 million to operate per year - although measures would be taken to reduce this by no longer distributing paper documents except for master documents and building or migrating parliamentary functions to modern facilities reserving the commons and senate for sessions - and having parliament function from PAYFOR meaning funds for functions of parliament would be limited to any monies privately raised so parliaments budget would be dropped. Meanwhile governmentemployees would be migrated to fill in for pages if their wages wern't provided by the public while parliament was in session.

Basically parliament would have to self function on its own budget. Ministers salaries would be cut and MP's would be prohibited from being ministers. They would instead be forced to concentrate on their ridings, rather than peddling incumbent status. Ministers meanwhile would be selected from a list of applicants with a salary request. and they would be hired on the basis of best fit and cost to the tax payer (although personal income taxes would be removed, ministers salaries would be donation based in part for instance if people want an minister for atlantic affairs they would simply start a payfor for the position then pay the funds for their salary) Otherwise the ministery would be kept to a minimum of 4 absolute catagories with the public service acting in roles previously run by ministers - these prior deputy ministers would be called to the bar if there was a question or one of their staff that was an acceptable proxy to answer questions of parliament . Other applicants would be given the option to be suplimentary advisors to cabinet on per diem or honorarium or pro bono basis. Sentators would be able to apply but not MP's from the commons. Likewise only commonwealth or Canadians would be eligible to apply.

In terms of raising funds for fighters... 1st in my defence plan the DND is given a grant each year to allocate their funds as they would like from operating funds. They are to invest the funds in defence infrastructure, and training the CF to open defence industries or other benefits that will imprive the forces function economically (especially retiring officers and NCO's.) As well as use of crown lands to generate revenue, (they would be expempt from royalties, but all funds raised from the venture must be channeled into the company or into the CF. This would aim to create a residual income for the CF.

Other income generating ventures such as acting as private security would be another aim to raise revenue.

If the DND for instance wants to buy 10 planes that cost 30 million each

They could put out a payfor for each plane or for all 10.

Individuals that would like to donate to the aquiring of the plane would transfer those funds to it. Say you want to donate $500 to the 30 million for the plane, then you would give $500 to that.

If 60,000 other Canadians did the same then you would have 1 of those 10 planes. If 600,000 of them were ok with it then that would happen.

Who knows maybe Canadian companies want the nation to have military equipment like planes? Maybe they would since eventually they would have a very competitive tax structure, be willing to donate 300 million. for the 10 planes ?

Likewise under the royalty structure a 1/10th of royalties would be able to be allocated to government originating PAYFORS, meaning the company owing the royalty payment would be able to put 1/10th of the funds where they would like from government originating payfors.

Likewise Companies could sponser the military or a militia. Or they could hire them to provide site security... who knows?

Frankly it works. It is much better than forcing people to pay at gunpoint.

Noble thought, but impractical. Some equipment is incredibly specialized and trying to "go it alone" will lead to high development costs and limit economies of scale.

Such as what equipment, I think you are mistaken, companies go it alone, there is no reason why the government couldn't many socialist nations have done this with great success, you are full of it.

Actually, yes it does.

Every piece of technology more advanced than a pointy stick will eventually break down. Jet fighters (you do realize we need some of those, don't you?) usually get used for about 30 years (and our F18 fleet is nearing the end of its life). Helicopters and transport planes also have a limited life span.

Gold doesn't break down.

You want a fighter pay for one, leave my wallet alone, if I want one I'll put in for one myself, and the amount I want to.

Yes it is. And jet fighters (e.g. to intercept potential threats), transport planes (to transfer men and supplies from one geographic location to another) and helicopters (for local transport) are all necessary for 'combat effectiveness'. Not having those items means that we don't have "combat effectiveness".

Having them in that locale already is much more feasible than paying to do it, it is just creating time lag and a big giant target. If you need to move people there, it is already too late. In the modern world transport isn't safe.

Having safe areas is safe.

Ummm... "mythical bin Laden"? What, do you assume he's just some actor they hired? Think 9/11 was some "inside job"?

Yes it does. But as I mentioned before, sometimes the "moral" think to do is to take a stand, even if there are "costs" involved.

I'm hearing laughter in your position by now.

As long as you understand what "neutrality" would actually mean in a historical context.

If Canada were "neutral" in (for example) world war 2, we would not have had as many Canadians die. Yet I'd like to think getting involved in the conflict was the moral thing to do. I have more pride in Canada's role in World war 2 than I would have had we been "neutral" like Switzerland.

Canada was British in WWII.

There is a great difference in being defensive and being other peoples whore. Canada hasn't gone to a legimiate war, the thing that made WWII valid was Britain being bombed and sinking ships.

Ironically, your concept of "respect for human dignity" is at conflict with your desire for "neutrality". By being "neutral" when dealing with countries like Iran, North Korea, etc. we are exhibiting a lack of respect for the dignity of individuals who may be living in those countries but who are oppressed.

Canada doesn't have a responibility for Korea or Iran, they are independent countries. We as individuals or as states all have the right to self determination, and within our jurisdiction exercising our unique cultural traits free of oppression of foreign cultural values.

Edited March 23, 2011 by William Ashley