Mike Harris did nothing wrong.

[Guest eureka]

These things are Constitutional obligations. Or have you not heard of the Supreme Court's decision on waiting times in Healthcare.

You also sy, I think you said it, that government that is elected to cut taxes must do so. That cuts both ways.

[Renegade]

These things are Constitutional obligations. Or have you not heard of the Supreme Court's decision on waiting times in Healthcare.

There is no such constitutional obligation. Lets not misrepresent the Supreme Court's decision. Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2005 SCC

The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care.  The evidence also demonstrates that the prohibition against private health insurance and its consequence of denying people vital health care result in physical and psychological suffering that meets a threshold test of seriousness. 

Where lack of timely health care can result in death, the s. 7 protection of life is engaged; where it can result in serious psychological and physical suffering, the s. 7 protection of security of the person is triggered.  In this case, the government has prohibited private health insurance that would permit ordinary Quebeckers to access private health care while failing to deliver health care in a reasonable manner, thereby increasing the risk of complications and death.  In so doing, it has interfered with the interests protected by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter.

The Supreme Court did not rule that the government had a constitutional obligation to provide a certain level of healthcare. It ruled that the province could not simultaneously provide prohibit private health insurance AND provide inferior health care (due to wait times). There is a big difference between that and what you have inferred from your statement. The province would be able to conform perfectly to the ruling by simply allowing private health insurance without investing any further in health care.

You also sy, I think you said it, that government that is elected to cut taxes must do so. That cuts both ways.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you saying that the government can do both?

Let me quote something you have said in another thread referring to a tax-cut:

To cut revenues there have to be tradeoffs. The only tradeoffs possible are to those programmes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is quite obvious to everyone that beyond minimal savings which can be generated through increased efficiency, that services need to be cut to deliver substantial tax-savings.

Mike Harris' party ran on a platform of tax-cuts. The other parties at the time did not. Mike Harris stayed true to his support base by delivering on those tax cuts.

Ontario Embraces A Tax-Cutter

Are you honestly saying that the people who voted for Mike Harris, did so because the though he was going to increase social spending and were suddenly surprised?

Yes, I believe that a govenment that runs on a platform of tax-cuts should live up to that promise, however that obligation is only one of integrity to their word. There is no legal obligation to do so. (As an aside, maybe there ought to be a legal requirement that parties must fulfill campaign promises). Witness that the provincial Liberals promised not to raise taxes and McGuinty promptly did so after election. Did he lie? You bet. Did he break the law? Unfortunately not. Same with the Liberal promise to eliminate the GST. The list goes on.

While you and others may not have approved of the promises that Mike Harris made. many others did, and at least Mike Harris had the integrity to keep his word.

[Guest eureka]

I don't know how you can conclude that the decision in the SCC does not imply a Constitutional obligation. It says clearly that the government nust provide for the security of the citizens. It must do so by allowing private means to cover for the governmantal failure. That would equallly apply.

I believe that I said clearly the opposite to the government having it both ways. I said that Harris promised tax cuts without a deterioration in services: tax cuts that would stimulate the economy so that revenues would not fall and the government's obligations would not be constrained by lack of money. He was wrong - lied? - since every one with even a basic understanding of economics knew that it did not work that way.

I am saying that the people who voted for Harris believed that he would deliver tax cuts without hurtung social services because that is what he promised. Never did he say that he would start a war on teachers and nurses or welfare recipients. Never did he say that those groups would see no increase in income for the whole term of his office. Never did he say that he would cut welfare to the point of driving hundreds of thousands into starvation mode.

He said that his economic programme would stimulate the economy so that all would be a Conservative paradise.

Whether the obligation to adhere to the tenets of a civil society is a question. I would suggest that under the Charter, and Common Law, much of it is. The avoidance of that with the cooperation of business is exactly how Fascism got started in Europe. The attack on unions and the disadvantaged shows how close any democracy is to collapse at any time.

This was not a shared pain of recession. It was a quite deliberate transfer of wealth from workers and the poor to the wealthier.

That is a breach of the Rule of Law: a rule that is the foundation of the Constutution.

[err]

The province does not have the right to decide how many teachers or nurses it will employ. The province is the government for the people to do the people's will.

It absolutely can decide how many teachers, nurses, doctors, or level of provinicial services it should provide. You are correct when you say that it should do the people's will. Mike Harris' government ran on a platform of tax cuts, and the people demonstrated that was their will by electing him (TWICE!).

I note that you didn't include the part where he sold the 407 highway and most of our electricity generation capabilities for far less than their actual worth so that, with this influx of cash, that people wouldn't realize the extent of the damage he did to our province and its people...

Now maybe we pay a little less to the government of Ontario for our electricity, but every homeowner in Ontario will pay about $1000 more to the "efficient" private industry for our electricity.

Further, MOST Ontarians are paying MORE TAX now than before Mike Harris, whose tax cuts only really saved the wealthy money. Shifting social services to the municipal level increases our property taxes, usually by a lot more than our Mike Harris tax savings....

The people have decided that they want a medical system and an education system. It is the province's obligation to maintain that system as a wise steward. That means adequate staffing.

Exactly how have the "people have decided that they want a medical system and an education system"? The people make their decisions via their vote evey election. No choice is static. When a people elect a government to cut taxes, they expect them to do so.

I wonder how Renegade can explain Mike Harris's promise "Not one penny from classroom education" Can he say this is true because Harris took 50 Billion pennies from education on his first year of reforms, rather than "one penny" ???

[Renegade]

I don't know how you can conclude that the decision in the SCC does not imply a Constitutional obligation. It says clearly that the government nust provide for the security of the citizens.

Actually I couldn't find anywhere where it said that the "the government nust provide for the security of the citizens." what it said was that the government must not take an action which deprives a person of the right to life, liberty and security.

There is a difference. The action that the government took was banning private insurance. This was judged to infringe on a persons rights.

It must do so by allowing private means to cover for the governmantal failure. That would equallly apply.

The governmental failure was in not allowing private insurance. If it was an obligation of the government to provide services, the SCC would have ordered them to do so. Clearly they did not. What their decision was, that if the government did not invest in healthcare services to the point that quality and timely service could be provided, then they could not prevent the private offering of those services. The decision provdes the onus on the government to make that choice but does not compel them in which option to choose.

I believe that I said clearly the opposite to the government having it both ways. I said that Harris promised tax cuts without a deterioration in services: tax cuts that would stimulate the economy so that revenues would not fall and the government's obligations would not be constrained by lack of money. He was wrong - lied? - since every one with even a basic understanding of economics knew that it did not work that way.

I am saying that the people who voted for Harris believed that he would deliver tax cuts without hurtung social services because that is what he promised. Never did he say that he would start a war on teachers and nurses or welfare recipients. Never did he say that those groups would see no increase in income for the whole term of his office. Never did he say that he would cut welfare to the point of driving hundreds of thousands into starvation mode.

So your argument is that people were too dumb to realize that when you cut taxes you also have to cut services?

There is no way to prove one way or another why anyone voted for Mike Harris. I felt it was pretty clear where his priorities lay. I think it was obvious to most people. Personally I voted for him because I supported his priorities. My feeling is others did too.

He said that his economic programme would stimulate the economy so that all would be a Conservative paradise.

As to your point on whether tax cuts stimulate the economy enough to generate additional revenue, consider the following. If we taxed people at a 100% marginal rate, revenue would fall because economic activity would grind to a halt, because no one would have incentive to generate any income. Conversely, if we taxed people at 0% economic activity may boom, but will result in no government revenues. Between those two extreme lies a "sweet spot" where the government revenues are maximised. How do we know what the right level of taxation is to maximize government revenues? (I'm ignoring for the moment the question on whether we ought to be maximizing government revenues)

Whether the obligation to adhere to the tenets of a civil society is a question. I would suggest that under the Charter, and Common Law, much of it is. The avoidance of that with the cooperation of business is exactly how Fascism got started in Europe. The attack on unions and the disadvantaged shows how close any democracy is to collapse at any time.

This was not a shared pain of recession. It was a quite deliberate transfer of wealth from workers and the poor to the wealthier.

That is a breach of the Rule of Law: a rule that is the foundation of the Constutution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree with your interpretation. I see nowhere in the Charter or Common Law where it explicitly says that the government must provide a certain level of services and defines what those services are. If you have passages to point out, I would welcome reading them. I would be intrested to know if any government's have been sued and the case taken to the SCC on determining the obligation on providing the level of services.

The popular vote in selecting the government and its policies is all that determine the level of services which a government provides. The only obligation it has is to not infringe on people's rights. People's rights are not violated by the government failing to provide a service.

[Renegade]

The province does not have the right to decide how many teachers or nurses it will employ. The province is the government for the people to do the people's will.

It absolutely can decide how many teachers, nurses, doctors, or level of provinicial services it should provide. You are correct when you say that it should do the people's will. Mike Harris' government ran on a platform of tax cuts, and the people demonstrated that was their will by electing him (TWICE!).

I note that you didn't include the part where he sold the 407 highway and most of our electricity generation capabilities for far less than their actual worth so that, with this influx of cash, that people wouldn't realize the extent of the damage he did to our province and its people...

Now maybe we pay a little less to the government of Ontario for our electricity, but every homeowner in Ontario will pay about $1000 more to the "efficient" private industry for our electricity.

Further, MOST Ontarians are paying MORE TAX now than before Mike Harris, whose tax cuts only really saved the wealthy money. Shifting social services to the municipal level increases our property taxes, usually by a lot more than our Mike Harris tax savings....

The people have decided that they want a medical system and an education system. It is the province's obligation to maintain that system as a wise steward. That means adequate staffing.

Exactly how have the "people have decided that they want a medical system and an education system"? The people make their decisions via their vote evey election. No choice is static. When a people elect a government to cut taxes, they expect them to do so.

I wonder how Renegade can explain Mike Harris's promise "Not one penny from classroom education" Can he say this is true because Harris took 50 Billion pennies from education on his first year of reforms, rather than "one penny" ???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

err, if you want to post something besides partisanship drivel and inflammatory comments, maybe I'll respond. Till then I remind you that the issue eureka and I are discussing is whether providing a level of services is a lawful obligation of an elected government. If you have something meaninful to contribute in that area, great, I can't wait to hear it.

[err]

err, if you want to post something besides partisanship drivel and inflammatory comments, maybe I'll respond. Till then I remind you that the issue eureka and I are discussing is whether providing a level of services is a lawful obligation of an elected government. If you have something meaninful to contribute in that area, great, I can't wait to hear it.

You were arguing about Mike Harris doing what he said he would do... I guess your response is your way of dodging the 50 billion penny question ......

Because you know he lied, Eureka knows he lied, I know he lied... and so did most of Ontario when they gave him the boot... But it's funny how you can't come to admit that he lied.....

[cybercoma]

err, if you want to post something besides partisanship drivel and inflammatory comments, maybe I'll respond. Till then I remind you that the issue eureka and I are discussing is whether providing a level of services is a lawful obligation of an elected government. If you have something meaninful to contribute in that area, great, I can't wait to hear it.

You were arguing about Mike Harris doing what he said he would do... I guess your response is your way of dodging the 50 billion penny question ......

Because you know he lied, Eureka knows he lied, I know he lied... and so did most of Ontario when they gave him the boot... But it's funny how you can't come to admit that he lied.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You know, you're so misinformed it's comical. Ontario voted out Ernie Eves.

The teachers whined and cried about Harris all through his first term, then Ontario voted him back in for a second. It's time for you to get your head out of the unions' asses.

[BHS]

err, if you want to post something besides partisanship drivel and inflammatory comments, maybe I'll respond. Till then I remind you that the issue eureka and I are discussing is whether providing a level of services is a lawful obligation of an elected government. If you have something meaninful to contribute in that area, great, I can't wait to hear it.

You were arguing about Mike Harris doing what he said he would do... I guess your response is your way of dodging the 50 billion penny question ......

Because you know he lied, Eureka knows he lied, I know he lied... and so did most of Ontario when they gave him the boot... But it's funny how you can't come to admit that he lied.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You know, you're so misinformed it's comical. Ontario voted out Ernie Eves.

The teachers whined and cried about Harris all through his first term, then Ontario voted him back in for a second. It's time for you to get your head out of the unions' asses.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's in the anti-Harrisites interest to conflate the years under Harris with the decidedly different direction the Tories took under Eves, so as to say that voting against the Eves Tories is exactly the same as voting against the Harris Tories. Which simply was not the case. Unfortunately, in getting rid of Eves we got stuck with John Tory. I rarely hear much of interest eminating from Queen's Park these days; occasionally Dalton McGuinty (Liberal, premier) will make some sort of pronouncement on some non-issue, and very rarely Howard Hampton (NDP) will get some press lampooning Dalton, but I don't recall ever hearing a single word uttered by John Tory. I don't even know what his voice sounds like, to be honest. Come to think of it, I'd probably have a hard time picking him out of a lineup too.

UPDATE: I just went to the Ontario PC website. I swear to God, I thought John Tory was older and wore glasses. I really wouldn't have been able to pick him out of a lineup. After a brief, cursory review of the site, it appears that the Tories have taken up the generic opposition complaints the Liberals used to use as their own. Grunts about the Liberals not providing "leadership" in key issues (issues that, honestly, pretty much take care of themselves). How depressingly unoriginal. I hope they kick it up a notch come the next election, but I'm not holding my breath. These Tories could be from Britain. Actually, that's a good metaphor: the Ontario Tories after Harris are a lot like the British Tories after Thatcher. It's hard to fill shoes that have been stretched by such big feet.

[err]

err, if you want to post something besides partisanship drivel and inflammatory comments, maybe I'll respond. Till then I remind you that the issue eureka and I are discussing is whether providing a level of services is a lawful obligation of an elected government. If you have something meaninful to contribute in that area, great, I can't wait to hear it.

You were arguing about Mike Harris doing what he said he would do... I guess your response is your way of dodging the 50 billion penny question ......

Because you know he lied, Eureka knows he lied, I know he lied... and so did most of Ontario when they gave him the boot... But it's funny how you can't come to admit that he lied.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You know, you're so misinformed it's comical. Ontario voted out Ernie Eves.

The teachers whined and cried about Harris all through his first term, then Ontario voted him back in for a second. It's time for you to get your head out of the unions' asses.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was the Harris Tories that got the boot... Like Mulroney, Harris jumped ship just before the impending crash....

I hope you will feel really proud of Mike Harris as you pay your higher electricity bills from now on... about $1000 per year more per household. Makes you proud to stand for that kind of freedom of choice.... Considering, from your posts, you are probably a young teenager who doesn't have to be concerned with these kinds of things yet.... but you'll grow up eventually.... (one can only hope)

[cybercoma]

It's in the anti-Harrisites interest to conflate the years under Harris with the decidedly different direction the Tories took under Eves, so as to say that voting against the Eves Tories is exactly the same as voting against the Harris Tories. Which simply was not the case. Unfortunately, in getting rid of Eves we got stuck with John Tory. I rarely hear much of interest eminating from Queen's Park these days; occasionally Dalton McGuinty (Liberal, premier) will make some sort of pronouncement on some non-issue, and very rarely Howard Hampton (NDP) will get some press lampooning Dalton, but I don't recall ever hearing a single word uttered by John Tory. I don't even know what his voice sounds like, to be honest. Come to think of it, I'd probably have a hard time picking him out of a lineup too.

UPDATE: I just went to the Ontario PC website. I swear to God, I thought John Tory was older and wore glasses. I really wouldn't have been able to pick him out of a lineup. After a brief, cursory review of the site, it appears that the Tories have taken up the generic opposition complaints the Liberals used to use as their own. Grunts about the Liberals not providing "leadership" in key issues (issues that, honestly, pretty much take care of themselves). How depressingly unoriginal. I hope they kick it up a notch come the next election, but I'm not holding my breath. These Tories could be from Britain. Actually, that's a good metaphor: the Ontario Tories after Harris are a lot like the British Tories after Thatcher. It's hard to fill shoes that have been stretched by such big feet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe I shouldn't even be posting here...I had no idea who the leader of the provincial conservatives is.

[cybercoma]

It was the Harris Tories that got the boot...  Like Mulroney, Harris jumped ship just before the impending crash.... 

I hope you will feel really proud of Mike Harris as you pay your higher electricity bills from now on... about $1000 per year more per household.  Makes you proud to stand for that kind of freedom of choice.... Considering, from your posts, you are probably a young teenager who doesn't have to be concerned with these kinds of things yet.... but you'll grow up eventually.... (one can only hope)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right, Ernie Eves had nothing to do with the Conservatives losing.

Oddly enough your ignorance continues to spill over into this post (shocking), since I'm an adult that doesn't believe in sitting back and collecting government handouts. Nor do I believe in the government arbitrarily deciding the value of goods and services.

Just keep voting NDP and maybe we can go back to that socialist utopian idea known as Rae Days.

[err]

It was the Harris Tories that got the boot...  Like Mulroney, Harris jumped ship just before the impending crash.... 

Right, Ernie Eves had nothing to do with the Conservatives losing.

Oddly enough your ignorance continues to spill over into this post (shocking), since I'm an adult that doesn't believe in sitting back and collecting government handouts. Nor do I believe in the government arbitrarily deciding the value of goods and services.

Just keep them blinders on Cybercoma.....

[cybercoma]

It was the Harris Tories that got the boot...  Like Mulroney, Harris jumped ship just before the impending crash.... 

Right, Ernie Eves had nothing to do with the Conservatives losing.

Oddly enough your ignorance continues to spill over into this post (shocking), since I'm an adult that doesn't believe in sitting back and collecting government handouts. Nor do I believe in the government arbitrarily deciding the value of goods and services.

Just keep them blinders on Cybercoma.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll continue to believe in personal responsibility, while you eagerly await Big Brother to look after you.

[Guest eureka]

Isn't it odd how so many people beloeve in "personal responsibility" until the local factory closes down.

[Renegade]

Isn't it odd how so many people beloeve in "personal responsibility" until the local factory closes down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Come on now, eureka. That statement is without any basis and is just conjecture. It is about as valid as if I said" "Isn't it funny how so many of the people advocating for social programs are the same ones feeding off the public trough"

[skcomtahtdriba]

I'm sorry to erode whatever little "right wing" sanity you've managed to develop Renegade, but new facts about Harris have recently come to light:

Scott Patrick, then a staff sergeant with the OPP and now an inspector, testified he didn't understand comments that somehow connected the native park occupation with the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis.

"He indicated that this was a test, that they were a new government, and he said this is how things get started, and then he referenced the Holocaust," Patrick testified. Another OPP officer at the meeting, then Insp. Ron Fox, dismissed the Holocaust comments as "wild-ass."

Apparently, harris saw himself as hitler being put to the test buy the people.

-

-

-

-

The past few years I have seen Toronto and north of there become more despotic and more socialist.

The oversurge of "minorities" that the Canadian government has carelessly let in have destroyed a lot of opportunities for people who have been living here for decades.

I'm not being racist, but if you knew what kind of criminals this country lets in, you would be shocked.

It's time to move.

[PocketRocket]

It's time to move.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gonna miss you.

Bye.

[Renegade]

I'm sorry to erode whatever little "right wing" sanity you've managed to develop Renegade, but new facts about Harris have recently come to light:

Scott Patrick, then a staff sergeant with the OPP and now an inspector, testified he didn't understand comments that somehow connected the native park occupation with the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis.

"He indicated that this was a test, that they were a new government, and he said this is how things get started, and then he referenced the Holocaust," Patrick testified. Another OPP officer at the meeting, then Insp. Ron Fox, dismissed the Holocaust comments as "wild-ass."

Apparently, harris saw himself as hitler being put to the test buy the people.

It is hard to conclude much from the ambigous quote you have posted. I don't know Mike Harris personally nor do I have first-hand knowledge of his views. He may well be culpable in the Ipperwash affair, but that really won't be determined until the inquiry is completed. What we have discussed thus far is the policies of his government and for the most part I did and still agree with his policies.

The past few years I have seen Toronto and north of there become more despotic and more socialist.

The oversurge of "minorities" that the Canadian government has carelessly let in have destroyed a lot of opportunities for people who have been living here for decades.

I'm not being racist, but if you knew what kind of criminals this country lets in, you would be shocked.

It's time to move.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What exactly does this have to do with Mike Harris? The provincial government doesn't control immigration. I have posted my views on immigration in other threads, and I don't consider "oversurge of "minorities"" to be a problem.

Where exaactly to you plan to move to?

[skcomtahtdriba]

It is hard to conclude much from the ambigous quote you have posted.

It's quite clear to me that he is referring to himself as hitler in that he must terrorize the population to prove the strength of the new government.

I don't know Mike Harris personally nor do I have first-hand knowledge of his views.

Time to disassociate yourself from him. As this thread keeps going I start to learn new things about this potz. Such as his father was the one who screwed The Quints.

He may well be culpable in the Ipperwash affair, but that really won't be determined until the inquiry is completed.

Nonsense. He is quite guilty and any idiot knows this. Just watch the documentary. The opp shot at the natives instead of trying to resolve the situation peacefully. This is indicative of the behavior of police throughout the city as well. Most of them are pure idiots on a power trip. Once in a blue moon you meet one who is somewhat sane.

What we have discussed thus far is the policies of his government and for the most part I did and still agree with his policies.

Now you're reassociating yourself with him? Let me explain something to you, something which I have concluded in my studies of a certain government some 60 years ago.

Harris wasn't a clever being. Nor was he an expert in economics or what have you. He was in a sense a zombie. Some political entity was seeking a way to redistribute the wealth from the poor to the rich. This usually happens when:

a) The upper class notices the middle classes living on a somewhat similar comfort level to them without their elegánce and need to find a way to live on a relatively higher level (This is why the rich vote for governments like this)

The economy tightens and the middle classes start losing some of their comforts. In a society with altruism they would let it go normally, in a narcissistic society, they would start to compete with the less fortunate. "Conservative" governments offer breaks like this.

A conservative government is supposed to cut down on wasteful not well thought out spending, not cut welfare rates to the poor in half for a quick cash grab and then introduce other despotically wasteful spending habits such as doubly-expensive homeless shelters, and then hide this by selling off public commodities.

Are the liberals complicit in this conspiracy? What you see as haughtiness in liberal members the liberals themselves interpret as empathy with the public which obviously is wrong, as the economic gap is quite large - almost monarchial.

What exactly does this have to do with Mike Harris? The provincial government doesn't control immigration. I have posted my views on immigration in other threads, and I don't consider "oversurge of "minorities"" to be a problem.

I'm sure you're aware that the provincial government has some say in how many immigrants arriving in Canada can come to that particular province. Look at the statistics.

Where exaactly to you plan to move to?

Overseas.

[Renegade]

Well, well, well, mockingbird. I see that you have found your way back to the forums. Couldn't stay away could you, even though you were banned?

[Renegade]

It's quite clear to me that he is referring to himself as hitler in that he must terrorize the population to prove the strength of the new government.

It is interesting that what is clear to you is far from clear to Insp. Ron Fox, and he was in the room and you wern't.

Nonsense.  He is quite guilty and any idiot knows this.  Just watch the documentary.  The opp shot at the natives instead of trying to resolve the situation peacefully.  This is indicative of the behavior of police throughout the city as well.  Most of them are pure idiots on a power trip.  Once in a blue moon you meet one who is somewhat sane.

Why have an inquiry when conclusion is foregone? I see that you keep an open mind about police officers as you do about everyone else. Only someone as biased as yourself can tar all OPP and city police with the same brush.

Now you're reassociating yourself with him?  Let me explain something to you, something which I have concluded in my studies of a certain government some 60 years ago.

Harris wasn't a clever being.  Nor was he an expert in economics or what have you.  He was in a sense a zombie.  Some political entity was seeking a way to redistribute the wealth from the poor to the rich.  This usually happens when:

a)  The upper class notices the middle classes living on a somewhat similar comfort level to them without their elegánce and need to find a way to live on a relatively higher level (This is why the rich vote for governments like this)

  The economy tightens and the middle classes start losing some of their comforts.  In a society with altruism they would let it go normally, in a narcissistic society, they would start to compete with the less fortunate.  "Conservative" governments offer breaks like this.

Your theories about why any class votes for government are nonsense and I assign them the same credibility as your theory of how all conservatives are pedophiles.

I'm sure you're aware that the provincial government has some say in how many immigrants arriving in Canada can come to that particular province.  Look at the statistics.

I'm sure you are aware that except for Quebec, the provincial government does not set the criteria for entry into the country and the provincial governmetn does not control where an immigrant settles.

Where exaactly to you plan to move to?

Overseas.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent. Good Riddance.

[skcomtahtdriba]

Well, well, well, mockingbird. I see that you have found your way back to the forums. Couldn't stay away could you, even though you were banned?

He he. You stupid narcissistic canadians will never get it will you. This is not parliament. This is not a canadian government building, educational facility or classroom. This is the internet. A medium in which your ususal baring of your crooked yellow teeth to control and subdue the "foreign" population does not work.

This is the internet. Get used to it.

It is interesting that what is clear to you is far from clear to Insp. Ron Fox, and he was in the room and you wern't.

Ok. Sigh. Let me chew the information to make it easier for your "right wing" brain to digest:

One of the things Hutton couldn't recall was an odd reference connecting the

Holocaust to Ipperwash that two police officers say Harris made during a

meeting in his Queen's Park dining room shortly after noon on Sept. 6, 1995.

Scott Patrick, then a staff sergeant with the OPP and now an inspector,

testified he didn't understand comments that somehow connected the native park

occupation with the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews were slaughtered by the

Nazis.

"He indicated that this was a test, that they were a new government, and he

said this is how things get started, and then he referenced the Holocaust,"

Patrick testified. Another OPP officer at the meeting, then Insp. Ron Fox,

dismissed the Holocaust comments as "wild-ass."

Why have an inquiry when conclusion is foregone? I see that you keep an open mind about police officers as you do about everyone else. Only someone as biased as yourself can tar all OPP and city police with the same brush.

Why was there an inquiry into the hells angels assasination of a reporter and others, when the judge let them off scott free for some odd reason. Why was there an inquiry into walkerton, when we know who is responsible yet nothing is done about it. Why is there an inquiry into extremely heavy liberal corruption, yet no one is really held accountable?

Becuase the Canadian courts are wishy washy, and choose to protect the corrupt rather than provide justice to the innocent.

Your theories about why any class votes for government are nonsense and I assign them the same credibility as your theory of how all conservatives are pedophiles.

I've given some evidence to support my first "theory", that I could call some conservatives pedophiles by today's definition, which no one bothered to refute. As for these theories, take em as you like em, I'm not blanket branding anything it's just a theory is all.

I'm sure you are aware that except for Quebec, the provincial government does not set the criteria for entry into the country and the provincial governmetn does not control where an immigrant settles.

I'm sure you are aware that the majority of immigrants arriving to Canada in the past decade have specifically chosen Ontario and specifically Toronto. The provinces inaction is a crime in itself.

Immigration was meant to "Give us your hungry give us your poor" - well at least in America anyway. Hey scratch that. You know looking at Canada's past on immigration it's no surprise what they're doing now. Look at the way they treated the Chinese early in the century not to mention their policies during the holocaust. It's no wonder now that they're letting in hordes of trolls from 'behind the iron curtain'.

Excellent. Good Riddance.

How conveniant for you. Suck the juice out of immigrants then bid good riddance to their problem offspring when the time arises. Don't worry. With all the health problems this country has caused me, I'll be back in the future for healthcare, that is, of course, unless Michael Harris Jr. The Third hasn't changed that policy to thwart "evil".

In 1999, the Harris government was re-elected, largely by its political base in the 905 area.

My earlier theory has been proved correct when I mentioned that vastly disproportionate suburbanites successfully re-elected a hitler-like government who made it hard on everyone in the city. That is called despotism.

[skcomtahtdriba]

Take responsibility for your actions, Like This Man.

But we have to admit complicity. We (or at least many of us) voted for the Harris government and we (or at least some of us) happily reaped the financial rewards.

...

The rot that began in those years is now fully emerging in our current society and we must find ways to deal with it.

[theloniusfleabag]

bahhh

Edited January 5, 2006 by theloniusfleabag