CA at at 16% in Kings-Hants
Neil Tupper
Neil
nkennedy
Cute Neil, but to be fair I think that number rounds up to 17%.
But when you factor in the 9% that comes from the "windfall" Liberal
vote it shows a loss of 4-5 % for CA.
I wonder what their vote would have been if they didn't have
"experts" like Frank P(h)oole going down there to run things.
Neil K
Neil Tupper
"nkennedy" <nken...@seascape.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:39BD972C...@seascape.ns.ca...
Actually percent was 16.12. That gets rounded off in my book. Whatever, hardly
auspicious for the CA in the next election.
Neil
Honest John
wrote:
>Actually percent was 16.12. That gets rounded off in my book. Whatever, hardly
>auspicious for the CA in the next election.
Now if the Alliance with their strength in the west could combine with
the Tories who have a little strength in the East they might be able
to turf Jean "I've never seen a tax I didn't like " Chretien out on
his ear. Of course the Red Tories under Joe Clark will never do this,
it might interrupt the flow of handouts to the East.
frank...@sympatico.ca
wrote:
Who knows. The point is even with only 37% of eligible voters taking
part, we (the CA) gained 3% over 1997. Consider that you could run a
pig with PC written on it in this riding and it would win, Joe didn't
do so great. He should have taken about 65% of the vote, but he
garnished only 53% even after a Liberal rally for him on Saturday.
Given the fact that Maritimers are always two strides behind the rest
of the country at any given time, the outcome was predictable and I
stated in an earlier post that CA would probably finish third. Look
for this part of the country to vote CA once they (CA) are defeated
after about four consecutive national election victories. There
definitely is something in the water down here. ;-)
FP
frank...@sympatico.ca
As much as I hate to, I must agree. The east likes hand-outs, just as
John Mykytyshyn stated. That's why they like the Liberals and Tories.
It seems that the NDP is to far left, the CA to far right, and the
Lib/Tor's fit right in. Sounds like the story of the three bears.
FP
nkennedy
part, we (the CA) gained 3% over 1997. Consider that you could run a
pig with PC written on it in this riding and it would win, Joe didn't
do so great. He should have taken about 65% of the vote, but he
garnished only 53% even after a Liberal rally for him on Saturday.
Given the fact that Maritimers are always two strides behind the rest
of the country at any given time, the outcome was predictable and I
stated in an earlier post that CA would probably finish third. Look
for this part of the country to vote CA once they (CA) are defeated
after about four consecutive national election victories. There
What kind on nonsense is this?
".... The point is even with only 37% of eligible voters taking
part, we (the CA) gained 3% over 1997"
What difference does it make that 37% of the voters voted? Are you
implying that CA was supported by 16% of eligible voters?
CA did NOT gain, but in fact LOST 6% of it's 1997 vote,(9% of those CA
votes came from Liberals)
You predicted that CA would finish third 4 days ago, until then you
were hinting at a CA upset. Or was the following post dated Aug. 26 from
some other Frank Poole?
"Joe has to be getting concerned. He and the infamous Flora MacDonald
held a coffee and Apple pie meeting with shoppers in Greenwood last
night and attracted just a smattering of interest. Meanwhile, down the
road 25 km's local favourite Gerry Fulton and Stock Day drew in the
area of 800 to 1000 people. Stock showed he can handle a souped up
"Ford" tractor with little difficulty and wowed the crowd with his
speech of handling his parliamentary position in the same manner. Joe
is having trouble attracting anyone these days and is the reason
another MP has left his ranks (in Quebec)."->Frank Poole
Neil K
Bruce Freeman
<frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> nkennedy <nken...@seascape.ns.ca> wrote:
> > Cute Neil, but to be fair I think that number rounds up to 17%.
> >But when you factor in the 9% that comes from the "windfall" Liberal
> >vote it shows a loss of 4-5 % for CA.
> > I wonder what their vote would have been if they didn't have
> >"experts" like Frank P(h)oole going down there to run things.
> Who knows. The point is even with only 37% of eligible voters taking
> part, we (the CA) gained 3% over 1997.
The point is that you guys likely had every person interested in voting for
CA turning out for the by-election. You had an opportunity not to contest
the election of the leader of another party currently sitting in the House
but, it would seem, someone wanted to show just how dynamic CA has become
with a new name and a new leader. Even with a "new image" being placed on a
bunch old ideas, we found out yesterday that in Kings-Hants you're trailing
the NDs.
> Consider that you could run a
> pig with PC written on it in this riding and it would win, Joe didn't
> do so great. He should have taken about 65% of the vote, but he
> garnished only 53% even after a Liberal rally for him on Saturday.
Perhaps the majority of Clark's supporters suspected as much and didn't
bother to vote. Again, it was your party Frank that was taking the gamble.
> Given the fact that Maritimers are always two strides behind the rest
> of the country at any given time,
Keep this up! Telling Atlantic Candians that CAers consider them backward
is great strategy to sell CA in the East.
> the outcome was predictable and I
> stated in an earlier post that CA would probably finish third. Look
> for this part of the country to vote CA once they (CA) are defeated
> after about four consecutive national election victories. There
> definitely is something in the water down here. ;-)
Yeah, I suspect most Maritimers can spot a shark from a long distance and
know enough to get out of its way.
Bruce Freeman
Bruce Freeman
<frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
I wonder how many CAers believe this idea of the "basket case" east. I
certainly didn't buy Stock's spin that it was only the opinion of one whose
perspective was inconsistent with that of the party. While I suspect most
CAers will show a little more restraint that "Honest" John and Frank here,
my feeling is these sentiments run pretty deep. It seems all it takes is a
poor showing by the CA, as in Kings-Hants yesterday, for allegations like
"lazy, welfare bums" to once again arise.
Bruce Freeman
sunnyj...@my-deja.com
The CA is still centre left in the continuous politicalspectrum. Hardly
far right except compared to the hard core marxists that ruin this
country.
As for the three bears, more like Goldilocks three times over. All steal
from the rich (working people) to give to the underserving 'poor.'
And as for the CA getting 16%: at least a handful there acknowledge
their parasitism on the ROC. And maybe, just maybe would be willing to
get off the gravy train and be responsible. And the NDP will form the
next federal or BC government.
Hahahaha.
>
> FP
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
sunnyj...@my-deja.com
You can't win them all.
Maybe in the next run up the Liberals will have a truely national party.
Nor can the PCs or bloqheads say this now. And there just aren't enough
young, stupid, brother loving creeps to elect the NDP nationally. Cold
comfort there.
>
> Bruce Freeman
sunnyj...@my-deja.com
nkennedy <nken...@seascape.ns.ca> wrote:
> "Who knows. The point is even with only 37% of eligible voters taking
> part, we (the CA) gained 3% over 1997. Consider that you could run a
> pig with PC written on it in this riding and it would win, Joe didn't
> do so great. He should have taken about 65% of the vote, but he
> garnished only 53% even after a Liberal rally for him on Saturday.
> Given the fact that Maritimers are always two strides behind the rest
> of the country at any given time, the outcome was predictable and I
> stated in an earlier post that CA would probably finish third. Look
> for this part of the country to vote CA once they (CA) are defeated
> after about four consecutive national election victories. There
> definitely is something in the water down here. ;-)" -> Frank Poole
>
> What kind on nonsense is this?
> ".... The point is even with only 37% of eligible voters taking
> part, we (the CA) gained 3% over 1997"
>
> What difference does it make that 37% of the voters voted?
If it were your beloved NDP jackoff's just losing the race we can be
sure that you would not be so dismissive about the turn out.
>Are
you
> implying that CA was supported by 16% of eligible voters?
> CA did NOT gain, but in fact LOST 6% of it's 1997 vote,(9% of those CA
> votes came from Liberals)
> You predicted that CA would finish third 4 days ago, until then
you
> were hinting at a CA upset. Or was the following post dated Aug. 26
from
> some other Frank Poole?
>
> "Joe has to be getting concerned. He and the infamous Flora MacDonald
> held a coffee and Apple pie meeting with shoppers in Greenwood last
> night and attracted just a smattering of interest. Meanwhile, down the
> road 25 km's local favourite Gerry Fulton and Stock Day drew in the
> area of 800 to 1000 people. Stock showed he can handle a souped up
> "Ford" tractor with little difficulty and wowed the crowd with his
> speech of handling his parliamentary position in the same manner. Joe
> is having trouble attracting anyone these days and is the reason
> another MP has left his ranks (in Quebec)."->Frank Poole
>
> Neil K
>
Neil Tupper
<sunnyj...@my-deja.com> wrote
>
> The CA is still centre left in the continuous politicalspectrum. Hardly
> far right except compared to the hard core marxists that ruin this
> country.
>
I'm curious. Is there a political party anywhere in the Western world which you
would consider center right? Far right?
Neil
Honest John
wrote:
>I'm curious. Is there a political party anywhere in the Western world which you
>would consider center right? Far right?
While there may be such a party out there, I doubt that the liberlal
dominated media will ever let us know about it.
Donald J. Dickson
frank...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:38:36 -0300, nkennedy <nken...@seascape.ns.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >"Maybe the Alliance supporters were too lazy to get out and vote
> >::)"->Neil Tuper
> >
> > Cute Neil, but to be fair I think that number rounds up to 17%.
> >But when you factor in the 9% that comes from the "windfall" Liberal
> >vote it shows a loss of 4-5 % for CA.
> > I wonder what their vote would have been if they didn't have
> >"experts" like Frank P(h)oole going down there to run things.
> >
> > Neil K
>
> Who knows. The point is even with only 37% of eligible voters taking
> part, we (the CA) gained 3% over 1997. Consider that you could run a
> pig with PC written on it in this riding and it would win, Joe didn't
> do so great.
Well compared to the claims that some people (not you) were making 3 or 4
weeks ago that the CA was going to blow Joe away even if they had to run a
dead horse (I paraphrase) it seems he did pretty well. From the way people
are calculating the vote swing if the Liberals had run a candidate they
would have beaten everyone.
--
Don Dickson
Remove first "x" from xcx666 to reply by email.
Micheal Wilson
<sunnyj...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8pmfsv$rqb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <39BE9288...@seascape.ns.ca>,
> nkennedy <nken...@seascape.ns.ca> wrote:
> > "Who knows. The point is even with only 37% of eligible voters taking
> > part, we (the CA) gained 3% over 1997. Consider that you could run a
> > pig with PC written on it in this riding and it would win, Joe didn't
> > do so great. He should have taken about 65% of the vote, but he
> > garnished only 53% even after a Liberal rally for him on Saturday.
> > Given the fact that Maritimers are always two strides behind the rest
> > of the country at any given time, the outcome was predictable and I
> > stated in an earlier post that CA would probably finish third. Look
> > for this part of the country to vote CA once they (CA) are defeated
> > after about four consecutive national election victories. There
> > definitely is something in the water down here. ;-)" -> Frank Poole
> >
> > What kind on nonsense is this?
> > ".... The point is even with only 37% of eligible voters taking
> > part, we (the CA) gained 3% over 1997"
> >
> > What difference does it make that 37% of the voters voted?
>
>
> If it were your beloved NDP jackoff's just losing the race we can be
> sure that you would not be so dismissive about the turn out.
>
to be about it.
Mike.
Micheal Wilson
Honest John <h...@taxpayers.ca> wrote in message
news:39be648...@news.eagle.ca...
The Tories will never malign themselves with the Canadian Alliance, not
because of the CA's recently-found hatred of the east, but because of their
decade-old hatred of anything Canadian. The Reform/Alliance could promise
to increase provincial transfers to the east (and I'd assume, Sask and
Manitoba), or alternatively, they could promise to end them altogether.
They might continue to attract the odd extremist (Quebec separatists), and
the odd reject from other parties (Jim Jones), but whatever policies the CA
takes on (when it finally decides to take some on), won't change the fact
that the party is made up of an angry mob, a mob which is ready to protest
anything at a moment's notice, but totally bereft of any original ideas to
put in place of the policies it is protesting. The only thing this mob has
going for it, like the mob which rioted in front of the Ontario Legislature
this summer, is a leader whose ego and hunger for power is destined to ruin
the very movement he (Both Day and John Clarke) is leading.
Anyone figured out yet what was the point of Day doing a photo-op on a
Sea-Doo? Does he just like getting his picture in the paper? Or is he just
trying to prove that the intolerant are athletic too.
Mike
Micheal Wilson
Neil Tupper <ne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DPzv5.290399$8u4.3...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
Maybe he's one of those around here who believes that the Nazis were
socialists.
Mike
Micheal Wilson
>
> <sunnyj...@my-deja.com> wrote
> > >
> > > Well then. surely the Web is free from the control that liberal
> > dominated
> > > media. They must have a site.Even Chris Delanoy has a site,
> >
> >
> > Geez tupper, just how disingenous can you be? Or is that just plain
> > stupidity? The latter.
> >
>
> Well I posed a reasonable question, to which you ave not yet responded. In
fact
> that has vecome a pattern with you. We'll call it the synnyjim syndrome.
Attempt
> to engage someone in reasonable debate, and within two posts they are
reduced to
> schoolyard taunts.
>
> Maybe you're just having a bad day, so I'll repeat my question (which is
not
> disingenuous: you believe that the CA is centre-left. Is there political
party
> anywhere in the Western world which you wopuld consider (1) right of
centre (2)
> far right of centre?
>
If the CA is left-of centre, then any moderate (centrist) party must be one
which believes in killing off anyone who is a burden to society (like the
stories about the eskimos floating their old folks off on an ice floe).
Or something like that. The point I'm making, and I believe the one you're
making, is that the claim that the Reform/CA is left/centre is ludicrous.
Mike
Micheal Wilson
J. Collins <J...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mALv5.41340$E_6.16...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> compromised.
> Hardly surprising. Quite predictable.
> Let's see what happens in Ontario next spring. Stay tuned!!
>
What are you trying to say?
Mike
Micheal Wilson
<frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:u9vsrs0sc1ukulnp1...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:38:36 -0300, nkennedy <nken...@seascape.ns.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >"Maybe the Alliance supporters were too lazy to get out and vote
> >::)"->Neil Tuper
> >
> > Cute Neil, but to be fair I think that number rounds up to 17%.
> >But when you factor in the 9% that comes from the "windfall" Liberal
> >vote it shows a loss of 4-5 % for CA.
> > I wonder what their vote would have been if they didn't have
> >"experts" like Frank P(h)oole going down there to run things.
> >
> > Neil K
>
> Who knows. The point is even with only 37% of eligible voters taking
> part, we (the CA) gained 3% over 1997. Consider that you could run a
> pig with PC written on it in this riding and it would win, Joe didn't
> do so great.
You were stating not long ago that he would be beaten by both/either the the
NDP and the Reform/CA. I'd say, considering your earlier forecasts, he did
remarkably well.
> He should have taken about 65% of the vote, but he
> garnished only 53% even after a Liberal rally for him on Saturday.
> Given the fact that Maritimers are always two strides behind the rest
> of the country at any given time, the outcome was predictable and I
> stated in an earlier post that CA would probably finish third. Look
> for this part of the country to vote CA once they (CA) are defeated
> after about four consecutive national election victories. There
> definitely is something in the water down here. ;-)
>
I've gotten that impression from reading your posts...
Mike
frank...@sympatico.ca
You could be right. Note that Joe received almost the exact number of
votes (some 14,000) as did John Murphy (Lib.) did in losing the seat
in 1997. The Tories last time around received 17,000 votes. I was a
candidate representative at one of the largest polls and noted several
of my Liberal acquaintances voting which means that many Tories stayed
home, and some Liberals voted NDP or Tory. There was never any doubt
that Joe would win handily. You have to know the area to appreciate
that. The NDP had a very good candidate in Kaye Johnson, however, in
the latter days of the election she was seen as someone with a focused
agenda.
FP
J. Collins
Neil Tupper
Well then. surely the Web is free from the control that liberal dominated
media. They must have a site.Even Chris Delanoy has a site,
Neil
sunnyj...@my-deja.com
Geez tupper, just how disingenous can you be? Or is that just plain
stupidity? The latter.
>
> Neil
Neil Tupper
<sunnyj...@my-deja.com> wrote
> >
> > Well then. surely the Web is free from the control that liberal
> dominated
> > media. They must have a site.Even Chris Delanoy has a site,
>
>
> Geez tupper, just how disingenous can you be? Or is that just plain
> stupidity? The latter.
>
Well I posed a reasonable question, to which you ave not yet responded. In fact
that has vecome a pattern with you. We'll call it the synnyjim syndrome. Attempt
to engage someone in reasonable debate, and within two posts they are reduced to
schoolyard taunts.
Maybe you're just having a bad day, so I'll repeat my question (which is not
disingenuous: you believe that the CA is centre-left. Is there political party
anywhere in the Western world which you wopuld consider (1) right of centre (2)
far right of centre?
Neil
ld...@pathcom.com
"Micheal Wilson" <michealwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(...)
> Anyone figured out yet what was the point of Day doing a photo-op on a
> Sea-Doo? Does he just like getting his picture in the paper? Or is
he just
> trying to prove that the intolerant are athletic too.
>
> Mike
The barefoot, wetsuit and jet-ski photo-op seems to have backfired
badly with the deep thinkers on the editorial boards. One expects
the Toronto Star to be critical, but even the National Post in today's
lead editorial ('Too buff by half') took a dim view of the stunt.
(And yes, I confess, I did buy a Post today, looking for coverage of the
totally gross assassination attempt in Montreal. I wasn't disappointed
either, two full pages including Auger's last article.)
--Lawrence Day
nkennedy
a Sea-Doo? Does he just like getting his picture in the paper? Or is
Wilson
Don't get on Day for being consistent. First he mimics Steve Forbes
flat tax, now he tries Dukakis tank photo. What's next? The "RATS" ad
maybe, (except CA will use CRAP). Seems like they got the guy who writes
Newfoundland jokes hired a campaign chair.
J. Collins
"Micheal Wilson" <michealwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zI7w5.7463$Ld.1...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
>
> J. Collins <J...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:mALv5.41340$E_6.16...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> >
>
> Mike
>
sunnyj...@my-deja.com
"Micheal Wilson" <michealwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Neil Tupper <ne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:kTNv5.294750$8u4.3...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> >
be one
> which believes in killing off anyone who is a burden to society (like
the
> stories about the eskimos floating their old folks off on an ice
floe).
You are confused about the anti-life socialists (abortion on demand,
'environomentalism', Kantian nihilism, murder of the disabled) and the
right to life, life is sacred stance of the 'right.'
Where did this absurd idea of placing the aged on ice floes come from?
>
> Or something like that. The point I'm making, and I believe the one
you're
> making, is that the claim that the Reform/CA is left/centre is
ludicrous.
You have to know where the line is drawn. Any party that supports any
form or taxation beyond that required for police and courts is
socialist. Both are required in a civil, rule of law society. Don't
confuse what government does with either what we as citizen actually
require and what should be done by government. There is nothing that
government does, except the courts, that could not be done privately.
And more efficiently of course.
As long as any political party or person suggests that we have UI,
welfare or a government than about 10-15% larger than it is now is a
socialist. You have to understand what socialism is before you can
objectively see how it has changed the connotation of the word.
Until you can know what socialism really is, of course you will believe
that the CA is ultra right. Isn't that what that Crouton guy tol' ya?
>
> Mike
sunnyj...@my-deja.com
> socialists.
Communists and socialist want the same thing: state control. There is no
difference. One monolithic state is the goal for both groups.
You do not understand the goals of either party and hence are unable to
know the identical paths that they follow.
>
> Mike
sunnyj...@my-deja.com
"Micheal Wilson" <michealwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <sunnyj...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8pmfsv$rqb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
seem
> to be about it.
Where did you read that the CA were bitter? The NDP aren't and never
will be because they know they will never form a government. So that
let's them make any stupid suggestions they want. And then let the
stupid Liberals or even PC's take them and put them into legislation.
But the NDP/Liberals/Bloqheads, PC's and CA are all socialist anyway.
>
> Mike.
frank...@sympatico.ca
<michealwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The Tories will never malign themselves with the Canadian Alliance, not
>because of the CA's recently-found hatred of the east, but because of their
>decade-old hatred of anything Canadian. The Reform/Alliance could promise
>to increase provincial transfers to the east (and I'd assume, Sask and
>Manitoba), or alternatively, they could promise to end them altogether.
>They might continue to attract the odd extremist (Quebec separatists), and
>the odd reject from other parties (Jim Jones), but whatever policies the CA
>takes on (when it finally decides to take some on), won't change the fact
>that the party is made up of an angry mob, a mob which is ready to protest
>anything at a moment's notice, but totally bereft of any original ideas to
>put in place of the policies it is protesting.
He said while sinking into the sea of oblivion. Spoken like a true
'Red Tory'. Your right Joke Clark will never align with the CA as he
is more of a Liberal then Chretein himself. This fact alone is what
makes you state that the CA is 'extreme right', when actually anything
right of Clark would be 'right' dipstick.
> The only thing this mob has
>going for it, like the mob which rioted in front of the Ontario Legislature
>this summer, is a leader whose ego and hunger for power is destined to ruin
>the very movement he (Both Day and John Clarke) is leading.
I would think that Joke Clark's actions of the past couple of years
are more scary to people then those who you point the bony finger at.
It's his party that is disintegrating before his very peepers.
>Anyone figured out yet what was the point of Day doing a photo-op on a
>Sea-Doo? Does he just like getting his picture in the paper? Or is he just
>trying to prove that the intolerant are athletic too.
Not to hard to figure out. Chretein at 66 is still in pretty good
physical condition. Day at 51 is in excellent physical condition and
they know that Joe's gets red in the face just walking down hill (like
he did in the parade on Gerrish Street in Windsor). Poor, OLD, Joe.
>
>Mike
Also thought you may be amused by the attached.
FP
frank...@sympatico.ca
wrote:
>"...Anyone figured out yet what was the point of Day doing a photo-op on
>a Sea-Doo? Does he just like getting his picture in the paper? Or is
>he just trying to prove that the intolerant are athletic too."->Micheal
>Wilson
>
> Don't get on Day for being consistent. First he mimics Steve Forbes
>flat tax, now he tries Dukakis tank photo. What's next? The "RATS" ad
>maybe, (except CA will use CRAP). Seems like they got the guy who writes
>Newfoundland jokes hired a campaign chair.
Which puts him several literary levels above you.
FP
frank...@sympatico.ca
<michealwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Who knows. The point is even with only 37% of eligible voters taking
>> part, we (the CA) gained 3% over 1997. Consider that you could run a
>> pig with PC written on it in this riding and it would win, Joe didn't
>> do so great.
>
>You were stating not long ago that he would be beaten by both/either the the
>NDP and the Reform/CA. I'd say, considering your earlier forecasts, he did
>remarkably well.
Sorry. I never stated at anytime that Joe would lose. I live in the
riding and much longer then I can remember, it has been Tory.
>
>> He should have taken about 65% of the vote, but he
>> garnished only 53% even after a Liberal rally for him on Saturday.
>> Given the fact that Maritimers are always two strides behind the rest
>> of the country at any given time, the outcome was predictable and I
>> stated in an earlier post that CA would probably finish third. Look
>> for this part of the country to vote CA once they (CA) are defeated
>> after about four consecutive national election victories. There
>> definitely is something in the water down here. ;-)
>I've gotten that impression from reading your posts...
>
>Mike
I walked into that one. ;-)
FP
frank...@sympatico.ca
<michealwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
><sunnyj...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8pmfsv$rqb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <39BE9288...@seascape.ns.ca>,
>> nkennedy <nken...@seascape.ns.ca> wrote:
>> > "Who knows. The point is even with only 37% of eligible voters taking
>> > part, we (the CA) gained 3% over 1997. Consider that you could run a
>> > pig with PC written on it in this riding and it would win, Joe didn't
>> > do so great. He should have taken about 65% of the vote, but he
>> > garnished only 53% even after a Liberal rally for him on Saturday.
>> > Given the fact that Maritimers are always two strides behind the rest
>> > of the country at any given time, the outcome was predictable and I
>> > stated in an earlier post that CA would probably finish third. Look
>> > for this part of the country to vote CA once they (CA) are defeated
>> > after about four consecutive national election victories. There
>> > definitely is something in the water down here. ;-)" -> Frank Poole
>> >
>> > What kind on nonsense is this?
>> > ".... The point is even with only 37% of eligible voters taking
>> > part, we (the CA) gained 3% over 1997"
>> >
>> > What difference does it make that 37% of the voters voted?
>>
>>
>> If it were your beloved NDP jackoff's just losing the race we can be
>> sure that you would not be so dismissive about the turn out.
>>
>The NDP did lose, Jim, they are nowhere as bitter as the Reform/CAers seem
>to be about it.
>
>Mike.
Whose bitter? We expected it.
FP
nkennedy
"Sorry. I never stated at anytime that Joe would lose. I live in the
Poole
Can you explain why your feeble little letters to the Chronicle Herald
are from Dartmouth?
I mean if you live in the Valley, why would you use Dartmouth as your
home address?
Neil K
Neil Tupper
<sunnyj...@my-deja.com> wrote
>
> Where did you read that the CA were bitter? The NDP aren't and never
> will be because they know they will never form a government. So that
> let's them make any stupid suggestions they want. And then let the
> stupid Liberals or even PC's take them and put them into legislation.
> But the NDP/Liberals/Bloqheads, PC's and CA are all socialist anyway.
>
So now the CA have shifted from "centre-left" to socialists? You still haven'y
answered my question. Is there a political party in the Western world which you
would consider "centre"? Right? Far right?
Neil
Steven C. Britton
> Where did you read that the CA were bitter? The NDP aren't and never
> will be because they know they will never form a government. So that
> let's them make any stupid suggestions they want. And then let the
> stupid Liberals or even PC's take them and put them into legislation.
> But the NDP/Liberals/Bloqheads, PC's and CA are all socialist anyway.
What I find extremely interesting is that Joe has stopped talking like the
PCs will form the next government.
Then again, I can see why: he's lost one quarter of his caucus, his party
has no money, and they even needed the support of the federal Liberals to
elect their own leader in a low-turnout byelection.
--
The Political Spectrum isn't Right/Left; It's Right/Wrong
Steven C. Britton
Calgary
What have YOU done to bust a union today?
Patrick Coghlan
> "nkennedy" <nken...@seascape.ns.ca> wrote in message
> news:39BD972C...@seascape.ns.ca...
> > "Maybe the Alliance supporters were too lazy to get out and vote
> > ::)"->Neil Tuper
> >
> > Cute Neil, but to be fair I think that number rounds up to 17%.
> > But when you factor in the 9% that comes from the "windfall" Liberal
> > vote it shows a loss of 4-5 % for CA.
> > I wonder what their vote would have been if they didn't have
> > "experts" like Frank P(h)oole going down there to run things.
> >
>
> Actually percent was 16.12. That gets rounded off in my book. Whatever, hardly
> auspicious for the CA in the next election.
Obviously, the CA aren't going to the have-not provinces.
frank...@sympatico.ca
wrote:
Let's put that into perspective. If you continually give a child an
allowance with no strings attached just to keep them quiet, would you
see any self-initiative? The Atlantic provinces will continue to deny
the presence of the CA in the political spectrum as they are convinced
by the old line parties that they(the CA) will change things and deny
them their handouts.
Having spent a great deal of time "polling" and door-to-door in the
by-election, it was hard to believe what some of these people actually
thought. They 'heard' that OAS was going to be discontinued, that the
CA was a 'separatist' party from out in Ontario, EI would be cut, etc.
Now where would they get these ideas? From the media? From the
candidates? Of course they would. One woman actually told me that she
couldn't vote for the CA as they were a "western party". I asked her
if she was a 'separatist', as the west was very much a part of this
country. The image of the Reform tv ads flashed in my head (the one
about the Quebec PM's). Is it any wonder they(Reform) ran those ads?
This is exactly how people think. One has to actually hit the hustings
to hear these weird myths.
FP
Bruce Freeman
<frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> Patrick Coghlan <pcog...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> >Neil Tupper wrote:
> >> Actually percent was 16.12. That gets rounded off in my book.
Whatever, hardly
> >> auspicious for the CA in the next election.
> >Obviously, the CA aren't going to the have-not provinces.
Good. With the shifting fortunes that reflect our national experience, the
CA will therefore never be a national party.
> Let's put that into perspective. If you continually give a child an
> allowance with no strings attached just to keep them quiet, would you
> see any self-initiative? The Atlantic provinces will continue to deny
> the presence of the CA in the political spectrum as they are convinced
> by the old line parties that they(the CA) will change things and deny
> them their handouts.
Do keep informing Canadians of this CA view on Eastern Canada Frank. The
Newfoundlanders working in Fort McMurray especially like to hear that
relatives back home are only interested in lining up for federal "handouts".
:-) I was up there talking to some of my friends a couple of weeks ago.
They have a far better insight of the reality of regional differences than
you and your CA boosters do.
> Having spent a great deal of time "polling" and door-to-door in the
> by-election, it was hard to believe what some of these people actually
> thought. They 'heard' that OAS was going to be discontinued, that the
> CA was a 'separatist' party from out in Ontario, EI would be cut, etc.
> Now where would they get these ideas? From the media? From the
> candidates? Of course they would. One woman actually told me that she
> couldn't vote for the CA as they were a "western party".
It sounds to me like this woman was calling it as she sees it. How many CA
MPs have been elected outside of Western Canada?
> I asked her
> if she was a 'separatist', as the west was very much a part of this
> country. The image of the Reform tv ads flashed in my head (the one
> about the Quebec PM's). Is it any wonder they(Reform) ran those ads?
> This is exactly how people think. One has to actually hit the hustings
> to hear these weird myths.
There is a qualitative difference between those ads criticizing Quebec
leaders of _national_ parties versus a protest party with its political
support based almost entirely in Western Canada. In your post here you
seem to give credence to these "myths" Frank (though for the wrong reasons).
Bruce Freeman
Neil Tupper
"Bruce Freeman" <bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote
>
> <frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>
>
> > Let's put that into perspective. If you continually give a child an
> > allowance with no strings attached just to keep them quiet, would you
> > see any self-initiative? The Atlantic provinces will continue to deny
> > the presence of the CA in the political spectrum as they are convinced
> > by the old line parties that they(the CA) will change things and deny
> > them their handouts.
>
>
> Do keep informing Canadians of this CA view on Eastern Canada Frank. The
> Newfoundlanders working in Fort McMurray especially like to hear that
> relatives back home are only interested in lining up for federal "handouts".
> :-) I was up there talking to some of my friends a couple of weeks ago.
> They have a far better insight of the reality of regional differences than
> you and your CA boosters do.
>
>
preaching respect, his grass root support grumble their contempt for Quebec and
the East. No wonder the CA will never be more than a regional protest party.
Neil
ld...@pathcom.com
Patrick Coghlan
> <frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>
> > Patrick Coghlan <pcog...@magma.ca> wrote:
> >
> > >Neil Tupper wrote:
>
> > >> Actually percent was 16.12. That gets rounded off in my book.
> Whatever, hardly
> > >> auspicious for the CA in the next election.
>
> > >Obviously, the CA aren't going to the have-not provinces.
>
> Good. With the shifting fortunes that reflect our national experience, the
> CA will therefore never be a national party.
Neither will the Bloc, but this does not mean that one day Quebec will vote Liberal.
On the other hand, if we continue to have one region asking for handouts and others asked to pay high taxes to support those handouts, the result might be that the stronger provinces go it alone...or at least force the feds to give up a lot of the power they have to take money from one region and give it to another. I think we'll end up more like the US actually.> Let's put that into perspective. If you continually give a child an
> > allowance with no strings attached just to keep them quiet, would you
> > see any self-initiative? The Atlantic provinces will continue to deny
> > the presence of the CA in the political spectrum as they are convinced
> > by the old line parties that they(the CA) will change things and deny
> > them their handouts.
>
> Do keep informing Canadians of this CA view on Eastern Canada Frank. The
> Newfoundlanders working in Fort McMurray especially like to hear that
> relatives back home are only interested in lining up for federal "handouts".
> :-) I was up there talking to some of my friends a couple of weeks ago.
> They have a far better insight of the reality of regional differences than
> you and your CA boosters do.
If they're not interested in handouts, why keep electing the only party that seems willing to give them handouts (PCs)?
The PCs certainly have lost all credibility as far as being a *conservative* party.
Neil Tupper
<sunnyj...@my-deja.com> wrote
>
> You are confused about the anti-life socialists (abortion on demand,
> 'environomentalism', Kantian nihilism, murder of the disabled) and the
> right to life, life is sacred stance of the 'right.'
>
Then explain why most of "the right" (and I acknowledge and respect the
exceptions) favour capital punishment.
Neil
frank...@sympatico.ca
<bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
><frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>Good. With the shifting fortunes that reflect our national experience, the
>CA will therefore never be a national party.
>
>> Let's put that into perspective. If you continually give a child an
>> allowance with no strings attached just to keep them quiet, would you
>> see any self-initiative? The Atlantic provinces will continue to deny
>> the presence of the CA in the political spectrum as they are convinced
>> by the old line parties that they(the CA) will change things and deny
>> them their handouts.
>
>
>Do keep informing Canadians of this CA view on Eastern Canada Frank. The
>Newfoundlanders working in Fort McMurray especially like to hear that
>relatives back home are only interested in lining up for federal "handouts".
Firstly, there are more then "Newfoundlanders" working in Fort
McMurray. There are many from the Maritimes as well. You DO know the
difference don't you? Besides, do you think that I like labeling my
own fellow Maritimers as such? Hardly. But if the truth is in the
'puddin', then one should eat it.
>:-) I was up there talking to some of my friends a couple of weeks ago.
>They have a far better insight of the reality of regional differences than
>you and your CA boosters do.
"up there"? I expect you mean Fort McMurray. These "friends" that you
talked to are not part of the problem as they ARE the people that
moved to the jobs, just as Mykytyshyn eluded to. You should really get
a handle on who "they" are, the people who like the handouts I mean.
The dumping of millions of dollars down here is given the appearance
that "big brother" is caring, when it fact it is little more then
vote-buying.
>> Having spent a great deal of time "polling" and door-to-door in the
>> by-election, it was hard to believe what some of these people actually
>> thought. They 'heard' that OAS was going to be discontinued, that the
>> CA was a 'separatist' party from out in Ontario, EI would be cut, etc.
>> Now where would they get these ideas? From the media? From the
>> candidates? Of course they would. One woman actually told me that she
>> couldn't vote for the CA as they were a "western party".
>
>
>It sounds to me like this woman was calling it as she sees it. How many CA
>MPs have been elected outside of Western Canada?
Or one could ask, how many Tories can Joe Clark have to lead?
Afterall, they were voting for a fifth place marginal party that is
losing popularity and down to single digits.
>> I asked her
>> if she was a 'separatist', as the west was very much a part of this
>> country. The image of the Reform tv ads flashed in my head (the one
>> about the Quebec PM's). Is it any wonder they(Reform) ran those ads?
>> This is exactly how people think. One has to actually hit the hustings
>> to hear these weird myths.
>
>
>There is a qualitative difference between those ads criticizing Quebec
>leaders of _national_ parties versus a protest party with its political
>support based almost entirely in Western Canada.
Bullshit Bruce!! A party with 22% support and the OO cannot be
labelled a "protest party" , no matter how much you would like it to
be. You are either very stupid or you are a sad little misfit that
cannot accept the fact that someone else may be right. (No pun
intended). Even in this riding the CA gained 3% over 1997 and against
a popular "leader".(?)
> In your post here you
>seem to give credence to these "myths" Frank (though for the wrong reasons).
Shake your head Bruce, as you are being utterly ridiculous in your
take on a situation so far removed from you.
>Bruce Freeman
FP
frank...@sympatico.ca
wrote:
>
>"Bruce Freeman" <bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote
>>
>> <frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>>
>>
>> > Let's put that into perspective. If you continually give a child an
>> > allowance with no strings attached just to keep them quiet, would you
>> > see any self-initiative? The Atlantic provinces will continue to deny
>> > the presence of the CA in the political spectrum as they are convinced
>> > by the old line parties that they(the CA) will change things and deny
>> > them their handouts.
>>
>>
>> Do keep informing Canadians of this CA view on Eastern Canada Frank. The
>> Newfoundlanders working in Fort McMurray especially like to hear that
>> relatives back home are only interested in lining up for federal "handouts".
>> :-) I was up there talking to some of my friends a couple of weeks ago.
>> They have a far better insight of the reality of regional differences than
>> you and your CA boosters do.
>>
>>
>Isn't that true! While the obsequious Pastor Day travels across the country
>preaching respect, his grass root support grumble their contempt for Quebec and
>the East. No wonder the CA will never be more than a regional protest party.
>
>Neil
Even less then the now "marginal, regional Tory party"? Down to one MP
in Quebec now and who else is about to leave. In Quebec support has
GROWN from less then 2% to 8% for the CA, while the Tories are dying
in their holes. Who would have gained the most respect given the
facts?
FP
Bruce Freeman
"Patrick Coghlan" <pcog...@magma.ca> wrote
> Bruce Freeman wrote:
> > <frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> > > >Obviously, the CA aren't going to the have-not provinces.
> > Good. With the shifting fortunes that reflect our national experience,
the
> > CA will therefore never be a national party.
> Neither will the Bloc, but this does not mean that one day Quebec will
vote Liberal.
But the Bloc freely admits that it is a regional party, that its interests
stop at the Quebec border. CA, on the other hand, refuses to announce
officially its distaste for Eastern Canada. Evidently, the party leaves
this work to its grunts.
> On the other hand, if we continue to have one region asking for handouts
and others
> asked to pay high taxes to support those handouts, the result might be
that the
> stronger provinces go it alone...or at least force the feds to give up a
lot of the
> power they have to take money from one region and give it to another. I
think
> we'll end up more like the US actually.
CAs approach to nationalism and, especially, equalization is essentially the
latter approach. Ottawa's powers would be greatly reduced and we would see
even greater discreprencies between the "have" and "have not" provinces.
Very much an American model.
Most Canadians, on the other hand, seem to value maintaining minimum
standards in health, education, and other social areas and are willing to
shift tax dollars to accomplish this goal. Even the conservative premiers
would seem to endorse this approach.
> > > Let's put that into perspective. If you continually give a child an
> > > allowance with no strings attached just to keep them quiet, would you
> > > see any self-initiative? The Atlantic provinces will continue to deny
> > > the presence of the CA in the political spectrum as they are convinced
> > > by the old line parties that they(the CA) will change things and deny
> > > them their handouts.
> > Do keep informing Canadians of this CA view on Eastern Canada Frank.
The
> > Newfoundlanders working in Fort McMurray especially like to hear that
> > relatives back home are only interested in lining up for federal
"handouts".
> > :-) I was up there talking to some of my friends a couple of weeks ago.
> > They have a far better insight of the reality of regional differences
than
> > you and your CA boosters do.
> If they're not interested in handouts, why keep electing the only party
that seems
> willing to give them handouts (PCs)?
Where have you been since 1993 Patrick? The federal PCs have been in no
position to extend anyone a "handout" (or much of anything else for that
matter) for years.
> The PCs certainly have lost all credibility as far as being a
*conservative* party.
I guess this depends on how one defines conservatism.
Bruce Freeman
Bruce Freeman
<frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> "Bruce Freeman" bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> ><frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> >Do keep informing Canadians of this CA view on Eastern Canada Frank. The
> >Newfoundlanders working in Fort McMurray especially like to hear that
> >relatives back home are only interested in lining up for federal
"handouts".
> Firstly, there are more then "Newfoundlanders" working in Fort
> McMurray. There are many from the Maritimes as well. You DO know the
> difference don't you?
Yes I do Frank. There is a reason why the city has been referred to as
"Little Newfoundland". The Purity Brand products section in the two Safeway
stores is a pretty good clue that Newfoundland migration to NE Alberta has
outranked that of the other Maritime provinces.
> Besides, do you think that I like labeling my
> own fellow Maritimers as such? Hardly.
The Newfies living up there don't seem to mind the labeling.
> But if the truth is in the
> 'puddin', then one should eat it.
I also know Nova Scotians in Fort McMurray who refuse to have anything to do
with the Alliance. So don't get your nose out of joint that I didn't
mention the sensible people from your province!
> >:-) I was up there talking to some of my friends a couple of weeks ago.
> >They have a far better insight of the reality of regional differences
than
> >you and your CA boosters do.
> "up there"? I expect you mean Fort McMurray. These "friends" that you
> talked to are not part of the problem as they ARE the people that
> moved to the jobs, just as Mykytyshyn eluded to.
Actually, the majority of these people consider themselves extremely
fortunate. They happened to possess the right set of skills at time when
the oil sands industry was hiring. Now they're telling their friends and
family to stay home. Most of the permanent jobs now available pay little
more than minimum wage yet apartment rent is over $1,000 per unit.
> You should really get
> a handle on who "they" are, the people who like the handouts I mean.
> The dumping of millions of dollars down here is given the appearance
> that "big brother" is caring, when it fact it is little more then
> vote-buying.
I've been to the Maritimes, Frank, several times; of course, mostly visiting
Newfie family & friends. I'm aware of the problems associated with being in
an area that was once the center and is now on the periphery. But these
problems are much larger than you realize. For example, why is it that
these jobs in Fort McMurray pay so little? How come many professional
social workers and nurses relocating to Calgary find it difficult to obtain
a position offering a forty hour work week with benefits? There are some
fundamental flaws in our economy Frank that go well beyond regional
differences. That said, the "solutions" your party offers would only make
matters worse.
> >> Having spent a great deal of time "polling" and door-to-door in the
> >> by-election, it was hard to believe what some of these people actually
> >> thought. They 'heard' that OAS was going to be discontinued, that the
> >> CA was a 'separatist' party from out in Ontario, EI would be cut, etc.
> >> Now where would they get these ideas? From the media? From the
> >> candidates? Of course they would. One woman actually told me that she
> >> couldn't vote for the CA as they were a "western party".
> >It sounds to me like this woman was calling it as she sees it. How many
CA
> >MPs have been elected outside of Western Canada?
> Or one could ask, how many Tories can Joe Clark have to lead?
> Afterall, they were voting for a fifth place marginal party that is
> losing popularity and down to single digits.
Frank, even after all this hard work you did going "polling" (whatever that
that is, is it something like jigg'n a fish?) and "door-to-door", Clark
pounded your guy with a three-to-one! And the performance of your pitiful
Alliance would have been even more dismal had the Liberals ran a candidate.
I'd suggest, when you go out there talking to your neighbors, you should
actually listen to the concerns they raise. These people are not idiots.
> >> I asked her
> >> if she was a 'separatist', as the west was very much a part of this
> >> country. The image of the Reform tv ads flashed in my head (the one
> >> about the Quebec PM's). Is it any wonder they(Reform) ran those ads?
> >> This is exactly how people think. One has to actually hit the hustings
> >> to hear these weird myths.
> >There is a qualitative difference between those ads criticizing Quebec
> >leaders of _national_ parties versus a protest party with its political
> >support based almost entirely in Western Canada.
> Bullshit Bruce!! A party with 22% support and the OO cannot be
> labelled a "protest party" , no matter how much you would like it to
> be.
Did you have say the same thing about the Bloc when they were the Official
Opposition? The Liberals formed the last national OO.
> You are either very stupid or you are a sad little misfit that
> cannot accept the fact that someone else may be right. (No pun
> intended). Even in this riding the CA gained 3% over 1997 and against
> a popular "leader".(?)
Yeah, you did gain 3%, in the absence of a Liberal candidate running and in
all-out show of force against "the other conservative party"!!!! Yeah, you
guys should really pat yourselves on the back and say "we scored BIGTIME in
Kings-Hants!
> > In your post here you
> >seem to give credence to these "myths" Frank (though for the wrong
reasons).
> Shake your head Bruce, as you are being utterly ridiculous in your
> take on a situation so far removed from you.
Who is being ridiculous here Frank? You're going to have to do some much
better "poll'n'" to hook those voters out there in the Maritimes.
Bruce Freeman
frank...@sympatico.ca
<bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
><frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>
>> "Bruce Freeman" bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
>> ><frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>
>> >Do keep informing Canadians of this CA view on Eastern Canada Frank. The
>> >Newfoundlanders working in Fort McMurray especially like to hear that
>> >relatives back home are only interested in lining up for federal
>"handouts".
>
>> Firstly, there are more then "Newfoundlanders" working in Fort
>> McMurray. There are many from the Maritimes as well. You DO know the
>> difference don't you?
>
>Yes I do Frank. There is a reason why the city has been referred to as
>"Little Newfoundland". The Purity Brand products section in the two Safeway
>stores is a pretty good clue that Newfoundland migration to NE Alberta has
>outranked that of the other Maritime provinces.
And the reason is..............?
>> Besides, do you think that I like labeling my
>> own fellow Maritimers as such? Hardly.
>
>The Newfies living up there don't seem to mind the labeling.
Mostly because they are not the one's being labeled. The have nots,
want nots at home are the real problem, the one's that won't move bye.
Once a Newf is in Alberta he becomes an just another Albertan with a
Newfie accent.
>> But if the truth is in the
>> 'puddin', then one should eat it.
>I also know Nova Scotians in Fort McMurray who refuse to have anything to do
>with the Alliance.
Of course they won't have 'anything to do with the Alliance'. They
were born here, and still think about 'Uncle Charlie' down home on the
dole or that Liberal government sponsored program. They moved for
employment, they didn't forsake their upbringing. Geeeez!
> So don't get your nose out of joint that I didn't
>mention the sensible people from your province!
Blow your horn Bruce, it's the only part of you that makes a sensible
sound.
>> >:-) I was up there talking to some of my friends a couple of weeks ago.
>> >They have a far better insight of the reality of regional differences
>than
>> >you and your CA boosters do.
>
>> "up there"? I expect you mean Fort McMurray. These "friends" that you
>> talked to are not part of the problem as they ARE the people that
>> moved to the jobs, just as Mykytyshyn eluded to.
>
>
>Actually, the majority of these people consider themselves extremely
>fortunate. They happened to possess the right set of skills at time when
>the oil sands industry was hiring. Now they're telling their friends and
>family to stay home. Most of the permanent jobs now available pay little
>more than minimum wage yet apartment rent is over $1,000 per unit.
But being employed is the point and further to that 'being employed
more then 540 hours annually'. Rent in Halifax or Sydney will run you
$700. plus a month and many jobs are minimum wage, especially those
that require basic skills or uncertified skills.
>> You should really get
>> a handle on who "they" are, the people who like the handouts I mean.
>> The dumping of millions of dollars down here is given the appearance
>> that "big brother" is caring, when it fact it is little more then
>> vote-buying.
>
>I've been to the Maritimes, Frank, several times; of course, mostly visiting
>Newfie family & friends. I'm aware of the problems associated with being in
>an area that was once the center and is now on the periphery.
No you are not aware of the problems. You see I have lived in Alberta,
Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia. 'Visits' mean damn little.
You have to have all the pertinent facts to pass a sensible judgement
on "why" the governments of Canada has screwed this part of the
country. Your generalization of the area is inaccurate. Until 1960,
during an era that would better use the resources of the Atlantic
coast and it's trade with New England, things were fine. Then came the
ideas of the centralist government to promote trade and build Ontario
and the west. That's when the Atlantic coast was orphaned and allowed
to continue with the past, never planning on the future. Once
government realized what they were doing to the region, they started
pouring guilt money in, only to create the monster (a lazy one) that
we have today.
> But these
>problems are much larger than you realize. For example, why is it that
>these jobs in Fort McMurray pay so little?
Contrary to what you say, these low-paying jobs are unskilled jobs. Do
you have a list of occupations and their pay scales? Look over your
shoulder Bruce. That welder can no longer demand high wages that he
did in 1980, as it is no longer considered a 'demand occupation'.
> How come many professional
>social workers and nurses relocating to Calgary find it difficult to obtain
>a position offering a forty hour work week with benefits?
Crawl out of that hole Bruce and look how business operates these
days. It's the year 2000, not 1980. There are no more 40 hour weeks in
these professions due to high benefit costs brought on by out of
control unions in the 1980's. When benefits exceed wages, then it is
obvious production will suffer and that's basic economics 101.
> There are some
>fundamental flaws in our economy Frank that go well beyond regional
>differences. That said, the "solutions" your party offers would only make
>matters worse.
We both know differently, but you're to bull-headed to accept the
facts. Do you take your car to the carwash to get the oil changed? If
you do then you wouldn't understand the economic's of the CA. However,
in the same case you would understand that it is o.k. to pay 26 cents
of every tax dollar to pay interest on the national debt. Given that,
our productivity levels will never improve without proper incentives.
Tax cuts = incentives and at least Paul Martin has finally realized
that and is proposing 'deeper cuts'. Now doesn't that sound familiar?
Liberals are masters at perception and will make any cuts to taxes was
their idea and ignore the fact that Reform/CA has preached that fact
since at least 1996.
>> >> Having spent a great deal of time "polling" and door-to-door in the
>> >> by-election, it was hard to believe what some of these people actually
>> >> thought. They 'heard' that OAS was going to be discontinued, that the
>> >> CA was a 'separatist' party from out in Ontario, EI would be cut, etc.
>> >> Now where would they get these ideas? From the media? From the
>> >> candidates? Of course they would. One woman actually told me that she
>> >> couldn't vote for the CA as they were a "western party".
>
>> >It sounds to me like this woman was calling it as she sees it. How many
>CA
>> >MPs have been elected outside of Western Canada?
>
>> Or one could ask, how many Tories can Joe Clark have to lead?
>> Afterall, they were voting for a fifth place marginal party that is
>> losing popularity and down to single digits.
>
>Frank, even after all this hard work you did going "polling" (whatever that
>that is, is it something like jigg'n a fish?)
You've been to Newfoundland and know it all. You should know what
"jiggn" is and "polling".
>and "door-to-door", Clark
>pounded your guy with a three-to-one! And the performance of your pitiful
>Alliance would have been even more dismal had the Liberals ran a candidate.
The Liberals didn't have to run a candidate, as they had a
'two-for-one' in Joe Clark. Joe managed to get the same number of
votes the losing Liberal received in 1997. Now with one candidate out
of the picture that fact attracted less flies to Joe then the local
barn-yard.
>I'd suggest, when you go out there talking to your neighbors, you should
>actually listen to the concerns they raise. These people are not idiots.
Again how would you know. The proof of the 'puddin' is there. They
listen to Joe promising to "push the right buttons in Ottawa" (exact
quote) to get Hwy 101 twinned, health payments restored to 1993
levels, bigger agriculture payments, etc, etc. and these people lapped
it up like warm milk. Once he is up thar in Oddawa (in his cowboy
boots) and standing there FIFTH at the back of the line, the speaker
won't even hear his chortling. But these people think that he will
have some sort of magic wand. Even an "idiot" would think more clearly
then that.
>> >> I asked her
>> >> if she was a 'separatist', as the west was very much a part of this
>> >> country. The image of the Reform tv ads flashed in my head (the one
>> >> about the Quebec PM's). Is it any wonder they(Reform) ran those ads?
>> >> This is exactly how people think. One has to actually hit the hustings
>> >> to hear these weird myths.
>
>> >There is a qualitative difference between those ads criticizing Quebec
>> >leaders of _national_ parties versus a protest party with its political
>> >support based almost entirely in Western Canada.
>
>
>> Bullshit Bruce!! A party with 22% support and the OO cannot be
>> labelled a "protest party" , no matter how much you would like it to
>> be.
>Did you have say the same thing about the Bloc when they were the Official
>Opposition? The Liberals formed the last national OO.
Yes, the Bloc was the OO prior to 1997, under parliamentary rule,
regardless of their narrow agenda. Being "national" has nothing to do
with it and that is the argument that your 'big head' stated as well
when Reform argued that the Bloc was not loyal to Canada.
>> You are either very stupid or you are a sad little misfit that
>> cannot accept the fact that someone else may be right. (No pun
>> intended). Even in this riding the CA gained 3% over 1997 and against
>> a popular "leader".(?)
>
>
>Yeah, you did gain 3%, in the absence of a Liberal candidate running and in
>all-out show of force against "the other conservative party"!!!! Yeah, you
>guys should really pat yourselves on the back and say "we scored BIGTIME in
>Kings-Hants!
Even a steer can try. May not get the wanted result, but try we did.
When you believe in something strongly enough for the good of your
country you never give up.
>> > In your post here you
>> >seem to give credence to these "myths" Frank (though for the wrong
>reasons).
>
>> Shake your head Bruce, as you are being utterly ridiculous in your
>> take on a situation so far removed from you.
>
>Who is being ridiculous here Frank? You're going to have to do some much
>better "poll'n'" to hook those voters out there in the Maritimes.
Maybe, maybe not. Sleeping beauty woke up after she got the "kiss",
and maybe that's what the people down here need.......the kiss.
>Bruce Freeman
FP
Bruce Freeman
<frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> "Bruce Freeman" bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> ><frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> >The Newfies living up there [Fort McMurray, AB] don't seem to mind the
labeling.
> Mostly because they are not the one's being labeled. The have nots,
> want nots at home are the real problem, the one's that won't move bye.
> Once a Newf is in Alberta he becomes an just another Albertan with a
> Newfie accent.
I thought you said you lived in Alberta Frank. The Newfies I knew here say,
"once a Newf, always a Newf." There's something about "God's Country" that
they remain attached to. Heck, I've even been screeched myself!
> >> But if the truth is in the
> >> 'puddin', then one should eat it.
> >I also know Nova Scotians in Fort McMurray who refuse to have anything to
do
> >with the Alliance.
> Of course they won't have 'anything to do with the Alliance'. They
> were born here, and still think about 'Uncle Charlie' down home on the
> dole or that Liberal government sponsored program. They moved for
> employment, they didn't forsake their upbringing. Geeeez!
It goes much deeper than this, Frank. Unlike CAers, they recognize that
these are complex times we live in. They recognize that the CA _solution_ -
"sink or swim" - is no solution at all.
> >I've been to the Maritimes, Frank, several times; of course, mostly
visiting
> >Newfie family & friends. I'm aware of the problems associated with being
in
> >an area that was once the center and is now on the periphery.
> No you are not aware of the problems. You see I have lived in Alberta,
> Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia. 'Visits' mean damn little.
> You have to have all the pertinent facts to pass a sensible judgement
> on "why" the governments of Canada has screwed this part of the
> country. Your generalization of the area is inaccurate. Until 1960,
> during an era that would better use the resources of the Atlantic
> coast and it's trade with New England, things were fine. Then came the
> ideas of the centralist government to promote trade and build Ontario
> and the west. That's when the Atlantic coast was orphaned and allowed
> to continue with the past, never planning on the future. Once
> government realized what they were doing to the region, they started
> pouring guilt money in, only to create the monster (a lazy one) that
> we have today.
But the '50s were a very different time than today, Frank. Many of the
industries in Eastern Canada at that time were extensive enough to provide
for profitable trading partnerships with the eastern US. But the world
shrunk considerably during those 50 years and many of those once important
industries were either depleted or not competitive when trading on a world
scale. I agree with you that there was insufficient focus placed on
planning for these transitions. However, we've seen this occur even in
heartland. You'll recall that Ontario suffered extensively when NAFTA was
ratified. Central Canada would be feeling pressures today if it were not
for a low Canadian dollar.
> > But these
> >problems are much larger than you realize. For example, why is it that
> >these jobs in Fort McMurray pay so little?
> Contrary to what you say, these low-paying jobs are unskilled jobs. Do
> you have a list of occupations and their pay scales? Look over your
> shoulder Bruce. That welder can no longer demand high wages that he
> did in 1980, as it is no longer considered a 'demand occupation'.
So where are the high-paying jobs to found Frank?
> > How come many professional
> >social workers and nurses relocating to Calgary find it difficult to
obtain
> >a position offering a forty hour work week with benefits?
> Crawl out of that hole Bruce and look how business operates these
> days. It's the year 2000, not 1980. There are no more 40 hour weeks in
> these professions due to high benefit costs brought on by out of
> control unions in the 1980's. When benefits exceed wages, then it is
> obvious production will suffer and that's basic economics 101.
So the part time shifts offered by the new economy are the fault of the
unions negotiating sick plans for their members! This is rich Frank. When
I was in HR we costed benefits at about 28 percent of basic wages. You
know, even at this rate, comprehensive benefits are far cheaper in Canada
than in the US.
> > There are some
> >fundamental flaws in our economy Frank that go well beyond regional
> >differences. That said, the "solutions" your party offers would only
make
> >matters worse.
> We both know differently, but you're to bull-headed to accept the
> facts. Do you take your car to the carwash to get the oil changed? If
> you do then you wouldn't understand the economic's of the CA. However,
> in the same case you would understand that it is o.k. to pay 26 cents
> of every tax dollar to pay interest on the national debt.
Forgive me Frank but didn't you used to go door-to-door for the party that
drove up the federal debt? You know, the one the "tax & spend Liberals" are
now paying off. Yeah, I'd get my oil changed in carwash anyday before
letting one of your "mechanics" work on my engine!
> Given that,
> our productivity levels will never improve without proper incentives.
Day sort of lost track of this mantra last week when we focused on the GST
rather than the party line of tax cuts for businesses and high income
earners. It's an interesting theory, Frank, but wouldn't want to see it
applied in Canada. Your voodoo economics didn't work very well in the US.
It took a Democrat to fix up that mess.
> >I'd suggest, when you go out there talking to your neighbors, you should
> >actually listen to the concerns they raise. These people are not idiots.
> Again how would you know. The proof of the 'puddin' is there. They
> listen to Joe promising to "push the right buttons in Ottawa" (exact
> quote) to get Hwy 101 twinned, health payments restored to 1993
> levels, bigger agriculture payments, etc, etc. and these people lapped
> it up like warm milk. Once he is up thar in Oddawa (in his cowboy
> boots) and standing there FIFTH at the back of the line, the speaker
> won't even hear his chortling. But these people think that he will
> have some sort of magic wand. Even an "idiot" would think more clearly
> then that.
At the very least, Clark will represent his consitutents' interests. Which
is a far better thing than a CAer selling them for cheap "slave" labor.
> >Yeah, you did gain 3%, in the absence of a Liberal candidate running and
in
> >all-out show of force against "the other conservative party"!!!! Yeah,
you
> >guys should really pat yourselves on the back and say "we scored BIGTIME
in
> >Kings-Hants!
> Even a steer can try. May not get the wanted result, but try we did.
> When you believe in something strongly enough for the good of your
> country you never give up.
And you were doing it "for the good of your country" when going door to door
for the PCs, right Frank. Perhaps you would be doing more for your country
if you simply took up golf. :-)
> >Who is being ridiculous here Frank? You're going to have to do some much
> >better "poll'n'" to hook those voters out there in the Maritimes.
> Maybe, maybe not. Sleeping beauty woke up after she got the "kiss",
> and maybe that's what the people down here need.......the kiss.
Rather than talking about fairy tales, don't you mean here the CA "boot"?
It's precisely what your neighbors are going to feel if Canadians ever elect
a CA government.
Bruce Freeman
Patrick Coghlan
> "Patrick Coghlan" <pcog...@magma.ca> wrote
>
> > Neither will the Bloc, but this does not mean that one day Quebec will
> vote Liberal.
>
> But the Bloc freely admits that it is a regional party, that its interests
> stop at the Quebec border. CA, on the other hand, refuses to announce
> officially its distaste for Eastern Canada. Evidently, the party leaves
> this work to its grunts.
What the CA is against is the use of perpetual job creation grants which create dependencies on big government and to buy votes in the process. If middle-class tax rates in this country were closer to 35-40% instead of 50% this might not be an issue.
> > On the other hand, if we continue to have one region asking for handouts
> and others
> > asked to pay high taxes to support those handouts, the result might be
> that the
> > stronger provinces go it alone...or at least force the feds to give up a
> lot of the
> > power they have to take money from one region and give it to another. I
> think
> > we'll end up more like the US actually.
>
> CAs approach to nationalism and, especially, equalization is essentially the
> latter approach. Ottawa's powers would be greatly reduced and we would see
> even greater discreprencies between the "have" and "have not" provinces.
> Very much an American model.
Like it or not, their model is sustainable (if you want the prosperity of region X, go and move to region X) while ours is not (keep the next 50 generations of your families in a region which is not playing a big role in the new economy, and the rest of the country will keep your standard of living at the same level of theirs through equalization payments).
It would be sustainable if it did not require 50% tax rates on the middle-class to make it work, but since it does I am claiming that the "have" provinces will revolt (already starting to happen) and they will force a devolution of federal powers.
> Most Canadians, on the other hand, seem to value maintaining minimum
> standards in health, education, and other social areas and are willing to
> shift tax dollars to accomplish this goal. Even the conservative premiers
> would seem to endorse this approach.
Like I said, if it can be done with 35% marginal tax rates such a model might be sustainable, but people are revolting against these confiscatory tax levels and it will change the way this country operates.
> > If they're not interested in handouts, why keep electing the only party
> that seems
> > willing to give them handouts (PCs)?
>
> Where have you been since 1993 Patrick? The federal PCs have been in no
> position to extend anyone a "handout" (or much of anything else for that
> matter) for years.
Well, the Liberals won't loosen up EI requirements so they are punishing them by voting PC. Why else? This, in spite of increased spending in the area (bridge to PEI etc.).
Neil Tupper
"Bruce Freeman" <bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote
>
> It goes much deeper than this, Frank. Unlike CAers, they recognize that
> these are complex times we live in. They recognize that the CA _solution_ -
> "sink or swim" - is no solution at all.
>
Bruce. They do not accept the complexity of modern society and it's reflected in
their policies. Crime a problem? More deterrence. Short of revenue? Lower taxes.
Refugees a problem? Ship 'em back. Pollution? Less government oversight.
Accepting complexity requires a willingness to recognize that societal
problem aren't simple, and that they involve many factors which must be
considered in any serious attempt at solution. I think that's why so many CA
supporters are so fond of flinging around such epithets as Marxist, Socialist,
Communist at their opponents. These epithets are like slogans, and once someone
starts spouting slogans, they reveal the shallowness of their political
philosophy.
Neil
frank...@sympatico.ca
wrote:
>
>"Bruce Freeman" <bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote
>>
>> It goes much deeper than this, Frank. Unlike CAers, they recognize that
>> these are complex times we live in. They recognize that the CA _solution_ -
>> "sink or swim" - is no solution at all.
>>
> You've cut right to the heart of the impoverished CA philosophy here,
>Bruce. They do not accept the complexity of modern society and it's reflected in
>their policies.
This is little more then a liberal agreeing with a liberal. I will
deal with each of your subjects individually.
> Crime a problem?
Crime is always a problem. To deny it isn't is downright stupid. Even
though the statistics show declining numbers, they can and are
manipulated by the authority. The YOA is indeed a problem and even the
Liberals now accept that.
> More deterrence.
Deterrence to what? Crime? Society rules are made for law and order,
not the renegades. Deterrence is the means to the end result. What is
your solution?
> Short of revenue? Lower taxes.
Reward the tax payer in good times. It is easier to make them bite the
bullet in the hard times. That philosophy seems to escape the
Liberals. There is no shortage of revenue (presently). Instead of
pissing it away like a bunch of drunken sailors, pay down the debt,
lower taxes to create more revenue through increased productivity and
jobs. Every seasoned economist is on side with that theory.
>Refugees a problem? Ship 'em back.
Unqualified refugee's should be "shipped back". We need trained
immigrants to come here to work, not to live on welfare, (like the
Somalians). Trained or professional immigrants are needed to keep our
beloved social programs going. Again the Liberals have finally seen
the light on this.
> Pollution? Less government oversight.
Yeah right. Tell 'big brother' to our south that!!
> Accepting complexity requires a willingness to recognize that societal
>problem aren't simple, and that they involve many factors which must be
>considered in any serious attempt at solution.
Cripes! You're digressing here. That is exactly what we need instead
of just throwing money at the problems. So why do you harass the CA
when they approach the problem in this manner.
> I think that's why so many CA
>supporters are so fond of flinging around such epithets as Marxist, Socialist,
>Communist at their opponents.
Ha!! It's you're ilke that likes to do that. 'Labeling'
is a favorite pasttime of liberals.
> These epithets are like slogans, and once someone
>starts spouting slogans, they reveal the shallowness of their political
>philosophy.
"Did I say dat?", "I did not say dat", "what radio was dat on?". "De
beggar on da street tole me dat".
Yep, real 'shallowness' that CA party. NOT.
>Neil
FP
Steven C. Britton
> But the Bloc freely admits that it is a regional party, that its interests
> stop at the Quebec border. CA, on the other hand, refuses to announce
> officially its distaste for Eastern Canada. Evidently, the party leaves
> this work to its grunts.
The CA doesn't have any distaste for Eastern Canada, Bruce. You, however,
have extreme distaste for any ideology which isn't within your own perverted
views.
> CAs approach to nationalism and, especially, equalization is essentially
the
> latter approach. Ottawa's powers would be greatly reduced and we would
see
> even greater discreprencies between the "have" and "have not" provinces.
Now, in the real world, Bruce, what decentralization would do is get Ottawa
out of the province's faces, so they can actually build their own economies
up without any "guidance" (or rather, hinderance) from the Overlords in
Ottawa.
> Very much an American model.
So?
> Most Canadians, on the other hand, seem to value maintaining minimum
> standards in health, education, and other social areas and are willing to
> shift tax dollars to accomplish this goal. Even the conservative premiers
> would seem to endorse this approach.
In the real world, Bruce (as opposed to your fantasy one), most Canadians
are by far and wide very willing to help out others who are less fortunate
through donations to various charitable organizations. With taxes being
cut, charitable organizations would see their revenues go up; as would the
government because more money is being spent and the economy will expand.
When that happens, Canada's Sacred Cows of Health Care and Education would
be adequately funded under the current socialist model.
Of course, personally, I think they should be 100% privatized, but I am well
aware that the majority of Canadians have had these services provided under
the false illusion of being free of charge, so I realize that my goal of
privatizing them will take a while to be realized.
> > The PCs certainly have lost all credibility as far as being a
> *conservative* party.
>
> I guess this depends on how one defines conservatism.
So, in other words, Bruce re-writes the dictionary every time he gets into a
sticky spot. He doesn't solve his problems, he redefines them.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> Bruce Freeman wrote:
>> But the Bloc freely admits that it is a regional party, that its interests
>> stop at the Quebec border. CA, on the other hand, refuses to announce
>> officially its distaste for Eastern Canada. Evidently, the party leaves
>> this work to its grunts.
> The CA doesn't have any distaste for Eastern Canada, Bruce. You, however,
> have extreme distaste for any ideology which isn't within your own perverted
> views.
I'm not sure the CA has any distaste for it, but it would rather have it
gone. And since the idea of the breakup of the country fits pretty well
with separatists, they tend to see the CA as allies (even though they
disagree with just about everything else in the CA platform).
>> CAs approach to nationalism and, especially, equalization is essentially
> the
>> latter approach. Ottawa's powers would be greatly reduced and we would
> see
>> even greater discreprencies between the "have" and "have not" provinces.
> Now, in the real world, Bruce, what decentralization would do is get Ottawa
> out of the province's faces, so they can actually build their own economies
> up without any "guidance" (or rather, hinderance) from the Overlords in
> Ottawa.
More of taking the Canada out of Canada, and making it a few separate countries
with a few minor common institutions. Very close to the PQ platform in the
last referendum, wouldn't you say.
>> Very much an American model.
> So?
Actually not. The US is a highly certralized federation compared to Canada
today. Further decentralization would make Canada more like the OAS.
>> Most Canadians, on the other hand, seem to value maintaining minimum
>> standards in health, education, and other social areas and are willing to
>> shift tax dollars to accomplish this goal. Even the conservative premiers
>> would seem to endorse this approach.
> In the real world, Bruce (as opposed to your fantasy one), most Canadians
> are by far and wide very willing to help out others who are less fortunate
> through donations to various charitable organizations.
I tend to agree this is the CA view of the world. Health care and education
are charitible concerns, and some charity level health care would exist,
similar to most third world countries.
> With taxes being
> cut, charitable organizations would see their revenues go up;
Somehow I doubt that this would be significant, compared to the increased
demands for the same charities.
> as would the
> government because more money is being spent and the economy will expand.
More likely, since the economy is expanding just about as fast as is
possible, the result would be increased inflation, a massive drop in
the Canadian $, and all sorts of related things.
> When that happens, Canada's Sacred Cows of Health Care and Education would
> be adequately funded under the current socialist model.
Maybe we would qualify for foreign aid to help our disadvantanged.
> Of course, personally, I think they should be 100% privatized, but I am well
> aware that the majority of Canadians have had these services provided under
> the false illusion of being free of charge, so I realize that my goal of
> privatizing them will take a while to be realized.
Nobody thinks they are free. Its just that people believe that they as
a society should pay for them, becaused they are fundamental social
rights in a modern society.
Others, like the CA, see things going back to a 1850s model of
classical liberalism.
>> > The PCs certainly have lost all credibility as far as being a
>> *conservative* party.
>>
>> I guess this depends on how one defines conservatism.
> So, in other words, Bruce re-writes the dictionary every time he gets into a
> sticky spot. He doesn't solve his problems, he redefines them.
In recent years, the political right has re-written the world "conservatism" to
mean "classical liberalism", of the pre JS Mills days.
--
Best regards,
Stephen Jenuth
(jen...@homacjen.ab.ca)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Bruce Freeman
"Steven C. Britton" <s...@scb-group.com> wrote
> Bruce Freeman wrote:
> > But the Bloc freely admits that it is a regional party, that its
interests
> > stop at the Quebec border. CA, on the other hand, refuses to announce
> > officially its distaste for Eastern Canada. Evidently, the party leaves
> > this work to its grunts.
> The CA doesn't have any distaste for Eastern Canada, Bruce. You, however,
> have extreme distaste for any ideology which isn't within your own
perverted
> views.
Steven, have you been following what members of the CA have been saying
about Canadians who live in Eastern Canada?
> > CAs approach to nationalism and, especially, equalization is essentially
> the
> > latter approach. Ottawa's powers would be greatly reduced and we would
> see
> > even greater discreprencies between the "have" and "have not" provinces.
> Now, in the real world, Bruce, what decentralization would do is get
Ottawa
> out of the province's faces, so they can actually build their own
economies
> up without any "guidance" (or rather, hinderance) from the Overlords in
> Ottawa.
It's so easy to say this as an Albertan in the year 2000! What happens,
though, we deplete our oil & gas reserves?
> > Very much an American model.
> So?
First, we're not the United States. We have less 10% of their population
living on a larger, more diverse landscape. Second, most Canadians like to
be different than Americans, for reasons that I think are obvious to most.
> > Most Canadians, on the other hand, seem to value maintaining minimum
> > standards in health, education, and other social areas and are willing
to
> > shift tax dollars to accomplish this goal. Even the conservative
premiers
> > would seem to endorse this approach.
> In the real world, Bruce (as opposed to your fantasy one), most Canadians
> are by far and wide very willing to help out others who are less fortunate
> through donations to various charitable organizations.
But people slip through the cracks when essential services are being
provided exclusively by charitable organizations. I've used before the
example of the alcoholic who shows up with liquor on his breath at the
Calgary Salvation Army Men's Shelter. He's denied entry. Your response was
something like "tough, those are consequences of him choosing to drink".
But we're still left with the problem of a homeless man on the street.
> With taxes being
> cut, charitable organizations would see their revenues go up;
Would they? You're assuming here that people don't give to charities
because they're overtaxed. What make you so certain that the greedy
wouldn't just pocket the difference?
> as would the
> government because more money is being spent and the economy will expand.
> When that happens, Canada's Sacred Cows of Health Care and Education would
> be adequately funded under the current socialist model.
Again, you're assuming that the economy would actually expand if tax rates
for businesses and high income Canadians were lowered significantly.
> Of course, personally, I think they should be 100% privatized, but I am
well
> aware that the majority of Canadians have had these services provided
under
> the false illusion of being free of charge, so I realize that my goal of
> privatizing them will take a while to be realized.
Of course! Day would use the Alberta model. Slowly allow the system to
deteriorate until the public system is crisis. It's interesting now, with a
provincial election on the horizon, that all kinds of money is being pumped
back into public health care. We're stopped imploding hospitals and are now
getting back in the business of building new ones! Yeah, you guys could go
a long way in "fixing" Canada's health care system.
> > > The PCs certainly have lost all credibility as far as being a
> > *conservative* party.
> >
> > I guess this depends on how one defines conservatism.
>
> So, in other words, Bruce re-writes the dictionary every time he gets into
a
> sticky spot. He doesn't solve his problems, he redefines them.
My dictionary defines conservatism as "a political tradition based on
tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and
preferring gradual development to abrupt change" (Webster's 9th). While you
guys did dump "Presto", you still have as your mandate rapid and abrupt
change to traditional Canadian institutions.
Bruce Freeman
>
ld...@pathcom.com
frank...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 04:14:04 GMT, "Neil Tupper" <ne...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> It goes much deeper than this, Frank. Unlike CAers, they recognize
that
> >> these are complex times we live in. They recognize that the CA
_solution_ -
> >> "sink or swim" - is no solution at all.
> >>
> > You've cut right to the heart of the impoverished CA philosophy
here,
> >Bruce. They do not accept the complexity of modern society and it's
reflected in
> >their policies.
Surely part of this over-simplified policy view is due to their Alberta
roots. With oil revenues gushing out of the ground it is essentially
simple to be the Finance Minister, Bulwinkle could earn accolades too.
To actually govern a diverse nation is a much greater challenge.
>
> This is little more then a liberal agreeing with a liberal. I will
> deal with each of your subjects individually.
>
> > Crime a problem?
>
> Crime is always a problem. To deny it isn't is downright stupid. Even
> though the statistics show declining numbers, they can and are
> manipulated by the authority. The YOA is indeed a problem and even the
> Liberals now accept that.
I see the CA flirting with Brian Mulroney's idea of a customs union with
the US. If you want to see crime rates soar, then taking out the border
check-points with our well-armed neighbour to the South looks like a
fine prescription.
The simplist way to see crime rates lowered would be to legalize
marijuana and prostitution.
Lately Toronto police have so little to do and so much man power that
they could send five (5!) male undercover officers to investigate the
liquor license for an annual lesbian night at a bath house. They had
lots of fun of course, stayed a few hours before deciding not to charge
anyone with anything, and, it being night time, they were probably
getting overtime pay.
Meanwhile in Montreal, it is beginning to look like prohibition-era
Chicago or modern Moscow..
'Law and Order' makes a great campaign slogan; The 'hot button' fear
part of the 'fear and greed' platform of Ronald Reagan. But look where
this simplistic view lead: while the government rounded up the pot heads
the white-collar 'Savings and Loan' scams cost about 500 billion.
Even in Alberta, what about Swan Hills? What about Bre-ex?
It is all too easy to mouth 'Law and Order' platitudes.
A just society is something far more complex and demanding.
>
> > More deterrence.
>
> Deterrence to what? Crime? Society rules are made for law and order,
> not the renegades. Deterrence is the means to the end result. What is
> your solution?
Normal people follow the rules automatically,
so perhaps actually laws *are* made for the 'renegades'?
Nothing creates 'renegades' more quickly than daffy laws
like marijuana or alcohol prohibition.
Fewer laws, more strictly enforced, would be productive, imo.
>
> > Short of revenue? Lower taxes.
Heh heh :-) This one approximates Social Credit's 'funny money'.
btw, those of us on Bay Street are invited to meet Stockwell Day at only
$25,000 for a good table. Millionaires love flat taxes. It will make a
great shmooze photo-op too, especially if circulated in Western Canada
by his opposition during the campaign.
But hey, Stockwell may be simple-minded, but whether that distresses or
endears voters is another matter. Playing simple-minded worked for
Ronald Reagan, and he took Fridays off too..zzzzing
>
> Reward the tax payer in good times. It is easier to make them bite the
> bullet in the hard times. That philosophy seems to escape the
> Liberals. There is no shortage of revenue (presently).
Cash flow is healthy, debts and assets roughly balanced.. a healthy
economy clearly..
Whether to credit the PC's (GST, NAFTA),
the Liberal's Jean Chretien and Paul Martin,
or extraterritorial factors
(ie, booming US economy hungry for imports)
is another matter.
>Instead of
> pissing it away like a bunch of drunken sailors,
I know it is only an expression of speech,
but on behalf of my sailor friends let me point out:
(a) they are cooped up in a small space for long periods of time
and they have to be sane and sober to do their job. When they make
harbour, only then can they relax and cut loose and have an opportunity
to spend the money that is useless aboard ship.
(b) sailors have a risky job requiring bravery, great concentration, and
their work is necessary for all harbour community's economic health.
Giving them space to stretch out when the job is done (like Malta's
'Straight Street' or Amsterdam's 'Red Zone') makes both compassionate
and economic sense.
>pay down the debt,
> lower taxes to create more revenue through increased productivity and
> jobs. Every seasoned economist is on side with that theory.
Care to name names?
>
> >Refugees a problem? Ship 'em back.
>
> Unqualified refugee's should be "shipped back".
So, what is a refugee?
If a communist dictatorship like China persecutes religious minorities
should we ship back those faithful who are desperate enough to deal with
gangsters/snakeheads in the hope of reaching the 'western paradise'?
Frankly, personally, I'd rather keep them.
>We need trained
> immigrants to come here to work, not to live on welfare, (like the
> Somalians).
Award yourself 1 bozopoint for bigotry.
In my Ontario riding's last election the Liberal candidate was a Somali
Doctor with great persuasive powers of oratory. It was totally obvious
that he had great intelligence and compassion. Stereotypes are so dumb
eh..let's let them go..please..
>Trained or professional immigrants are needed to keep our
> beloved social programs going. Again the Liberals have finally seen
> the light on this.
Ahem, they saw it first and planned accordingly, and with timing.
You saw it later, and were impetuous eh..
>
> > Pollution? Less government oversight.
>
> Yeah right. Tell 'big brother' to our south that!!
I'm not sure what this means??
US pollution legislation is far stricter than Canada's.
That is why 'intensive farming' banned in Pennsylvania has moved to
Ontario, and 'intensive farming' banned in Taiwan has moved to Alberta.
The Americans figured out that they weren't going to accept long-term
pollution payments for short-term stockholder dividends.
This is clearly where government shines, at its best: protecting the
common citizen from bafflegab exploitation.
The CA platform is missing this whole plank--instead there is a big
hole.
And Stockwell's air-, water-, and noise-pollution scrum with his jet-ski
illustrates the problem profoundly. A G&M wag observed
that Stock had instantly lost the cottage vote..
Duh, tranquillity, whazzat??
>
> > Accepting complexity requires a willingness to recognize that
societal
> >problem aren't simple, and that they involve many factors which must
be
> >considered in any serious attempt at solution.
(...)
--Lawrence Day
frank...@sympatico.ca
>Steven C. Britton <s...@scb-group.com> wrote:
>> Bruce Freeman wrote:
>
>>> But the Bloc freely admits that it is a regional party, that its interests
>>> stop at the Quebec border. CA, on the other hand, refuses to announce
>>> officially its distaste for Eastern Canada. Evidently, the party leaves
>>> this work to its grunts.
>
>> The CA doesn't have any distaste for Eastern Canada, Bruce. You, however,
>> have extreme distaste for any ideology which isn't within your own perverted
>> views.
>
>I'm not sure the CA has any distaste for it, but it would rather have it
>gone. And since the idea of the breakup of the country fits pretty well
>with separatists, they tend to see the CA as allies (even though they
>disagree with just about everything else in the CA platform).
Such as?
>>> CAs approach to nationalism and, especially, equalization is essentially
>> the
>>> latter approach. Ottawa's powers would be greatly reduced and we would
>> see
>>> even greater discreprencies between the "have" and "have not" provinces.
>
>> Now, in the real world, Bruce, what decentralization would do is get Ottawa
>> out of the province's faces, so they can actually build their own economies
>> up without any "guidance" (or rather, hinderance) from the Overlords in
>> Ottawa.
>
>More of taking the Canada out of Canada, and making it a few separate countries
>with a few minor common institutions. Very close to the PQ platform in the
>last referendum, wouldn't you say.
Are you saying that the US model didn't/doesn't work? It appears to
have for about 275 years.
>
>>> Very much an American model.
>
>> So?
>
>Actually not. The US is a highly certralized federation compared to Canada
>today. Further decentralization would make Canada more like the OAS.
Are you putting us on? One question comes to mind. Would Canada allow
Alberta to pass legislation bringing back the death penalty? No. Would
they allow Alberta to have a private medical plan along with the
federal Health act? No. Would Canada allow Provinces to set individual
laws dealing with family matters (i.e abortions). No. Would they allow
a Province to end the equal opportunity legislation (as in California)
No! And the list goes on. And you were saying?
>
>>> Most Canadians, on the other hand, seem to value maintaining minimum
>>> standards in health, education, and other social areas and are willing to
>>> shift tax dollars to accomplish this goal. Even the conservative premiers
>>> would seem to endorse this approach.
>
>> In the real world, Bruce (as opposed to your fantasy one), most Canadians
>> are by far and wide very willing to help out others who are less fortunate
>> through donations to various charitable organizations.
>
>I tend to agree this is the CA view of the world. Health care and education
>are charitible concerns, and some charity level health care would exist,
>similar to most third world countries.
And how did you form that opinion from the CA policy?
>
>> With taxes being
>> cut, charitable organizations would see their revenues go up;
>
>Somehow I doubt that this would be significant, compared to the increased
>demands for the same charities.
I disagree. I hate giving to the number one charity (income tax), I
would much rather give a few extra dollars to say the Salvation Army
or the United Way.
>
>> as would the
>> government because more money is being spent and the economy will expand.
>
>More likely, since the economy is expanding just about as fast as is
>possible, the result would be increased inflation, a massive drop in
>the Canadian $, and all sorts of related things.
Yes the economy is expanding, but can it continue? In April the
Canadian $ was 68 cents with inflation running at 1.8%. Last month the
dollar hovered under 68 cents with inflation at 3% (adjusted). So what
is your point? The lower dollar not only creates higher prices on
imported goods, but increases cost to transport them. And while on the
subject, why didn't the government foresee a rise in oil prices when
consumption took a leap? Some watchdog!!
>
>> When that happens, Canada's Sacred Cows of Health Care and Education would
>> be adequately funded under the current socialist model.
>
>Maybe we would qualify for foreign aid to help our disadvantanged.
Why not? They have their hands out all the time anyway.
>
>> Of course, personally, I think they should be 100% privatized, but I am well
>> aware that the majority of Canadians have had these services provided under
>> the false illusion of being free of charge, so I realize that my goal of
>> privatizing them will take a while to be realized.
>
>Nobody thinks they are free. Its just that people believe that they as
>a society should pay for them, becaused they are fundamental social
>rights in a modern society.
Not really. Socialized medicine in Canada has created a monster, due
to the feds welshing on the promised support of the Health act.
>
>Others, like the CA, see things going back to a 1850s model of
>classical liberalism.
Such as?
>>> > The PCs certainly have lost all credibility as far as being a
>>> *conservative* party.
>>>
>>> I guess this depends on how one defines conservatism.
>
>> So, in other words, Bruce re-writes the dictionary every time he gets into a
>> sticky spot. He doesn't solve his problems, he redefines them.
>
>In recent years, the political right has re-written the world "conservatism" to
>mean "classical liberalism", of the pre JS Mills days.
As THAT you take or did someone tell you that?
FP
frank...@sympatico.ca
<bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
>"Steven C. Britton" <s...@scb-group.com> wrote
>> The CA doesn't have any distaste for Eastern Canada, Bruce. You, however,
>> have extreme distaste for any ideology which isn't within your own
>perverted
>> views.
>
>Steven, have you been following what members of the CA have been saying
>about Canadians who live in Eastern Canada?
As Gerry Fulton stated, "one fool does not make a party".
>> > CAs approach to nationalism and, especially, equalization is essentially
>> the
>> > latter approach. Ottawa's powers would be greatly reduced and we would
>> see
>> > even greater discreprencies between the "have" and "have not" provinces.
>
>> Now, in the real world, Bruce, what decentralization would do is get
>Ottawa
>> out of the province's faces, so they can actually build their own
>economies
>> up without any "guidance" (or rather, hinderance) from the Overlords in
>> Ottawa.
>
>It's so easy to say this as an Albertan in the year 2000! What happens,
>though, we deplete our oil & gas reserves?
Then you will become "lazy" like the Maritimers? ;-)
>> > Very much an American model.
>
>> So?
>
>First, we're not the United States. We have less 10% of their population
>living on a larger, more diverse landscape. Second, most Canadians like to
>be different than Americans, for reasons that I think are obvious to most.
Only the "artsy" types think that way. They seem to think that Canada
has a "unique" culture, but I really don't know what they are talking
about most of the time. Is it things like a "defunct CBC"? A Prime
Minister living in a country that is 72% English speaking, but cannot
speak proper English himself? Or maybe it is the fact that we
continually allow the tail to wag the dog that counts as culture. Is
high taxes a culture? It's your call Bruce.
>> > Most Canadians, on the other hand, seem to value maintaining minimum
>> > standards in health, education, and other social areas and are willing
>to
>> > shift tax dollars to accomplish this goal. Even the conservative
>premiers
>> > would seem to endorse this approach.
>
>> In the real world, Bruce (as opposed to your fantasy one), most Canadians
>> are by far and wide very willing to help out others who are less fortunate
>> through donations to various charitable organizations.
>
>
>But people slip through the cracks when essential services are being
>provided exclusively by charitable organizations. I've used before the
>example of the alcoholic who shows up with liquor on his breath at the
>Calgary Salvation Army Men's Shelter. He's denied entry. Your response was
>something like "tough, those are consequences of him choosing to drink".
>But we're still left with the problem of a homeless man on the street.
......who cannot follow the rules to improve his stead in life. Now
who really is to blame here?
>> With taxes being
>> cut, charitable organizations would see their revenues go up;
>
>Would they? You're assuming here that people don't give to charities
>because they're overtaxed. What make you so certain that the greedy
>wouldn't just pocket the difference?
Some would. Same as they do now. But conversely, if one has a few more
shackles to divide, he usually does.
>
>> as would the
>> government because more money is being spent and the economy will expand.
>> When that happens, Canada's Sacred Cows of Health Care and Education would
>> be adequately funded under the current socialist model.
>
>Again, you're assuming that the economy would actually expand if tax rates
>for businesses and high income Canadians were lowered significantly.
If you do not lower taxes for business and those that CREATE jobs,
then the economy will stagnate. That's a given. Even the OECD has
stated that fact. Are they wrong as well Bruce?
>> Of course, personally, I think they should be 100% privatized, but I am
>well
>> aware that the majority of Canadians have had these services provided
>under
>> the false illusion of being free of charge, so I realize that my goal of
>> privatizing them will take a while to be realized.
>
>
>Of course! Day would use the Alberta model. Slowly allow the system to
>deteriorate until the public system is crisis.
How do you know that? Is that your interpretation of Articles 34, 35
and 36 of the CA policy? What is the policy of the Liberal party? The
Tory party? The NDP? Is theirs written as clearly?
> It's interesting now, with a
>provincial election on the horizon, that all kinds of money is being pumped
>back into public health care.
Really? With a 58B surplus? This IS politics you know, or "use their
money to buy them". Isn't that the practise of the Grits and Tories?
Isn't that why Chretein just dumped $700M into Atlantic Canada? And
Millions more on wharf rehab.
> We're stopped imploding hospitals and are now
>getting back in the business of building new ones! Yeah, you guys could go
>a long way in "fixing" Canada's health care system.
So how do you explain the practice of the Liberal since 1993 Bruce.
Cripes man, you're undershorts are glowing with liberal crap.
>> > > The PCs certainly have lost all credibility as far as being a
>> > *conservative* party.
>> >
>> > I guess this depends on how one defines conservatism.
>>
>> So, in other words, Bruce re-writes the dictionary every time he gets into
> a
>> sticky spot. He doesn't solve his problems, he redefines them.
>
>My dictionary defines conservatism as "a political tradition based on
>tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and
>preferring gradual development to abrupt change" (Webster's 9th).
And in the meaning within the National Tory party, recycling can be
added to that description. So you see Bruce the only truly
'conservative' party is the CA when you couple it with your earlier
statements of it living in the dark ages of 1850 practice. Would that
be an "established institution". "Abrupt change" has never applied to
anything in politics, so in this sense you are talking conservation
rather then conservatism in the political sense.
> While you
>guys did dump "Presto", you still have as your mandate rapid and abrupt
>change to traditional Canadian institutions.
Had we elected JC himself to head the party, you would still criticize
him Bruce, so what really is YOUR point?
>
>Bruce Freeman
FP
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
frank...@sympatico.ca
>In article <kovbsscniqjsk9qjt...@4ax.com>,
> frank...@sympatico.ca wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 04:14:04 GMT, "Neil Tupper" <ne...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Bruce Freeman" <bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote
>> >> It goes much deeper than this, Frank. Unlike CAers, they recognize
>that
>> >> these are complex times we live in. They recognize that the CA
>_solution_ -
>> >> "sink or swim" - is no solution at all.
>> >>
>> > You've cut right to the heart of the impoverished CA philosophy
>here,
>> >Bruce. They do not accept the complexity of modern society and it's
>reflected in
>> >their policies.
>
>Surely part of this over-simplified policy view is due to their Alberta
>roots. With oil revenues gushing out of the ground it is essentially
>simple to be the Finance Minister, Bulwinkle could earn accolades too.
>To actually govern a diverse nation is a much greater challenge.
This is entirely wrong. I would much rather have someone who has
handled great wealth handle my wealth, then someone who has never had
the opportunity. Read the history of some of the instant millionaires
in this country brought on by lotteries, then shake your head.
>>
>> This is little more then a liberal agreeing with a liberal. I will
>> deal with each of your subjects individually.
>>
>> > Crime a problem?
>>
>> Crime is always a problem. To deny it isn't is downright stupid. Even
>> though the statistics show declining numbers, they can and are
>> manipulated by the authority. The YOA is indeed a problem and even the
>> Liberals now accept that.
>
>I see the CA flirting with Brian Mulroney's idea of a customs union with
>the US. If you want to see crime rates soar, then taking out the border
>check-points with our well-armed neighbour to the South looks like a
>fine prescription.
Well armed neighbor to the South. Unarmed neighbor to the North. Point
discarded.
>The simplist way to see crime rates lowered would be to legalize
>marijuana and prostitution.
Can you shoot someone with a 'joint'? ;-) Actually I agree that
marijuana should be legalized. Could be a lot of good revenue there
through taxes. Prostitution should also be legal and income tax
collected accordingly. Who cares who screws who and for what reason
anyway?
>Lately Toronto police have so little to do and so much man power that
>they could send five (5!) male undercover officers to investigate the
>liquor license for an annual lesbian night at a bath house. They had
>lots of fun of course, stayed a few hours before deciding not to charge
>anyone with anything, and, it being night time, they were probably
>getting overtime pay.
>Meanwhile in Montreal, it is beginning to look like prohibition-era
>Chicago or modern Moscow..
>'Law and Order' makes a great campaign slogan; The 'hot button' fear
>part of the 'fear and greed' platform of Ronald Reagan. But look where
>this simplistic view lead: while the government rounded up the pot heads
>the white-collar 'Savings and Loan' scams cost about 500 billion.
>Even in Alberta, what about Swan Hills? What about Bre-ex?
>It is all too easy to mouth 'Law and Order' platitudes.
>A just society is something far more complex and demanding.
But much of what you have mentioned does not qualify under law and
order. Law and order is for the protection of body and limb of the
innocent, not whether they got duped by some slick prick.
>> > More deterrence.
>>
>> Deterrence to what? Crime? Society rules are made for law and order,
>> not the renegades. Deterrence is the means to the end result. What is
>> your solution?
>
>Normal people follow the rules automatically,
not "automatically", the word is 'socially'.
>so perhaps actually laws *are* made for the 'renegades'?
>Nothing creates 'renegades' more quickly than daffy laws
>like marijuana or alcohol prohibition.
And gun registrations?
>Fewer laws, more strictly enforced, would be productive, imo.
Agreed.
>> > Short of revenue? Lower taxes.
>
>Heh heh :-) This one approximates Social Credit's 'funny money'.
>btw, those of us on Bay Street are invited to meet Stockwell Day at only
>$25,000 for a good table. Millionaires love flat taxes. It will make a
>great shmooze photo-op too, especially if circulated in Western Canada
>by his opposition during the campaign.
>But hey, Stockwell may be simple-minded, but whether that distresses or
>endears voters is another matter. Playing simple-minded worked for
>Ronald Reagan, and he took Fridays off too..zzzzing
>>
>> Reward the tax payer in good times. It is easier to make them bite the
>> bullet in the hard times. That philosophy seems to escape the
>> Liberals. There is no shortage of revenue (presently).
>
>Cash flow is healthy, debts and assets roughly balanced.. a healthy
>economy clearly..
>Whether to credit the PC's (GST, NAFTA),
>the Liberal's Jean Chretien and Paul Martin,
>or extraterritorial factors
>(ie, booming US economy hungry for imports)
>is another matter.
How about a combination of all?
>>Instead of
>> pissing it away like a bunch of drunken sailors,
>
>I know it is only an expression of speech,
>but on behalf of my sailor friends let me point out:
>(a) they are cooped up in a small space for long periods of time
>and they have to be sane and sober to do their job. When they make
>harbour, only then can they relax and cut loose and have an opportunity
>to spend the money that is useless aboard ship.
>(b) sailors have a risky job requiring bravery, great concentration, and
>their work is necessary for all harbour community's economic health.
>Giving them space to stretch out when the job is done (like Malta's
>'Straight Street' or Amsterdam's 'Red Zone') makes both compassionate
>and economic sense.
But I was Air Force for 22 years. While those boozers were hanging out
in Amsterdam's Red Zone', spending those dollars, the wife and kids
were...............or never mind.
>
>>pay down the debt,
>> lower taxes to create more revenue through increased productivity and
>> jobs. Every seasoned economist is on side with that theory.
>
>Care to name names?
Why? Do you read financial reports. Educate yourself, it's the best
means of avoiding embarrassment.
>> >Refugees a problem? Ship 'em back.
>>
>> Unqualified refugee's should be "shipped back".
>
>So, what is a refugee?
Never ask a bleeding heart that question.
>If a communist dictatorship like China persecutes religious minorities
>should we ship back those faithful who are desperate enough to deal with
>gangsters/snakeheads in the hope of reaching the 'western paradise'?
No. But the proof and not the 'say so' should be there in the first
place. These people lie better then cheap rugs.
>Frankly, personally, I'd rather keep them.
On welfare? Don't you think we should feed our own first?
>>We need trained
>> immigrants to come here to work, not to live on welfare, (like the
>> Somalians).
>
>Award yourself 1 bozopoint for bigotry.
>In my Ontario riding's last election the Liberal candidate was a Somali
>Doctor with great persuasive powers of oratory. It was totally obvious
>that he had great intelligence and compassion. Stereotypes are so dumb
>eh..let's let them go..please..
One in how many? The fact that he ran for the Liberals is reason
enough to know that he was 'selected' for the vote of 'his' people.
Call it bigotry if you want to hide the truth, but there was a
documentary on the CBC magazine on how they took over an entire high
rise in Toronto and then harassed the other residence until they left.
These are the bastards I am talking about. They had been on the dole
for two years and had deteriorated the building to a state of slums.
We don't need those people. What about the Sihk problems in Vancouver?
The people that are causing these problems are the scum of other
countries, who should not have been allowed in on feeble excuses. If
their clean in their native countries, they will respect ours, if
their filth there they will be the same here. THOSE are the people I
am talking about, not the one case you have pointed out.
>>Trained or professional immigrants are needed to keep our
>> beloved social programs going. Again the Liberals have finally seen
>> the light on this.
>
>Ahem, they saw it first and planned accordingly, and with timing.
>You saw it later, and were impetuous eh..
If you call 1999 as seeing it first.................
>> > Pollution? Less government oversight.
>>
>> Yeah right. Tell 'big brother' to our south that!!
>
>I'm not sure what this means??
>US pollution legislation is far stricter than Canada's.
Is it? So why is acid rain killing our lakes and streams? The crap in
the air from the eastern seaboard straight through to Ontario.
>That is why 'intensive farming' banned in Pennsylvania has moved to
>Ontario, and 'intensive farming' banned in Taiwan has moved to Alberta.
>The Americans figured out that they weren't going to accept long-term
>pollution payments for short-term stockholder dividends.
>This is clearly where government shines, at its best: protecting the
>common citizen from bafflegab exploitation.
Haw! Tell the people of Walkerton that who have had their wells
contaminated by the super farms.
>The CA platform is missing this whole plank--instead there is a big
>hole.
>And Stockwell's air-, water-, and noise-pollution scrum with his jet-ski
>illustrates the problem profoundly. A G&M wag observed
>that Stock had instantly lost the cottage vote..
Of course the "G & M". Bahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
>Duh, tranquillity, whazzat??
What an ultra maroon!!
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:32:55 GMT, jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>Steven C. Britton <s...@scb-group.com> wrote:
>>> Bruce Freeman wrote:
>>
>>>> But the Bloc freely admits that it is a regional party, that its interests
>>>> stop at the Quebec border. CA, on the other hand, refuses to announce
>>>> officially its distaste for Eastern Canada. Evidently, the party leaves
>>>> this work to its grunts.
>>
>>> The CA doesn't have any distaste for Eastern Canada, Bruce. You, however,
>>> have extreme distaste for any ideology which isn't within your own perverted
>>> views.
>>
>>I'm not sure the CA has any distaste for it, but it would rather have it
>>gone. And since the idea of the breakup of the country fits pretty well
>>with separatists, they tend to see the CA as allies (even though they
>>disagree with just about everything else in the CA platform).
> Such as?
The BQ and PQ and by and large social democratic parties. They favour
such things as increased payment for child care for parents who are
working, they support equal rights for everyone regardless of sexual
orientation (and the inclusion of such things in the Canadian Human Rights
Act), they believe in medicare (without private facilities, or co-payments,
and expect it to be comprehensive).
They do agree with the alliance on one thing. The solution so that they
can get all of these things is to divorce themselves from English Canada
(of which they see the alliance and their cronies as a major part) and
think that separatism is the answer.
But they understand that economically, it would be beneficial to Quebec
to have some sort of association with Canada. Thus they proposed
sovereignty association (in the 1970s and 1980s), and a EU type model
(in the 1990s).
However, when push comes to shove they are willing to accept less association.
Thus they are not adverse to the alliance model which provides for central
institutions which are somewhat less powerful than the EU model the BQ now
favours.
>>>> CAs approach to nationalism and, especially, equalization is essentially
>>> the
>>>> latter approach. Ottawa's powers would be greatly reduced and we would
>>> see
>>>> even greater discreprencies between the "have" and "have not" provinces.
>>> Now, in the real world, Bruce, what decentralization would do is get Ottawa
>>> out of the province's faces, so they can actually build their own economies
>>> up without any "guidance" (or rather, hinderance) from the Overlords in
>>> Ottawa.
>>More of taking the Canada out of Canada, and making it a few separate countries
>>with a few minor common institutions. Very close to the PQ platform in the
>>last referendum, wouldn't you say.
> Are you saying that the US model didn't/doesn't work? It appears to
> have for about 275 years.
I didn't. But that would require a lot more centralized control to
Ottawa.
>>>> Very much an American model.
>>> So?
>>Actually not. The US is a highly certralized federation compared to Canada
>>today. Further decentralization would make Canada more like the OAS.
> Are you putting us on? One question comes to mind. Would Canada allow
> Alberta to pass legislation bringing back the death penalty? No.
Indeed. That is perhaps the only additional power which states have. They
have the power to enact certain criminal law.
The BQ would be fine to have this out of Ottawa's hands.
> Would
> they allow Alberta to have a private medical plan along with the
> federal Health act? No.
The US uses precisely the same strategy to control the states and
their health care system. The federal government pays money on
certain conditions, and if the states meet the conditions, they
get the money. If they don't, they don't.
Of course, the states - like the provinces - want the money and
follow along.
To be clear, if Alberta wants to have a private medical plan along
with medicare, they can do it. There is nothing that the federal
government can do to stop it.
But the federal government doesn't have to transfer about $ 2 billion
a year to Alberta to pay for the program if it doesn't meet federal
standards.
Both countries are exactly the same on this.
> Would Canada allow Provinces to set individual
> laws dealing with family matters (i.e abortions). No.
It does actually. Provinces do control the provision of abortions.
However, since criminal law is a federal responsibility, the provinces
cannot make performing an abortion criminal.
In the United States, states can make certain laws regarding this and
the federal government makes certain overriding laws.
The US Supreme Court has however been much more dogmatic in its support
of abortion than its Canadian counterpart.
> Would they allow
> a Province to end the equal opportunity legislation (as in California)
> No!
Certainly. The Alberta government is perfectly free to repeal its
Human Rights Act, as the Supreme Court said. But what they are not
allowed to do is to discriminate in the law.
The federal government has no say so in this regard.
This is quite different than the United States where federal human
rights laws have overarching authority in things which would otherwise
be state authority.
> And the list goes on. And you were saying?
Indeed. Look at the powers of the federal trade commission, the security
and exchange commission, and the ability to force speed limits on the
states, etc.
>>>> Most Canadians, on the other hand, seem to value maintaining minimum
>>>> standards in health, education, and other social areas and are willing to
>>>> shift tax dollars to accomplish this goal. Even the conservative premiers
>>>> would seem to endorse this approach.
>>
>>> In the real world, Bruce (as opposed to your fantasy one), most Canadians
>>> are by far and wide very willing to help out others who are less fortunate
>>> through donations to various charitable organizations.
>>
>>I tend to agree this is the CA view of the world. Health care and education
>>are charitible concerns, and some charity level health care would exist,
>>similar to most third world countries.
> And how did you form that opinion from the CA policy?
By listening to them, and to those who support them. For example, the
supporter above who suggested that a charitable model is a better way
to deal with health care than a national program.
>>> With taxes being
>>> cut, charitable organizations would see their revenues go up;
>>Somehow I doubt that this would be significant, compared to the increased
>>demands for the same charities.
> I disagree. I hate giving to the number one charity (income tax), I
> would much rather give a few extra dollars to say the Salvation Army
> or the United Way.
I doubt you would, however. For example, presently you could get a
29% tax credit compared to the level of taxation you pay for charitable
donations (and we're talking only federal tax with a maximum rate of
29%(. Have you made the maximum donation and made a profit over what
you would get with federal taxation?
In fact, since taxation on the first 27,000 of income is only at 17% and
the tax credit for gifts over $ 200 is 29%, you could get a big saving
by making the full donation.
Have you?
Have to go.
Steven C. Britton
> > The CA doesn't have any distaste for Eastern Canada, Bruce. You,
however,
> > have extreme distaste for any ideology which isn't within your own
perverted
> > views.
>
> I'm not sure the CA has any distaste for it, but it would rather have it
> gone.
<sarcasm>
Yeah, Untruth, let's tow the whole region out into the Atlantic and sink it.
</sarcasm>
Actually, let's tow the Liberal Party into the Atlantic and sink it...
> And since the idea of the breakup of the country fits pretty well
> with separatists, they tend to see the CA as allies (even though they
> disagree with just about everything else in the CA platform).
What bullshit. First, we don't want to get rid of the maritimes (or NFLD),
and secondly, we don't want to break up Canada. We may have a different
vision for the federation (free, rather than totalitarian), but that doesn't
mean we support the breakup of our country.
> > Now, in the real world, Bruce, what decentralization would do is get
Ottawa
> > out of the province's faces, so they can actually build their own
economies
> > up without any "guidance" (or rather, hinderance) from the Overlords in
> > Ottawa.
>
> More of taking the Canada out of Canada, and making it a few separate
countries
> with a few minor common institutions. Very close to the PQ platform in
the
> last referendum, wouldn't you say.
In Untruth's world, a totalitarian, centralized government is "Canadian".
You'd fit in well in Singapore, Untruth.
> >> Very much an American model.
>
> > So?
>
> Actually not. The US is a highly certralized federation compared to
Canada
> today. Further decentralization would make Canada more like the OAS.
Bullshit. Many states have very different laws.
> > In the real world, Bruce (as opposed to your fantasy one), most
Canadians
> > are by far and wide very willing to help out others who are less
fortunate
> > through donations to various charitable organizations.
>
> I tend to agree this is the CA view of the world. Health care and
education
> are charitible concerns, and some charity level health care would exist,
> similar to most third world countries.
Bullshit. Private insurance can cover Health care costs, much like dental
is covered now.
Secondly, private education is far superior than the public indoctrination
system we have right now.
> > With taxes being
> > cut, charitable organizations would see their revenues go up;
>
> Somehow I doubt that this would be significant, compared to the increased
> demands for the same charities.
It is highly doubtful demands for charities would increase.
> More likely, since the economy is expanding just about as fast as is
> possible, the result would be increased inflation, a massive drop in
> the Canadian $, and all sorts of related things.
There is no limit to economic expansion.
> > Of course, personally, I think they should be 100% privatized, but I am
well
> > aware that the majority of Canadians have had these services provided
under
> > the false illusion of being free of charge, so I realize that my goal of
> > privatizing them will take a while to be realized.
>
> Nobody thinks they are free. Its just that people believe that they as
> a society should pay for them, becaused they are fundamental social
> rights in a modern society.
"We have a right to free health care." is the common mantra of Friends of
Medicare. "Society should pay" is yet another code word for "let somebody
else pay as long as it isn't me."
> Others, like the CA, see things going back to a 1850s model of classical
liberalism.
There's no "going back" about it; unless you believe -- as you do -- that
the trend towards totalitarianism is a good thing.
> > So, in other words, Bruce re-writes the dictionary every time he gets
into a
> > sticky spot. He doesn't solve his problems, he redefines them.
>
> In recent years, the political right has re-written the world
"conservatism" to
> mean "classical liberalism", of the pre JS Mills days.
Not in the least. Libertarian and conservative are two entirely different
axes on the political plane.
Bruce Freeman
<frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> <bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> >Steven, have you been following what members of the CA have been saying
> >about Canadians who live in Eastern Canada?
> As Gerry Fulton stated, "one fool does not make a party".
I thought you said you agreed with the CA "fool" Frank. That means there
are least two of you :-)
> >It's so easy to say this as an Albertan in the year 2000! What happens,
> >though, we deplete our oil & gas reserves?
> Then you will become "lazy" like the Maritimers? ;-)
Precisely! And we've been there before.
> >> > Very much an American model.
> >> So?
> >First, we're not the United States. We have less 10% of their population
> >living on a larger, more diverse landscape. Second, most Canadians like
to
> >be different than Americans, for reasons that I think are obvious to
most.
> Only the "artsy" types think that way. They seem to think that Canada
> has a "unique" culture, but I really don't know what they are talking
> about most of the time. Is it things like a "defunct CBC"? A Prime
> Minister living in a country that is 72% English speaking, but cannot
> speak proper English himself? Or maybe it is the fact that we
> continually allow the tail to wag the dog that counts as culture. Is
> high taxes a culture? It's your call Bruce.
This is just typical CA whining, Frank: taking cheap shots at the CBC,
criticizing Jean Chrétien for being francophone and having a physical
impairment, and complaining that you pay too much in taxes.
> >But people slip through the cracks when essential services are being
> >provided exclusively by charitable organizations. I've used before the
> >example of the alcoholic who shows up with liquor on his breath at the
> >Calgary Salvation Army Men's Shelter. He's denied entry. Your response
was
> >something like "tough, those are consequences of him choosing to drink".
> >But we're still left with the problem of a homeless man on the street.
> ......who cannot follow the rules to improve his stead in life. Now
> who really is to blame here?
Alcoholism is a _disease_, Frank; it is a disorder that must be treated. Is
it the responsible thing to do to allow this man to freeze in -40 degree
weather?
As to following rules, I seem to recall to admitting that burn the occasion
CD with music pirated using Napster. How come it's okay for you to violate
copyright laws, depriving artists and record companies their income, and yet
you bitch about a skid row alcoholic having a drink!
> >> With taxes being
> >> cut, charitable organizations would see their revenues go up;
> >Would they? You're assuming here that people don't give to charities
> >because they're overtaxed. What make you so certain that the greedy
> >wouldn't just pocket the difference?
> Some would. Same as they do now. But conversely, if one has a few more
> shackles to divide, he usually does.
Would they? I'll be interested in your response to Stephen to see if you
taking maximum advantage of the tax break you could be receiving right now.
> >Again, you're assuming that the economy would actually expand if tax
rates
> >for businesses and high income Canadians were lowered significantly.
> If you do not lower taxes for business and those that CREATE jobs,
> then the economy will stagnate. That's a given. Even the OECD has
> stated that fact. Are they wrong as well Bruce?
Again, it is uncertain with lower taxes as to whether good jobs - those that
pay a living wage - would actually be created. I know you CA types like to
blame unions for all that wrong is the workplace but the fact remains that
few of the new jobs provide a decent income.
> >Of course! Day would use the Alberta model. Slowly allow the system to
> >deteriorate until the public system is crisis.
> How do you know that? Is that your interpretation of Articles 34, 35
> and 36 of the CA policy? What is the policy of the Liberal party? The
> Tory party? The NDP? Is theirs written as clearly?
Come on Frank, you know easy it is to read basically anything into CA
Policy. You'll recall our discussion as to whether or not "property rights"
would permit a racist, white store owner to stop a black person from
shopping in the store! If I recall correctly, after waffling all over the
map, you finally agreed with Steven that governments' have no business
protecting minorities from this kind of discrimination.
> >My dictionary defines conservatism as "a political tradition based on
> >tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and
> >preferring gradual development to abrupt change" (Webster's 9th).
> And in the meaning within the National Tory party, recycling can be
> added to that description. So you see Bruce the only truly
> 'conservative' party is the CA when you couple it with your earlier
> statements of it living in the dark ages of 1850 practice.
But the fact is, Frank, Canadian society has changed significantly over
those 150 years. Taking us back to the fiscal and social practices of the
1850s constitutes a significant and radical change. You guys are
"reformers" rather than "conservatives".
> > While you
> >guys did dump "Presto", you still have as your mandate rapid and abrupt
> >change to traditional Canadian institutions.
> Had we elected JC himself to head the party, you would still criticize
> him Bruce, so what really is YOUR point?
Frank, have you _ever_ read the words of Jesus Christ? It would be a very
cold day in Hell before you guys EVER placed a person with those kind of
views in charge of your radical little party.
Bruce Freeman
Bruce Freeman
"Steven C. Britton" <s...@scb-group.com> wrote
> Stephen Untruth wrote:
[big snip]
> > I tend to agree this is the CA view of the world. Health care and
> education
> > are charitible concerns, and some charity level health care would exist,
> > similar to most third world countries.
> Bullshit. Private insurance can cover Health care costs, much like dental
> is covered now.
Exactly. If you CA guys had the opportunity, health coverage would be just
like dental care in Canada. Those who either do not work in a job providing
coverage or cannot afford to pay high premiums would either have to pay out
of the pocket or do without.
> Secondly, private education is far superior than the public indoctrination
> system we have right now.
Despite being grossly underfunded, education is doing well quite well in
Canada. Just ask the Americans who come up here to study because they like
the quality, non-violent schools, and the value they receive.
> > > With taxes being
> > > cut, charitable organizations would see their revenues go up;
> > Somehow I doubt that this would be significant, compared to the
increased
> > demands for the same charities.
> It is highly doubtful demands for charities would increase.
On what basis do you make this call? Who is going to deliver safe drinking
water when the municipal supply becomes contaminated?
> > More likely, since the economy is expanding just about as fast as is
> > possible, the result would be increased inflation, a massive drop in
> > the Canadian $, and all sorts of related things.
> There is no limit to economic expansion.
Perhaps in your dreams....but in the real world we are very constrained by a
powerful trading partner that has wrecked havoc on far larger and more
stable economies than Canada.
> > Nobody thinks they are free. Its just that people believe that they as
> > a society should pay for them, becaused they are fundamental social
> > rights in a modern society.
> "We have a right to free health care." is the common mantra of Friends of
> Medicare. "Society should pay" is yet another code word for "let somebody
> else pay as long as it isn't me."
How would you know, Steven? Have you actually attended any of the rallies?
If you did you would now that the concern is about accesability and cost.
Canadians understand that health care is not free and that the cost should
covered in the most equitable possible. I know you don't like progressive
tax systems but most Canadians actually do believe that this is fair system
of taxation.
> > Others, like the CA, see things going back to a 1850s model of classical
> liberalism.
> There's no "going back" about it; unless you believe -- as you do -- that
> the trend towards totalitarianism is a good thing.
Were do you get off on the "totalitarianism" BS?
> > > So, in other words, Bruce re-writes the dictionary every time he gets
> into a
> > > sticky spot. He doesn't solve his problems, he redefines them.
> > In recent years, the political right has re-written the world
> "conservatism" to
> > mean "classical liberalism", of the pre JS Mills days.
> Not in the least. Libertarian and conservative are two entirely different
> axes on the political plane.
So are you saying now that you guys screwed up when you put the word
"conservative" in your party name?
Bruce Freeman
>
>
Donald J. Dickson
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>
> The US uses precisely the same strategy to control the states and
> their health care system. The federal government pays money on
> certain conditions, and if the states meet the conditions, they
> get the money. If they don't, they don't.
>
> Of course, the states - like the provinces - want the money and
> follow along.
>
You better believe it. When the US imposed the 55mph limit on the
Interstates during the last energy crisis not all states enforced it
uniformly. I drove to Florida that year and in most states, other than
Georgia vehicles, were travelling at most 60 mph. Half a mile into Georgia
on I-75 the speed jumped to about 75 mph. While in Florida the US
president (I don't remember who it was then) made a statement that federal
highway funds would be cut off to all states that didn't enforce the 55mph
limit. On our way home everyone was driving at 55mph in Georgia and there
was a state trooper about every 5 miles along I-75, usually with someone
pulled over. It was really evident who controlled the purse strings.
--
Don Dickson
Remove first "x" from xcx666 to reply by email.
frank...@sympatico.ca
>frank...@sympatico.ca wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:32:55 GMT, jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>
>>>Steven C. Britton <s...@scb-group.com> wrote:
>>>> Bruce Freeman wrote:
>>>
>>>>> But the Bloc freely admits that it is a regional party, that its interests
>>>>> stop at the Quebec border. CA, on the other hand, refuses to announce
>>>>> officially its distaste for Eastern Canada. Evidently, the party leaves
>>>>> this work to its grunts.
>>>
>>>> The CA doesn't have any distaste for Eastern Canada, Bruce. You, however,
>>>> have extreme distaste for any ideology which isn't within your own perverted
>>>> views.
>>>
>>>I'm not sure the CA has any distaste for it, but it would rather have it
>>>gone. And since the idea of the breakup of the country fits pretty well
>>>with separatists, they tend to see the CA as allies (even though they
>>>disagree with just about everything else in the CA platform).
>
>> Such as?
>
>The BQ and PQ and by and large social democratic parties. They favour
>such things as increased payment for child care for parents who are
>working, they support equal rights for everyone regardless of sexual
>orientation (and the inclusion of such things in the Canadian Human Rights
>Act), they believe in medicare (without private facilities, or co-payments,
>and expect it to be comprehensive).
Which puts the two parties at opposite ends of the spectrum. So how
could they be allies? You have shot down your own argument.
>
>They do agree with the alliance on one thing. The solution so that they
>can get all of these things is to divorce themselves from English Canada
>(of which they see the alliance and their cronies as a major part) and
>think that separatism is the answer.
Really? Another one of your myths? The only thing that the Bloc
agree's on with anybody is equality. Seeing as how the CA is the only
party in Canada with a strong policy on equality and empowering
Provinces to some degree, then of course they would agree.
>But they understand that economically, it would be beneficial to Quebec
>to have some sort of association with Canada. Thus they proposed
>sovereignty association (in the 1970s and 1980s), and a EU type model
>(in the 1990s).
Hmmmm, like having your cake and eating it to?
>
>However, when push comes to shove they are willing to accept less association.
>
>Thus they are not adverse to the alliance model which provides for central
>institutions which are somewhat less powerful than the EU model the BQ now
>favours.
What in hell are you talking about? An EU model? In Canada? You're as
far out on a limb as a scared squirrel.
<<snip>>
>>>More of taking the Canada out of Canada, and making it a few separate countries
>>>with a few minor common institutions. Very close to the PQ platform in the
>>>last referendum, wouldn't you say.
>
>> Are you saying that the US model didn't/doesn't work? It appears to
>> have for about 275 years.
>
>I didn't. But that would require a lot more centralized control to
>Ottawa.
You're definitely wrong you know. The US prides itself on the power of
it's States and their individual powers. This gives credit to the US
democracy success.
>>>Actually not. The US is a highly certralized federation compared to Canada
>>>today. Further decentralization would make Canada more like the OAS.
>
>> Are you putting us on? One question comes to mind. Would Canada allow
>> Alberta to pass legislation bringing back the death penalty? No.
>
>Indeed. That is perhaps the only additional power which states have. They
>have the power to enact certain criminal law.
What!!?? They have full power over medicaid, taxes, wages and prices,
abortion laws, etc. etc.
>
>The BQ would be fine to have this out of Ottawa's hands.
In an attempt to preserve their French culture, I can agree with them.
>> Would
>> they allow Alberta to have a private medical plan along with the
>> federal Health act? No.
>
>The US uses precisely the same strategy to control the states and
>their health care system. The federal government pays money on
>certain conditions, and if the states meet the conditions, they
>get the money. If they don't, they don't.
Bullpuckey!! They have reciprocal agreements in place that dictates
how much they will receive versus what is contributed from state
coffers.
>Of course, the states - like the provinces - want the money and
>follow along.
Not on your life.
>To be clear, if Alberta wants to have a private medical plan along
>with medicare, they can do it. There is nothing that the federal
>government can do to stop it.
Huh? Where have you been hiding. Ottawa sets the ground rules and the
Provinces can only play along or get punished accordingly. Ask B.C.
>
>But the federal government doesn't have to transfer about $ 2 billion
>a year to Alberta to pay for the program if it doesn't meet federal
>standards.
In a legal sense they do under the Health Act, but it hasn't been
challenged yet. In time it will get challenged as the act is out of
date for todays needs.
>
>Both countries are exactly the same on this.
Nope.
>
>> Would Canada allow Provinces to set individual
>> laws dealing with family matters (i.e abortions). No.
>
>It does actually. Provinces do control the provision of abortions.
Clinics only. The law is still a federal law that allows freedom of
choice.
>
>However, since criminal law is a federal responsibility, the provinces
>cannot make performing an abortion criminal.
I think you have it!! (clap, clap)
>In the United States, states can make certain laws regarding this and
>the federal government makes certain overriding laws.
Can you name an instance of that?
>
>The US Supreme Court has however been much more dogmatic in its support
>of abortion than its Canadian counterpart.
Of course, because the President has the power to veto the court.
>
>> Would they allow
>> a Province to end the equal opportunity legislation (as in California)
>> No!
>
>Certainly. The Alberta government is perfectly free to repeal its
>Human Rights Act, as the Supreme Court said. But what they are not
>allowed to do is to discriminate in the law.
Appeal and lose. Big deal. It will still come down as a federal
jurisdiction.
>The federal government has no say so in this regard.
In the appeal? Or the Human Rights Act?
>
>This is quite different than the United States where federal human
>rights laws have overarching authority in things which would otherwise
>be state authority.
Like California's repeal of the EO laws and Florida now doing the
same?
>> And the list goes on. And you were saying?
>
>Indeed. Look at the powers of the federal trade commission, the security
>and exchange commission, and the ability to force speed limits on the
>states, etc.
Odd. If you travel down the Eastern seaboard, you will see several
State transportation law differences, from speed limits to speed
traps, to tolls, to enforcement.
<<snip>.
>>>> In the real world, Bruce (as opposed to your fantasy one), most Canadians
>>>> are by far and wide very willing to help out others who are less fortunate
>>>> through donations to various charitable organizations.
>>>
>>>I tend to agree this is the CA view of the world. Health care and education
>>>are charitible concerns, and some charity level health care would exist,
>>>similar to most third world countries.
>
>> And how did you form that opinion from the CA policy?
>
>By listening to them, and to those who support them. For example, the
>supporter above who suggested that a charitable model is a better way
>to deal with health care than a national program.
That is/was a personal opinion I would presume. However, the CA policy
is quite clear and that is the 'word' not what you read here.
>
>>>> With taxes being
>>>> cut, charitable organizations would see their revenues go up;
>
>>>Somehow I doubt that this would be significant, compared to the increased
>>>demands for the same charities.
>
>> I disagree. I hate giving to the number one charity (income tax), I
>> would much rather give a few extra dollars to say the Salvation Army
>> or the United Way.
>
>I doubt you would, however. For example, presently you could get a
>29% tax credit compared to the level of taxation you pay for charitable
>donations (and we're talking only federal tax with a maximum rate of
>29%(. Have you made the maximum donation and made a profit over what
>you would get with federal taxation?
Are you kidding? With the taxes I pay I can't afford to give what I
would like to. That is what I said above. If I paid less tax I would
feel more freely to contribute more to charities. BTW, I give directly
to charities (like the CNIB) instead of have 80% wasted in
administration fee's (i.e. United Appeal).
>
>In fact, since taxation on the first 27,000 of income is only at 17% and
>the tax credit for gifts over $ 200 is 29%, you could get a big saving
>by making the full donation.
>
>Have you?
As a matter of fact, yes I have. But I still would give more if I
could.
>Have to go.
Nature calling ;-)
FP
frank...@sympatico.ca
J. Dickson) wrote:
>In article <dKKx5.36$X6.1...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com>,
>jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>
>>
>> The US uses precisely the same strategy to control the states and
>> their health care system. The federal government pays money on
>> certain conditions, and if the states meet the conditions, they
>> get the money. If they don't, they don't.
>>
>> Of course, the states - like the provinces - want the money and
>> follow along.
>>
>
>You better believe it. When the US imposed the 55mph limit on the
>Interstates during the last energy crisis not all states enforced it
>uniformly. I drove to Florida that year and in most states, other than
>Georgia vehicles, were travelling at most 60 mph. Half a mile into Georgia
>on I-75 the speed jumped to about 75 mph. While in Florida the US
>president (I don't remember who it was then) made a statement that federal
>highway funds would be cut off to all states that didn't enforce the 55mph
>limit. On our way home everyone was driving at 55mph in Georgia and there
>was a state trooper about every 5 miles along I-75, usually with someone
>pulled over. It was really evident who controlled the purse strings.
The Feds have control of the Interstates, however when you travel the
"pikes" which are state owned, the feds do not have that control. That
is why you can be on a NY interstate doing only 55 MPH (max) then
suddenly hit a 70MPH zone like the NY Turnpike.
FP
frank...@sympatico.ca
<bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
><frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>
>
>> <bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
>> >Steven, have you been following what members of the CA have been saying
>> >about Canadians who live in Eastern Canada?
>
>> As Gerry Fulton stated, "one fool does not make a party".
>
>
>I thought you said you agreed with the CA "fool" Frank. That means there
>are least two of you :-)
Yep. Only difference is that I am a Maritimer and Mykytyshyn is not.
That makes me better qualified to make the statement.
>
>
>> >It's so easy to say this as an Albertan in the year 2000! What happens,
>> >though, we deplete our oil & gas reserves?
>
>> Then you will become "lazy" like the Maritimers? ;-)
>
>
>Precisely! And we've been there before.
>
>
>> >> > Very much an American model.
>
>> >> So?
>
>> >First, we're not the United States. We have less 10% of their population
>> >living on a larger, more diverse landscape. Second, most Canadians like
>to
>> >be different than Americans, for reasons that I think are obvious to
>most.
>
>> Only the "artsy" types think that way. They seem to think that Canada
>> has a "unique" culture, but I really don't know what they are talking
>> about most of the time. Is it things like a "defunct CBC"? A Prime
>> Minister living in a country that is 72% English speaking, but cannot
>> speak proper English himself? Or maybe it is the fact that we
>> continually allow the tail to wag the dog that counts as culture. Is
>> high taxes a culture? It's your call Bruce.
>
>
>This is just typical CA whining, Frank: taking cheap shots at the CBC,
>criticizing Jean Chrétien for being francophone and having a physical
>impairment, and complaining that you pay too much in taxes.
Let's take this nice and slow Bruce. First, it is not "cheap shots",
the CBC is a loser, Jean Chretein having lived in an English
environment for 66 years should at least be able to speak properly
(Trudeau could) without his 'dis, dat and dem'. His physical
impairment (?) was caused by Bell's Palsy which I never mentioned, but
has nothing to do with his diction. "paying to much taxes".... you bet
you sweet bippy on that one Bruce.
>
>
>
>> >But people slip through the cracks when essential services are being
>> >provided exclusively by charitable organizations. I've used before the
>> >example of the alcoholic who shows up with liquor on his breath at the
>> >Calgary Salvation Army Men's Shelter. He's denied entry. Your response
>was
>> >something like "tough, those are consequences of him choosing to drink".
>> >But we're still left with the problem of a homeless man on the street.
>
>> ......who cannot follow the rules to improve his stead in life. Now
>> who really is to blame here?
>
>
>Alcoholism is a _disease_, Frank; it is a disorder that must be treated. Is
>it the responsible thing to do to allow this man to freeze in -40 degree
>weather?
Cancer is a disease, chicken pox, ishemic heart, and the list goes on,
but unlike alcholism these diseases have no cures. Alcholism is a
'personal' disease that require will power (firstly) by the stricken,
otherwise there is no cure.
>
>As to following rules, I seem to recall to admitting that burn the occasion
>CD with music pirated using Napster. How come it's okay for you to violate
>copyright laws, depriving artists and record companies their income, and yet
>you bitch about a skid row alcoholic having a drink!
My, but you're a pitiful soul Bruce. Not many friends either I 'm
betting. I am one of millions that 'shares' music files through
Napster if you must know. Is it a violation of copyright laws, that
has yet to be decided. The "skid row" drinker can drink all he wants,
but until he accepts the fact that he has to quit to improve his life,
then he need not reach out to me. I know what I am talking about here
Bruce, I had an alcholic brother. It took years for him to finally
accept the fact that he, and only he could make the decision to change
and turn his life around. The family never gave up on him, but once he
realized the free ride was over, he smartened up.
>> >> With taxes being
>> >> cut, charitable organizations would see their revenues go up;
>
>> >Would they? You're assuming here that people don't give to charities
>> >because they're overtaxed. What make you so certain that the greedy
>> >wouldn't just pocket the difference?
>
>> Some would. Same as they do now. But conversely, if one has a few more
>> shackles to divide, he usually does.
>
>Would they? I'll be interested in your response to Stephen to see if you
>taking maximum advantage of the tax break you could be receiving right now.
Well, take a look. But I do not give to charities for the sake of a
tax break. I would rather see that OFF the books and a 17% 'one level
tax'.
>> >Again, you're assuming that the economy would actually expand if tax
>rates
>> >for businesses and high income Canadians were lowered significantly.
>
>> If you do not lower taxes for business and those that CREATE jobs,
>> then the economy will stagnate. That's a given. Even the OECD has
>> stated that fact. Are they wrong as well Bruce?
>
>Again, it is uncertain with lower taxes as to whether good jobs - those that
>pay a living wage - would actually be created. I know you CA types like to
>blame unions for all that wrong is the workplace but the fact remains that
>few of the new jobs provide a decent income.
Hey, I have nothing against Unions. You're quoting one person again as
an entire group of people. Get used to one thing Bruce, democracy is
all about levels of prosperity. We will always have the poor, the
middle class and the rich. We are all (mostly) responsible for our own
fate. All we can do is try and make the 'poor' more comfortable even
if they may be 'lazy'.
>
>
>> >Of course! Day would use the Alberta model. Slowly allow the system to
>> >deteriorate until the public system is crisis.
>
>> How do you know that? Is that your interpretation of Articles 34, 35
>> and 36 of the CA policy? What is the policy of the Liberal party? The
>> Tory party? The NDP? Is theirs written as clearly?
>
>
>Come on Frank, you know easy it is to read basically anything into CA
>Policy.
And this is different? Give me a quote of Liberal policy and I can say
the same thing (without proper knowledge).
> You'll recall our discussion as to whether or not "property rights"
>would permit a racist, white store owner to stop a black person from
>shopping in the store! If I recall correctly, after waffling all over the
>map, you finally agreed with Steven that governments' have no business
>protecting minorities from this kind of discrimination.
After I peeled away the crap you rolled his statement in, he wasn't
saying what you had stated and I agreed with him. Case closed. You see
Bruce, you're not the political brain you think of yourself. You like
to plant your own words into things and then say that someone else
said it that way. In fact, you end up screwing yourself directly into
the ground.
>> >My dictionary defines conservatism as "a political tradition based on
>> >tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and
>> >preferring gradual development to abrupt change" (Webster's 9th).
>
>> And in the meaning within the National Tory party, recycling can be
>> added to that description. So you see Bruce the only truly
>> 'conservative' party is the CA when you couple it with your earlier
>> statements of it living in the dark ages of 1850 practice.
>
>But the fact is, Frank, Canadian society has changed significantly over
>those 150 years. Taking us back to the fiscal and social practices of the
>1850s constitutes a significant and radical change. You guys are
>"reformers" rather than "conservatives".
Both names enhance the legal name of the CA. So that would make us
"reforming conservatives" rather then regressive.....eh....
progressive conservatives. The PC party just took a backward step to
1974.
>
>> > While you
>> >guys did dump "Presto", you still have as your mandate rapid and abrupt
>> >change to traditional Canadian institutions.
>
>> Had we elected JC himself to head the party, you would still criticize
>> him Bruce, so what really is YOUR point?
>
>Frank, have you _ever_ read the words of Jesus Christ?
Oh now, you want to argue the word of Jesus. You may have just biten
off much more then you can chew. Go for it!!
> It would be a very
>cold day in Hell before you guys EVER placed a person with those kind of
>views in charge of your radical little party.
Even Jesus believed in lower taxes. Check that out in the Bible Bruce!
Besides his 'party' (of twelve) was just a tad smaller then Joe's at
fifteen. Of course there are other similarities, like Joe figuring
that he has more then one Judas.
>
>Bruce Freeman
FP
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> In article <dKKx5.36$X6.1...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com>,
> jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>> Of course, the states - like the provinces - want the money and
>> follow along.
>>
> You better believe it. When the US imposed the 55mph limit on the
> Interstates during the last energy crisis not all states enforced it
> uniformly. I drove to Florida that year and in most states, other than
> Georgia vehicles, were travelling at most 60 mph. Half a mile into Georgia
> on I-75 the speed jumped to about 75 mph. While in Florida the US
> president (I don't remember who it was then) made a statement that federal
> highway funds would be cut off to all states that didn't enforce the 55mph
> limit. On our way home everyone was driving at 55mph in Georgia and there
> was a state trooper about every 5 miles along I-75, usually with someone
> pulled over. It was really evident who controlled the purse strings.
It was Richard Nixon. He also dropped the temperature to 68 degrees
in public buildings.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 14:28:25 GMT, jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>>The BQ and PQ and by and large social democratic parties. They favour
>>such things as increased payment for child care for parents who are
>>working, they support equal rights for everyone regardless of sexual
>>orientation (and the inclusion of such things in the Canadian Human Rights
>>Act), they believe in medicare (without private facilities, or co-payments,
>>and expect it to be comprehensive).
> Which puts the two parties at opposite ends of the spectrum. So how
> could they be allies? You have shot down your own argument.
Indeed they are. But the separatism/radical decentralization that
both parties favour makes them allies.
>>They do agree with the alliance on one thing. The solution so that they
>>can get all of these things is to divorce themselves from English Canada
>>(of which they see the alliance and their cronies as a major part) and
>>think that separatism is the answer.
> Really? Another one of your myths? The only thing that the Bloc
> agree's on with anybody is equality.
Actually, they don't care about any other provinces. Only Quebec
and its powers. What the rest of Canada wants to do is really not
something they have any interest in.
If Canada wants to break up into 9 different countries, they would
be kinda sad, but really it would be up to the rest of Canada. They
do not really see themselves as having any say-so on this. On the
other hand, they would probably favour dealing with 1 country rather
than a number of countries.
> Seeing as how the CA is the only
> party in Canada with a strong policy on equality and empowering
> Provinces to some degree, then of course they would agree.
They would certainly agree with the virtual breakup of the country.
>>But they understand that economically, it would be beneficial to Quebec
>>to have some sort of association with Canada. Thus they proposed
>>sovereignty association (in the 1970s and 1980s), and a EU type model
>>(in the 1990s).
> Hmmmm, like having your cake and eating it to?
Certainly that's what they think. And they understand that a Alliance
government would have a tendancy to try and punish Quebec by not
entering into any formal alliance a la the EU. On the other hand
they are confident that Canada would see that it would be in its
interest to have such an arrangement. But if not, the BQ/PQ is
very confident it can go it alone and deal with the United States.
>>However, when push comes to shove they are willing to accept less association.
>>Thus they are not adverse to the alliance model which provides for central
>>institutions which are somewhat less powerful than the EU model the BQ now
>>favours.
> What in hell are you talking about? An EU model? In Canada? You're as
> far out on a limb as a scared squirrel.
I can only tell you what the BQ/PQ propose. As I said, if the alliance
came into government they would surely propose less, and the BQ/PQ would
accept that.
It would make separation easy, and they would just deal with the US
rather than the rest of Canada, if the ROC didn't want to deal with them.
What is pretty certain is that with an alliance government, Quebec would
see no real reason to stay in Canada and they would be out in the next
2 years. Whether the ROC could survive following that is an open question?
Probably not. No one would see any reason to keep the country and it would
break up into a number of different countries, some of which would decide
to apply to join the United States. It would be the end of Canada.
I expect the process would be surprisingly quick. 3-4 years at most. And
no more federal elections.
>>>>More of taking the Canada out of Canada, and making it a few separate countri
> es
>>>>with a few minor common institutions. Very close to the PQ platform in the
>>>>last referendum, wouldn't you say.
>>
>>> Are you saying that the US model didn't/doesn't work? It appears to
>>> have for about 275 years.
>>
>>I didn't. But that would require a lot more centralized control to
>>Ottawa.
> You're definitely wrong you know. The US prides itself on the power of
> it's States and their individual powers. This gives credit to the US
> democracy success.
No doubt they do. But when they look at it they would see that Canadian
provinces are far more powerful than their US counterparts.
>>>>Actually not. The US is a highly certralized federation compared to Canada
>>>>today. Further decentralization would make Canada more like the OAS.
>>> Are you putting us on? One question comes to mind. Would Canada allow
>>> Alberta to pass legislation bringing back the death penalty? No.
>>Indeed. That is perhaps the only additional power which states have. They
>>have the power to enact certain criminal law.
> What!!?? They have full power over medicaid, taxes, wages and prices,
> abortion laws, etc. etc.
They have some power, but congress is always interfering.
>>The BQ would be fine to have this out of Ottawa's hands.
> In an attempt to preserve their French culture, I can agree with them.
Its nothing to do with preserving Quebec culture, its to do with
having their own country.
>>> Would
>>> they allow Alberta to have a private medical plan along with the
>>> federal Health act? No.
>>The US uses precisely the same strategy to control the states and
>>their health care system. The federal government pays money on
>>certain conditions, and if the states meet the conditions, they
>>get the money. If they don't, they don't.
> Bullpuckey!! They have reciprocal agreements in place that dictates
> how much they will receive versus what is contributed from state
> coffers.
>>Of course, the states - like the provinces - want the money and
>>follow along.
> Not on your life.
They seem to, both here and there.
>>To be clear, if Alberta wants to have a private medical plan along
>>with medicare, they can do it. There is nothing that the federal
>>government can do to stop it.
> Huh? Where have you been hiding. Ottawa sets the ground rules and the
> Provinces can only play along or get punished accordingly. Ask B.C.
You should look at the law. It doesn't do anything to the provinces
other than prevent the spending of federal money except on conditions
agreed to by the federal parliament.
Which makes sense, does it not?
>>But the federal government doesn't have to transfer about $ 2 billion
>>a year to Alberta to pay for the program if it doesn't meet federal
>>standards.
> In a legal sense they do under the Health Act, but it hasn't been
> challenged yet. In time it will get challenged as the act is out of
> date for todays needs.
Perhaps. But there is nothing that forces the federal government to
tax and spend except on conditions agreed to by them.
>>Both countries are exactly the same on this.
> Nope.
Not any substantive difference.
>>> Would Canada allow Provinces to set individual
>>> laws dealing with family matters (i.e abortions). No.
>>
>>It does actually. Provinces do control the provision of abortions.
> Clinics only. The law is still a federal law that allows freedom of
> choice.
There is actualy no federal law at all at this time. The only law
which existed was part of the Criminal Code and this was struck
down by the courts. No federal law on abortion exists at this time.
>>However, since criminal law is a federal responsibility, the provinces
>>cannot make performing an abortion criminal.
> I think you have it!! (clap, clap)
Indeed. But they can (and do) regulate the performance and payment
for abortions. In every province, as I understand it.
Some provinces provide for performance of these things in hospitals,
others (like Alberta) have largely turned it over to the private
sector in clinics.
>>In the United States, states can make certain laws regarding this and
>>the federal government makes certain overriding laws.
> Can you name an instance of that?
All sorts of federal laws are proposed, including limiting payment
and providing rules for what women must be told.
>>The US Supreme Court has however been much more dogmatic in its support
>>of abortion than its Canadian counterpart.
> Of course, because the President has the power to veto the court.
No. The president has no power to veto the Court. It is essentially
the same as in Canada, except that in Canada the "notwithstanding clause"
is available for certain limited infractions of the Charter of Rights.
>>> Would they allow
>>> a Province to end the equal opportunity legislation (as in California)
>>> No!
>>Certainly. The Alberta government is perfectly free to repeal its
>>Human Rights Act, as the Supreme Court said. But what they are not
>>allowed to do is to discriminate in the law.
> Appeal and lose. Big deal. It will still come down as a federal
> jurisdiction.
It has nothing to do with federal jurisdiction. It has to do
with the Canadian constitution, which the Alberta legislature voted
to enact by a vote of 73 to 1. The one dissenting voice was NDP
leader Grant Notley who thought the new Charter of Rights did not
provide for appropriate protection for aboriginal people (including
Metis) in Alberta.
>>The federal government has no say so in this regard.
> In the appeal? Or the Human Rights Act?
Both. It has nothing to do with the federal government.
>>This is quite different than the United States where federal human
>>rights laws have overarching authority in things which would otherwise
>>be state authority.
> Like California's repeal of the EO laws and Florida now doing the
> same?
Certainly. But the federal can (and does) pass its own laws in this
regard. For example, look at what happened to the police officers
who were charged with assaulting Rodney King? The police were
found not guilty under the state laws, but then the federal government
charged them with a breach of the federal civil rights act. And they
were eventually convicted (and sent to jail I think).
In Canada, the federal government would not have that power. Local policing
is simply not federal jurisdiction.
>>> And the list goes on. And you were saying?
>>Indeed. Look at the powers of the federal trade commission, the security
>>and exchange commission, and the ability to force speed limits on the
>>states, etc.
> Odd. If you travel down the Eastern seaboard, you will see several
> State transportation law differences, from speed limits to speed
> traps, to tolls, to enforcement.
True enough. As you can see in Canada the same thing. On the other
hand, the federal government has all sorts of powers which are quite
substantive.
Look at the powers of the federal Securities and Exchange Commission
in the US, and the various provincial ones in Canada.
>>>>> In the real world, Bruce (as opposed to your fantasy one), most Canadians
>>>>> are by far and wide very willing to help out others who are less fortunate
>>>>> through donations to various charitable organizations.
>>>>
>>>>I tend to agree this is the CA view of the world. Health care and education
>>>>are charitible concerns, and some charity level health care would exist,
>>>>similar to most third world countries.
>>
>>> And how did you form that opinion from the CA policy?
>>By listening to them, and to those who support them. For example, the
>>supporter above who suggested that a charitable model is a better way
>>to deal with health care than a national program.
> That is/was a personal opinion I would presume. However, the CA policy
> is quite clear and that is the 'word' not what you read here.
You have to look closely, but I don't think much has changed.
Its interesting that nobody from the Alliance takes issue when these
views are given.
>>>>> With taxes being
>>>>> cut, charitable organizations would see their revenues go up;
>>>>Somehow I doubt that this would be significant, compared to the increased
>>>>demands for the same charities.
>>> I disagree. I hate giving to the number one charity (income tax), I
>>> would much rather give a few extra dollars to say the Salvation Army
>>> or the United Way.
>>I doubt you would, however. For example, presently you could get a
>>29% tax credit compared to the level of taxation you pay for charitable
>>donations (and we're talking only federal tax with a maximum rate of
>>29%(. Have you made the maximum donation and made a profit over what
>>you would get with federal taxation?
> Are you kidding? With the taxes I pay I can't afford to give what I
> would like to. That is what I said above. If I paid less tax I would
> feel more freely to contribute more to charities. BTW, I give directly
> to charities (like the CNIB) instead of have 80% wasted in
> administration fee's (i.e. United Appeal).
And if you gave more, you would save more tax.
>>In fact, since taxation on the first 27,000 of income is only at 17% and
>>the tax credit for gifts over $ 200 is 29%, you could get a big saving
>>by making the full donation.
>>
>>Have you?
> As a matter of fact, yes I have. But I still would give more if I
> could.
How many $ 1,000s?
>>Have to go.
> Nature calling ;-)
Court actually.
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> Stephen Untruth wrote:
As usual for a member of the CA, Steven Britton starts with the usual
cheap shot.
>> And since the idea of the breakup of the country fits pretty well
>> with separatists, they tend to see the CA as allies (even though they
>> disagree with just about everything else in the CA platform).
> What bullshit. First, we don't want to get rid of the maritimes (or NFLD),
> and secondly, we don't want to break up Canada. We may have a different
> vision for the federation (free, rather than totalitarian), but that doesn't
> mean we support the breakup of our country.
But when you look at it, its pretty simiilar to the BQ program. That's
why some separatists are looking at it seriously.
The BQ have always suggested some minor continuing role for Ottawa. Its
just a bit greater than the CA. But I'm sure they can live with it.
>> > Now, in the real world, Bruce, what decentralization would do is get
> Ottawa
>> > out of the province's faces, so they can actually build their own
> economies
>> > up without any "guidance" (or rather, hinderance) from the Overlords in
>> > Ottawa.
>>
>> More of taking the Canada out of Canada, and making it a few separate
> countries
>> with a few minor common institutions. Very close to the PQ platform in
> the
>> last referendum, wouldn't you say.
> In Untruth's world, a totalitarian, centralized government is "Canadian".
Actualy, when you look at the real world, Canada is just about the
most decentralized country in the world.
> You'd fit in well in Singapore, Untruth.
>> >> Very much an American model.
>>
>> > So?
>>
>> Actually not. The US is a highly certralized federation compared to
> Canada
>> today. Further decentralization would make Canada more like the OAS.
> Bullshit. Many states have very different laws.
As do all of the provinces. In fact, the provinces are much more jurisdiction
than the US states. About the only thing that the provinces lack
is the power to enact criminal law.
>> > In the real world, Bruce (as opposed to your fantasy one), most
> Canadians
>> > are by far and wide very willing to help out others who are less
> fortunate
>> > through donations to various charitable organizations.
>>
>> I tend to agree this is the CA view of the world. Health care and
> education
>> are charitible concerns, and some charity level health care would exist,
>> similar to most third world countries.
> Bullshit. Private insurance can cover Health care costs, much like dental
> is covered now.
Sure. And like dental care, about 30-40% would not be covered at all or
would have inadequate coverage. Curiously, that's the US model.
> Secondly, private education is far superior than the public indoctrination
> system we have right now.
I don't think so Tim.
>> > With taxes being
>> > cut, charitable organizations would see their revenues go up;
>> Somehow I doubt that this would be significant, compared to the increased
>> demands for the same charities.
> It is highly doubtful demands for charities would increase.
Who would provide charity hospitals, or charity universities?
>> More likely, since the economy is expanding just about as fast as is
>> possible, the result would be increased inflation, a massive drop in
>> the Canadian $, and all sorts of related things.
> There is no limit to economic expansion.
Of course there is. That's why free market theorists are talking about
raising interest rates to slow down the economy. They want to stop
the inevitable result, inflation.
>> > Of course, personally, I think they should be 100% privatized, but I am
> well
>> > aware that the majority of Canadians have had these services provided
> under
>> > the false illusion of being free of charge, so I realize that my goal of
>> > privatizing them will take a while to be realized.
>>
>> Nobody thinks they are free. Its just that people believe that they as
>> a society should pay for them, becaused they are fundamental social
>> rights in a modern society.
> "We have a right to free health care." is the common mantra of Friends of
> Medicare. "Society should pay" is yet another code word for "let somebody
> else pay as long as it isn't me."
No, its let us pay for us all. Its not the CA/Reform mantra, "Sharing
means less for me."
>> Others, like the CA, see things going back to a 1850s model of classical
> liberalism.
> There's no "going back" about it; unless you believe -- as you do -- that
> the trend towards totalitarianism is a good thing.
I think you have a different definition of totalitarianism than most
of us do.
The right to life is meaningless when you can't pay for your operation.
The right to a fair trial is meaningless when you can't pay for a good
lawyer.
Just about every right in a free and democratic society requires a
societal contribution.
And when you take that away, you take away freedom, except in name.
>> > So, in other words, Bruce re-writes the dictionary every time he gets
> into a
>> > sticky spot. He doesn't solve his problems, he redefines them.
>>
>> In recent years, the political right has re-written the world
> "conservatism" to
>> mean "classical liberalism", of the pre JS Mills days.
> Not in the least. Libertarian and conservative are two entirely different
> axes on the political plane.
Conservatism is something quite different from classical liberalism,
and this is quite different from what Libertarians suggest.
Its far more complex than a plane.
Neil Tupper
<frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >[SJ]The US Supreme Court has however been much more dogmatic in its support
> >of abortion than its Canadian counterpart.
>
> Of course, because the President has the power to veto the court.
>
Stephen Jenuth has done an admirable job refuting the remainder of this post,
but I did want to comment on this gaffe. You write with an authoritative air
about US government, and yet belie that with this most astonishing statement.
Neil
Neil Tupper
<jen...@homacjen.ab.ca> wrote
> Steven Bishop wrote:
>
> > Not in the least. Libertarian and conservative are two entirely different
> > axes on the political plane.
>
> Conservatism is something quite different from classical liberalism,
> and this is quite different from what Libertarians suggest.
>
> Its far more complex than a plane.
>
Sometimes, when I read a particularly informative and interesting exchange, I am
forced to change my mind. You have convinced me in this very succinct response
that I was wrong some about the CA supporters. They are not one dimensional.
They are by their own admission, two dimensional.
Neil
jen...@homacjen.ab.ca
> What bullshit. First, we don't want to get rid of the maritimes (or NFLD),
> and secondly, we don't want to break up Canada. We may have a different
> vision for the federation (free, rather than totalitarian), but that doesn't
> mean we support the breakup of our country.
I have no doubt you have a different notion of the federation. It equates
almost exactly to 10 independent countries.
Bruce Freeman
<frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >This is just typical CA whining, Frank: taking cheap shots at the CBC,
> >criticizing Jean Chrétien for being francophone and having a physical
> >impairment, and complaining that you pay too much in taxes.
> Let's take this nice and slow Bruce. First, it is not "cheap shots",
> the CBC is a loser, Jean Chretein having lived in an English
> environment for 66 years should at least be able to speak properly
> (Trudeau could) without his 'dis, dat and dem'. His physical
> impairment (?) was caused by Bell's Palsy which I never mentioned, but
> has nothing to do with his diction. "paying to much taxes".... you bet
> you sweet bippy on that one Bruce.
Whine, whine, whine!
> >Alcoholism is a _disease_, Frank; it is a disorder that must be treated.
Is
> >it the responsible thing to do to allow this man to freeze in -40 degree
> >weather?
> Cancer is a disease, chicken pox, ishemic heart, and the list goes on,
> but unlike alcholism these diseases have no cures. Alcholism is a
> 'personal' disease that require will power (firstly) by the stricken,
> otherwise there is no cure.
Many diseases have no "cures". They respond to treatment. Certainly one
must be willing to accept that he or she has a medical disorder which needs
to be treated but it is not totally a matter of "will".
> >As to following rules, I seem to recall to admitting that burn the
occasion
> >CD with music pirated using Napster. How come it's okay for you to
violate
> >copyright laws, depriving artists and record companies their income, and
yet
> >you bitch about a skid row alcoholic having a drink!
> My, but you're a pitiful soul Bruce. Not many friends either I 'm
> betting. I am one of millions that 'shares' music files through
> Napster if you must know. Is it a violation of copyright laws, that
> has yet to be decided.
What has yet to be decided Frank is whether _Napster.com_ is itself in
violation of copyright laws by allowing these millions to 'share' files.
There is no question that _you_ are in violation of copyright laws when you
burn a CD containing material protected by copyright without permission from
the copyright holder. This material does not belong to you! Think about CA
Property Rights 101. No matter how you obtained the source (even if you
purchased a CD and made a "backup" you violate the law unless the copyright
holder grants you permission to do so. The same holds true for computer
software and intellectual material in general. It really bugs me that you
guys are so high and mighty about the need of others to observe your
virtuous moral standards but yet you defend your own right to steal if you
think intellectual material is overpriced. What you're doing, even time
you burn one of those illegal CDs, is much shoplifting, Frank.
> The "skid row" drinker can drink all he wants,
> but until he accepts the fact that he has to quit to improve his life,
> then he need not reach out to me. I know what I am talking about here
> Bruce, I had an alcoholic brother. It took years for him to finally
> accept the fact that he, and only he could make the decision to change
> and turn his life around. The family never gave up on him, but once he
> realized the free ride was over, he smartened up.
But what would have happened if the family did give up on him (many do, you
know) and there was no where else for him to turn because the available
charitable shelters refuse to accept drunks? Do you think it would have
been likely that he would have succeeded turning his life around under these
conditions?
> >Again, it is uncertain with lower taxes as to whether good jobs - those
that
> >pay a living wage - would actually be created. I know you CA types like
to
> >blame unions for all that wrong is the workplace but the fact remains
that
> >few of the new jobs provide a decent income.
> Hey, I have nothing against Unions. You're quoting one person again as
> an entire group of people.
I thought you wrote they were responsible for driving benefit costs higher
than wages, thereby necessitating that employers only create part time
positions.
> Get used to one thing Bruce, democracy is
> all about levels of prosperity. We will always have the poor, the
> middle class and the rich. We are all (mostly) responsible for our own
> fate. All we can do is try and make the 'poor' more comfortable even
> if they may be 'lazy'.
A certain extent of stratification is necessary. But I don't believe for a
minute that a CEO is worth 500 times more than the person who answers the
phones.
> >Come on Frank, you know easy it is to read basically anything into CA
> >Policy.
> And this is different? Give me a quote of Liberal policy and I can say
> the same thing (without proper knowledge).
But the Liberal Party doesn't cosy up to the Christian Right like CA.
> > You'll recall our discussion as to whether or not "property rights"
> >would permit a racist, white store owner to stop a black person from
> >shopping in the store! If I recall correctly, after waffling all over
the
> >map, you finally agreed with Steven that governments' have no business
> >protecting minorities from this kind of discrimination.
> After I peeled away the crap you rolled his statement in, he wasn't
> saying what you had stated and I agreed with him. Case closed.
Layers of "crap"? You forget that you are a member of a party that voted
for a name with this acronym. :-)
Steven said very specifically that a store owner should have the right to
conduct business with clients of his or her choice. He acknowledged that
this could have the effect of racist businesspeople declining not to serve
black people although he would personally be offended by such a practice.
But the bottom line is that under this reading of CA "property rights, " it
would _not_ be a function of government to protect certain classes of people
from discrimination solely on the basis of specified personal
characteristics.
> You see
> Bruce, you're not the political brain you think of yourself. You like
> to plant your own words into things and then say that someone else
> said it that way. In fact, you end up screwing yourself directly into
> the ground.
What I think is crap is that some CAers are defending the "right" of bigots
to discriminate solely on the basis of their biases. I'm still not sure
where you stand on this issue. I was hoping that you would clarify your
perspective.
Bruce Freeman
>
ld...@pathcom.com
Well, just be careful they don't turn your wealth into their wealth ;-)
>then someone who has never had
> the opportunity. Read the history of some of the instant millionaires
> in this country brought on by lotteries, then shake your head.
As buying lottery tickets is in itself a sign of stupidity it is not
surprising that the winners remain stupid even once wealthy.
> >>
> >> This is little more then a liberal agreeing with a liberal. I will
> >> deal with each of your subjects individually.
> >>
> >> > Crime a problem?
> >>
> >> Crime is always a problem. To deny it isn't is downright stupid.
Even
> >> though the statistics show declining numbers, they can and are
> >> manipulated by the authority. The YOA is indeed a problem and even
the
> >> Liberals now accept that.
> >
> >I see the CA flirting with Brian Mulroney's idea of a customs union
with
> >the US. If you want to see crime rates soar, then taking out the
border
> >check-points with our well-armed neighbour to the South looks like a
> >fine prescription.
>
> Well armed neighbor to the South. Unarmed neighbor to the North. Point
> discarded.
Just stop and think. If you are a criminal with a gun and you live in
Buffalo would you do your next crime in the US, where the laws are harsh
and the victim probably also armed, or will you simply drive across the
'ex'border? Similarly, a fugitive from justice, with no border will come
to Canada. I say no thank you.
>
> >The simplist way to see crime rates lowered would be to legalize
> >marijuana and prostitution.
>
> Can you shoot someone with a 'joint'? ;-) Actually I agree that
> marijuana should be legalized. Could be a lot of good revenue there
> through taxes. Prostitution should also be legal and income tax
> collected accordingly. Who cares who screws who and for what reason
> anyway?
As is, they pay their 'taxes' to organized crime. And as some people
want these things they look at 'Mom' Boucher as a hero. Similarly,
during 'prohibition' many considered Al Capone like a 'Robin Hood'.
As Santayana noted: Those who do not learn from history are forced to
repeat it.
However there does not seem to be any libertarian wing of the CA,
perhaps because it conflicts with authoritarian social conservatism.
>
> >Lately Toronto police have so little to do and so much man power that
> >they could send five (5!) male undercover officers to investigate the
> >liquor license for an annual lesbian night at a bath house. They had
> >lots of fun of course, stayed a few hours before deciding not to
charge
> >anyone with anything, and, it being night time, they were probably
> >getting overtime pay.
> >Meanwhile in Montreal, it is beginning to look like prohibition-era
> >Chicago or modern Moscow..
> >'Law and Order' makes a great campaign slogan; The 'hot button' fear
> >part of the 'fear and greed' platform of Ronald Reagan. But look
where
> >this simplistic view lead: while the government rounded up the pot
heads
> >the white-collar 'Savings and Loan' scams cost about 500 billion.
> >Even in Alberta, what about Swan Hills? What about Bre-ex?
> >It is all too easy to mouth 'Law and Order' platitudes.
> >A just society is something far more complex and demanding.
>
> But much of what you have mentioned does not qualify under law and
> order. Law and order is for the protection of body and limb of the
> innocent, not whether they got duped by some slick prick.
hmmm, I disagree. Law and order should include not only safety for your
body, but also safety for your wallet. Corner store robberies and
muggings are a drop in the bucket compared to fraud, breech of trust,
bid-rigging, kick-backs, insider trading, etc., the whole litany of
'white collar' crime.
>
> >> > More deterrence.
> >>
> >> Deterrence to what? Crime? Society rules are made for law and
order,
> >> not the renegades. Deterrence is the means to the end result. What
is
> >> your solution?
> >
> >Normal people follow the rules automatically,
>
> not "automatically", the word is 'socially'.
Maybe that word would be more accurate.
Reminds me of a Bob Dylan lyric: "To live outside the law, you must be
honest".
>
> >so perhaps actually laws *are* made for the 'renegades'?
> >Nothing creates 'renegades' more quickly than daffy laws
> >like marijuana or alcohol prohibition.
>
> And gun registrations?
Yes, agreed, that is dangerous. In fact it makes confiscation
an option in the future. South of the US in our hemisphere most
countries where only the police and army have gun ownership rights
the result has been that the army and police have taken over the state.
(An exception is the 'rosicrucian' experiment of Costa Rica where there
is no army:)
Certainly. Only the proportions are open to debate.
>
> >>Instead of
> >> pissing it away like a bunch of drunken sailors,
> >
> >I know it is only an expression of speech,
> >but on behalf of my sailor friends let me point out:
> >(a) they are cooped up in a small space for long periods of time
> >and they have to be sane and sober to do their job. When they make
> >harbour, only then can they relax and cut loose and have an
opportunity
> >to spend the money that is useless aboard ship.
> >(b) sailors have a risky job requiring bravery, great concentration,
and
> >their work is necessary for all harbour community's economic health.
> >Giving them space to stretch out when the job is done (like Malta's
> >'Straight Street' or Amsterdam's 'Red Zone') makes both compassionate
> >and economic sense.
>
> But I was Air Force for 22 years. While those boozers were hanging out
> in Amsterdam's Red Zone', spending those dollars, the wife and kids
> were...............or never mind.
A good argument for condoms?
> >
> >>pay down the debt,
> >> lower taxes to create more revenue through increased productivity
and
> >> jobs. Every seasoned economist is on side with that theory.
> >
> >Care to name names?
>
> Why? Do you read financial reports. Educate yourself, it's the best
> means of avoiding embarrassment.
By themselves financial reports do not cover all the variables.
For example it is fairly easy to trade ecology for economy,
or long term health for short term cash.
Currently topical is the price of gasoline.
Ecologically it should be raised to combat the climate change weird
weather. Europe did this, despite the short term pain.
We prefer to spend our grandchildren's welfare (like drunken sailors;-)
>
> >> >Refugees a problem? Ship 'em back.
> >>
> >> Unqualified refugee's should be "shipped back".
> >
> >So, what is a refugee?
>
> Never ask a bleeding heart that question.
I don't know if I qualify as a 'bleeding heart'.
A long quarantine for potentially infectious diseases would be
reassuring. Also to weed out the criminal element.
>
> >If a communist dictatorship like China persecutes religious
minorities
> >should we ship back those faithful who are desperate enough to deal
with
> >gangsters/snakeheads in the hope of reaching the 'western paradise'?
>
> No.
I agree.
>But the proof and not the 'say so' should be there in the first
> place. These people lie better then cheap rugs.
True, however communist China doesn't want the Falun Gong moralists
mucking up their corrupt system. Of course investigation to seperate the
'sheep' and 'goats' is necessary, but that should not be a problem for
Canada as we are essentially a nation primarily composed of refugees
(albeit political and economical as well as religious).
Maybe what Canada needs is some equivalent to the US 'green card
lottery'. Without immigrants who will pay the social security for the
aging baby boom?
> >Frankly, personally, I'd rather keep them.
>
> On welfare? Don't you think we should feed our own first?
Yes, but we are well fed already. If they were permitted to work,
they would work. Culturally, for the Chinese particularly, accepting
welfare, or turning to crime, are causes of great personal shame.
Downtown Toronto is full of beggars, but I have yet to see a single
Chinese one.
>
> >>We need trained
> >> immigrants to come here to work, not to live on welfare, (like the
> >> Somalians).
> >
> >Award yourself 1 bozopoint for bigotry.
> >In my Ontario riding's last election the Liberal candidate was a
Somali
> >Doctor with great persuasive powers of oratory. It was totally
obvious
> >that he had great intelligence and compassion. Stereotypes are so
dumb
> >eh..let's let them go..please..
>
> One in how many?
You might be surprised. I have a large Somali family as neighbours.
The mother shows great fear and trepidation whenever she encounters my
dog. The father however brought out his kids to meet the dog. He
apologized for his wife's fear, explaining that she came from an area
where dogs were wild and dangerous. But now in Canada he wanted his
children to understand Canadian ways. If you give it a chance,
multiculturalism can be very heart-warming.
>The fact that he ran for the Liberals is reason
> enough to know that he was 'selected' for the vote of 'his' people.
Perhaps, but another 22% liked him as well.
> Call it bigotry if you want to hide the truth, but there was a
> documentary on the CBC magazine on how they took over an entire high
> rise in Toronto and then harassed the other residents until they left.
> These are the bastards I am talking about. They had been on the dole
> for two years and had deteriorated the building to a state of slums.
> We don't need those people.
Perhaps there is a hidden factor here?
Harris's new laws allow landlords to evade rent control on any empty
apartment. The landlords have developed all sorts of tactics to drive
out residents. Hiring a few bad apples, and every barrel has them,
may be simply a tactic in this ongoing struggle.
>What about the Sihk problems in Vancouver?
I don't know much about that.
> The people that are causing these problems are the scum of other
> countries, who should not have been allowed in on feeble excuses. If
> their clean in their native countries, they will respect ours, if
> their filth there they will be the same here. THOSE are the people I
> am talking about, not the one case you have pointed out.
Ok, perhaps this problem arises from the Mulroney-era 'economic'
criteria for immigrants. People who get rich in poor areas are often the
least moral. I would certainly support efforts to promote moral
immigrants and eliminate scoundrels.
Careful consideration looks like the desirable situation.
>
> >>Trained or professional immigrants are needed to keep our
> >> beloved social programs going.
Yes.
>Again the Liberals have finally
seen
> >> the light on this.
> >
> >Ahem, they saw it first and planned accordingly, and with timing.
> >You saw it later, and were impetuous eh..
>
> If you call 1999 as seeing it first.................
>
> >> > Pollution? Less government oversight.
> >>
> >> Yeah right. Tell 'big brother' to our south that!!
> >
> >I'm not sure what this means??
> >US pollution legislation is far stricter than Canada's.
>
> Is it? So why is acid rain killing our lakes and streams? The crap in
> the air from the eastern seaboard straight through to Ontario.
The US woke up to the necessity for 'clean water' legislation already in
1993 when a cryptosporidium outbreak killed over a hundred citizens in
Milwaukee. They then passed tough federal laws. On environmental
legislation we are way behind them.
Ontario is burning coal for power (and export!!) with acidic and
mercuric fall-out on New York State, to their distress. Also the mercury
content seems to be killing off all the loons east of Ontario.
It is not healthy for you or your children either.
More of the same: ecology slaughtered on the alter of economy.
>
> >That is why 'intensive farming' banned in Pennsylvania has moved to
> >Ontario, and 'intensive farming' banned in Taiwan has moved to
Alberta.
> >The Americans figured out that they weren't going to accept long-term
> >pollution payments for short-term stockholder dividends.
> >This is clearly where government shines, at its best: protecting the
> >common citizen from bafflegab exploitation.
>
> Haw! Tell the people of Walkerton that who have had their wells
> contaminated by the super farms.
You misunderstood me. Government, in this case the US federal
government, 'shines' when it protects the common citizen against the
pollution, as for example the shit from the super-farms.
Obviously the Ontario government hardly 'shone' over Walkerton.
It is probably their doom as a large portion of the population has
discovered the link between good ecology and good economy.
>
> >The CA platform is missing this whole plank--instead there is a big
> >hole.
> >And Stockwell's air-, water-, and noise-pollution scrum with his
jet-ski
> >illustrates the problem profoundly. A G&M wag observed
> >that Stock had instantly lost the cottage vote..
>
> Of course the "G & M". Bahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
>
> >Duh, tranquillity, whazzat??
>
> What an ultra maroon!!
>
> >> > Accepting complexity requires a willingness to recognize that
> >societal
> >> >problem aren't simple, and that they involve many factors which
must
> >be
> >> >considered in any serious attempt at solution.
> >
> >(...)
> >--Lawrence Day
This thread is awefully long and the 'topic' has been passed by the
currents of history. If we want to continue, a new header may be in
order?
--Lawrence
nkennedy
just let me know what words or phrases you don't get, and I'll rewrite
them a more simple form for you."-> Neil Tupper
You'll have to use HTML and I think that's frowned on in this forum.
You can emulate crayon with HTML can't you?
Neil K
Hartmann Schaffer
<frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> ...
>>> My, but you're a pitiful soul Bruce. Not many friends either I 'm
>>> betting. I am one of millions that 'shares' music files through
>>> Napster if you must know. Is it a violation of copyright laws, that
>>> has yet to be decided.
>>
>>What has yet to be decided Frank is whether _Napster.com_ is itself in
>>violation of copyright laws by allowing these millions to 'share' files.
>>There is no question that _you_ are in violation of copyright laws when you
>>burn a CD containing material protected by copyright without permission from
>>the copyright holder.
>
>the knowledge to even question the fact. So take a hike!!
no, he isn't. he was trying (apparently in vein) that the court is
still undecided to which extent napster is involved in copyright
violations. that this sharing of files with copyrighted content is
theft was never disputed.
>> This material does not belong to you! Think about CA
>>Property Rights 101. No matter how you obtained the source (even if you
>>purchased a CD and made a "backup" you violate the law unless the copyright
>>holder grants you permission to do so.
>
>So what is the 'copyright' law as it affects the internet and sharing
>of files Bruce? Do you know? Or are you trying to impress someone with
>your blather?
are you pleading ignorance of the law? i always thought that CA's
position is that ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse for the
law breaker. so please go and get informed before your next post.
>> The same holds true for computer
>>software and intellectual material in general. It really bugs me that you
>>guys are so high and mighty about the need of others to observe your
>>virtuous moral standards but yet you defend your own right to steal if you
>>think intellectual material is overpriced.
>
>Eeaassyy, little man! Accusing someone of 'stealing 'can land you in a
>lot of hot water. Ask your legal beagle friend Stephen.
making a copy of copyrighted material without the copyright holder's
consent is theft, at least according to copyright laws. the fact that
it is a common practice doesn't change that,
>> What you're doing, even time
>>you burn one of those illegal CDs, is much shoplifting, Frank.
>
>Now your accusing me of 'shoplifting'. Maybe I should have someone
>take a look at this post. Naw, you're to insignificant Bruce. People
please do. if this someone knows about the subject he will tell you
that he is right, regardless of how significant he is (or are you just
trying to find excuses to stay ignorant of the law?).
> ...
hs
frank...@sympatico.ca
>frank...@sympatico.ca wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 14:28:25 GMT, jen...@homacjen.ab.ca wrote:
>
>>>The BQ and PQ and by and large social democratic parties. They favour
>>>such things as increased payment for child care for parents who are
>>>working, they support equal rights for everyone regardless of sexual
>>>orientation (and the inclusion of such things in the Canadian Human Rights
>>>Act), they believe in medicare (without private facilities, or co-payments,
>>>and expect it to be comprehensive).
>
>> Which puts the two parties at opposite ends of the spectrum. So how
>> could they be allies? You have shot down your own argument.
>
>Indeed they are. But the separatism/radical decentralization that
>both parties favour makes them allies.
Not really. The Bloc wants all incompassing powers for their own
Province and has that as their sole agenda item. The CA on the other
hand wants 'some' powers at the disposal of all Provinces. A huge
difference.
>
>>>They do agree with the alliance on one thing. The solution so that they
>>>can get all of these things is to divorce themselves from English Canada
>>>(of which they see the alliance and their cronies as a major part) and
>>>think that separatism is the answer.
>
>> Really? Another one of your myths? The only thing that the Bloc
>> agree's on with anybody is equality.
>
>Actually, they don't care about any other provinces. Only Quebec
>and its powers. What the rest of Canada wants to do is really not
>something they have any interest in.
See above. You keep shooting yourself in the foot in this argument.
>If Canada wants to break up into 9 different countries, they would
>be kinda sad, but really it would be up to the rest of Canada.
If their was 10 entities, 'who' would be "the rest of Canada"?
> They
>do not really see themselves as having any say-so on this. On the
>other hand, they would probably favour dealing with 1 country rather
>than a number of countries.
This is a long shot from the CA policy and for you to say that they
advocate such a breakup is nothing more then back-yard gossip aimed at
discrediting a truly proud Canadian political party.
>
>> Seeing as how the CA is the only
>> party in Canada with a strong policy on equality and empowering
>> Provinces to some degree, then of course they would agree.
>
>They would certainly agree with the virtual breakup of the country.
Bullshit!! Even if Quebec did separate (which they will not), that
would not bring about the demise of the rest of Canada. I could see BC
being more of a threat to separate then Quebec, if they were more
prosperous.
>>>But they understand that economically, it would be beneficial to Quebec
>>>to have some sort of association with Canada. Thus they proposed
>>>sovereignty association (in the 1970s and 1980s), and a EU type model
>>>(in the 1990s).
>
>> Hmmmm, like having your cake and eating it to?
>
>Certainly that's what they think. And they understand that a Alliance
>government would have a tendancy to try and punish Quebec by not
>entering into any formal alliance a la the EU.
How did you come to this conclusion?
> On the other hand
>they are confident that Canada would see that it would be in its
>interest to have such an arrangement. But if not, the BQ/PQ is
>very confident it can go it alone and deal with the United States.
Ha. They know better. Most Americans have a distaste for the French,
whether they come from France or Quebec.
>
>>>However, when push comes to shove they are willing to accept less association.
>
>>>Thus they are not adverse to the alliance model which provides for central
>>>institutions which are somewhat less powerful than the EU model the BQ now
>>>favours.
>
>> What in hell are you talking about? An EU model? In Canada? You're as
>> far out on a limb as a scared squirrel.
>
>I can only tell you what the BQ/PQ propose.
They 'propose' nothing of the kind. They want sovereignty association
as minimum, which is in no way like the EU.
> As I said, if the alliance
>came into government they would surely propose less, and the BQ/PQ would
>accept that.
Propose less of what? Sovereignty? Provincial powers? You're changing
colour again.
>
>It would make separation easy, and they would just deal with the US
>rather than the rest of Canada, if the ROC didn't want to deal with them.
>
>What is pretty certain is that with an alliance government, Quebec would
>see no real reason to stay in Canada and they would be out in the next
>2 years. Whether the ROC could survive following that is an open question?
Well, I'm here to tell you that they have been trying to separate
after two votes under Liberal rule, not Alliance rule. According to
them they see "no real reason' to stay now (or at least 49 % didn't).
So what is your point. Your traveling in circles.
>
>Probably not. No one would see any reason to keep the country and it would
>break up into a number of different countries, some of which would decide
>to apply to join the United States. It would be the end of Canada.
What a pessimist! Is that how you feel about this country and it's
people? I suggest you pack your fucking bags and leave. It's 'your'
type that would try to destroy this great country with your 'gloom and
doom' predictions.
>I expect the process would be surprisingly quick. 3-4 years at most. And
>no more federal elections.
If I was within arms length I would slap you, silly. Your not a
Canadian, your a misfit that I ever regret serving this country for
the likes of you. However, you are but a minority. (Thank God).
<<snip>>
>> You're definitely wrong you know. The US prides itself on the power of
>> it's States and their individual powers. This gives credit to the US
>> democracy success.
>
>No doubt they do. But when they look at it they would see that Canadian
>provinces are far more powerful than their US counterparts.
What?
<<snip>>
>>>Indeed. That is perhaps the only additional power which states have. They
>>>have the power to enact certain criminal law.
>
>> What!!?? They have full power over medicaid, taxes, wages and prices,
>> abortion laws, etc. etc.
>
>They have some power, but congress is always interfering.
When and where? Care to elaborate?
>>>The BQ would be fine to have this out of Ottawa's hands.
>
>> In an attempt to preserve their French culture, I can agree with them.
>
>Its nothing to do with preserving Quebec culture, its to do with
>having their own country.
Is it? I think your out of touch with Quebecers.
<<snip>>
>>>Of course, the states - like the provinces - want the money and
>>>follow along.
>
>> Not on your life.
>
>They seem to, both here and there.
'Seem to'?
>>>To be clear, if Alberta wants to have a private medical plan along
>>>with medicare, they can do it. There is nothing that the federal
>>>government can do to stop it.
>
>> Huh? Where have you been hiding. Ottawa sets the ground rules and the
>> Provinces can only play along or get punished accordingly. Ask B.C.
>
>You should look at the law. It doesn't do anything to the provinces
>other than prevent the spending of federal money except on conditions
>agreed to by the federal parliament.
And that's not a form of black-mail?
>Which makes sense, does it not?
No. It's like having a strict father that beats his kids before he
leaves home in case they do something that they (the kids) should not.
>
>>>But the federal government doesn't have to transfer about $ 2 billion
>>>a year to Alberta to pay for the program if it doesn't meet federal
>>>standards.
>
>> In a legal sense they do under the Health Act, but it hasn't been
>> challenged yet. In time it will get challenged as the act is out of
>> date for todays needs.
>
>Perhaps. But there is nothing that forces the federal government to
>tax and spend except on conditions agreed to by them.
You digress.
>>>Both countries are exactly the same on this.
>
>> Nope.
>
>Not any substantive difference.
Nope.
>
>>>> Would Canada allow Provinces to set individual
>>>> laws dealing with family matters (i.e abortions). No.
>>>
>>>It does actually. Provinces do control the provision of abortions.
>
>> Clinics only. The law is still a federal law that allows freedom of
>> choice.
>
>There is actualy no federal law at all at this time. The only law
>which existed was part of the Criminal Code and this was struck
>down by the courts. No federal law on abortion exists at this time.
It doesn't have one in the terms you would address, but it is covered
by our Human rights legislation under freedom of choice.
>
>>>However, since criminal law is a federal responsibility, the provinces
>>>cannot make performing an abortion criminal.
>
>> I think you have it!! (clap, clap)
>
>Indeed. But they can (and do) regulate the performance and payment
>for abortions. In every province, as I understand it.
Not directly, but indirectly. As was the case in the NB vs Morgantaler
case.
>
>Some provinces provide for performance of these things in hospitals,
>others (like Alberta) have largely turned it over to the private
>sector in clinics.
I know of no Province that doesn't have hospital and private clinics.
Do you?
>
>>>In the United States, states can make certain laws regarding this and
>>>the federal government makes certain overriding laws.
>
>> Can you name an instance of that?
>
>All sorts of federal laws are proposed, including limiting payment
>and providing rules for what women must be told.
Now there is a legal beagles response if I ever witnessed one. You
have said nothing at all in that statement.
>
>>>The US Supreme Court has however been much more dogmatic in its support
>>>of abortion than its Canadian counterpart.
>
>> Of course, because the President has the power to veto the court.
>
>No. The president has no power to veto the Court. It is essentially
>the same as in Canada, except that in Canada the "notwithstanding clause"
>is available for certain limited infractions of the Charter of Rights.
Ah yes, 'the notwithstanding clause'. Chretein's nightmare. And BTW,
the President does have the power to veto a Supreme court decision if
it is seen as a danger to peace and good order.
>
>>>> Would they allow
>>>> a Province to end the equal opportunity legislation (as in California)
>>>> No!
>
>>>Certainly. The Alberta government is perfectly free to repeal its
>>>Human Rights Act, as the Supreme Court said. But what they are not
>>>allowed to do is to discriminate in the law.
>
>> Appeal and lose. Big deal. It will still come down as a federal
>> jurisdiction.
>
>It has nothing to do with federal jurisdiction. It has to do
>with the Canadian constitution, which the Alberta legislature voted
>to enact by a vote of 73 to 1. The one dissenting voice was NDP
>leader Grant Notley who thought the new Charter of Rights did not
>provide for appropriate protection for aboriginal people (including
>Metis) in Alberta.
This was a vote taken by a Provincial legislature to give consent of a
majority of Provinces to pass the constitution into law. Alberta could
have defeated the motion 73 to 1 and it could have still passed with
the majority of the other Provinces consenting.
>
>>>The federal government has no say so in this regard.
>
>> In the appeal? Or the Human Rights Act?
>
>Both. It has nothing to do with the federal government.
Come off it!! They can pass changes or do what they want with a
majority in the HoC and the Senate.
>>>This is quite different than the United States where federal human
>>>rights laws have overarching authority in things which would otherwise
>>>be state authority.
>
>> Like California's repeal of the EO laws and Florida now doing the
>> same?
>
>Certainly. But the federal can (and does) pass its own laws in this
>regard. For example, look at what happened to the police officers
>who were charged with assaulting Rodney King? The police were
>found not guilty under the state laws, but then the federal government
>charged them with a breach of the federal civil rights act. And they
>were eventually convicted (and sent to jail I think).
This is a poor comparison as it deal with different types of law.
Besides, those officers were found not guilty of assault causing
bodily harm under criminal law. The Feds charged them with a violation
of the civil rights of Rodney King under civil law.
>
>In Canada, the federal government would not have that power. Local policing
>is simply not federal jurisdiction.
It can happen in Quebec, given the same circumstances.
>
>>>> And the list goes on. And you were saying?
>
>>>Indeed. Look at the powers of the federal trade commission, the security
>>>and exchange commission, and the ability to force speed limits on the
>>>states, etc.
>
>> Odd. If you travel down the Eastern seaboard, you will see several
>> State transportation law differences, from speed limits to speed
>> traps, to tolls, to enforcement.
>
>True enough. As you can see in Canada the same thing. On the other
>hand, the federal government has all sorts of powers which are quite
>substantive.
>
>Look at the powers of the federal Securities and Exchange Commission
>in the US, and the various provincial ones in Canada.
Lets not get sidetracked.
>>>> And how did you form that opinion from the CA policy?
>
>>>By listening to them, and to those who support them. For example, the
>>>supporter above who suggested that a charitable model is a better way
>>>to deal with health care than a national program.
>
>> That is/was a personal opinion I would presume. However, the CA policy
>> is quite clear and that is the 'word' not what you read here.
>
>You have to look closely, but I don't think much has changed.
Nothing has 'changes' in the policy book since January 2000 when it
was first written.
>
>Its interesting that nobody from the Alliance takes issue when these
>views are given.
Ever think that most of us understand the right to free speech and
expression. There are enough of you Liberals dogging people like
Steven Britten without CA members doing it. I don't see you taking any
of your Liberal cohorts to task over their beliefs (like Bruce
Freeman). But then I am not to sure about Bruce's motive. I suspect
that he is hiding some deep dark secret that he is afraid we may hold
against him. Which is kinda silly.
<<snip>>
>>>I doubt you would, however. For example, presently you could get a
>>>29% tax credit compared to the level of taxation you pay for charitable
>>>donations (and we're talking only federal tax with a maximum rate of
>>>29%(. Have you made the maximum donation and made a profit over what
>>>you would get with federal taxation?
>
>> Are you kidding? With the taxes I pay I can't afford to give what I
>> would like to. That is what I said above. If I paid less tax I would
>> feel more freely to contribute more to charities. BTW, I give directly
>> to charities (like the CNIB) instead of have 80% wasted in
>> administration fee's (i.e. United Appeal).
>
>And if you gave more, you would save more tax.
No more then I do already.
>>>In fact, since taxation on the first 27,000 of income is only at 17% and
>>>the tax credit for gifts over $ 200 is 29%, you could get a big saving
>>>by making the full donation.
>>>
>>>Have you?
>
>> As a matter of fact, yes I have. But I still would give more if I
>> could.
>
>How many $ 1,000s?
Let's not get ridiculous!
>
>>>Have to go.
>
>> Nature calling ;-)
>
>Court actually.
Is there a difference?
FP
frank...@sympatico.ca
wrote:
>
Shit Neil, you're starting to sound like your educated or something.
What in heavens name are you trying to say?
FP
frank...@sympatico.ca
>Steven C. Britton <s...@scb-group.com> wrote:
>
>> Stephen Untruth wrote:
>
>As usual for a member of the CA, Steven Britton starts with the usual
>cheap shot.
When you have a good target, take advantage......
<<snip>>
FP
frank...@sympatico.ca
wrote:
>
Which would still put them several levels above your thinking
capacity. Hopefully that capacity is much higher then you display here
in this forum that you appear to feel secure in.
FP
frank...@sympatico.ca
>Steven C. Britton <s...@scb-group.com> wrote:
>
>> What bullshit. First, we don't want to get rid of the maritimes (or NFLD),
>> and secondly, we don't want to break up Canada. We may have a different
>> vision for the federation (free, rather than totalitarian), but that doesn't
>> mean we support the breakup of our country.
>
>I have no doubt you have a different notion of the federation. It equates
>almost exactly to 10 independent countries.
And you call yourself a lawyer. I wouldn't have you defend a parking
ticket for me, if that is how you understand a written policy. You
would obviously have trouble understanding jurisprudence. Words like
'notion' don't cut it Stephen.
FP
frank...@sympatico.ca
<bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
><frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> Bruce Freeman" bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>
>
>> >This is just typical CA whining, Frank: taking cheap shots at the CBC,
>> >criticizing Jean Chrétien for being francophone and having a physical
>> >impairment, and complaining that you pay too much in taxes.
>
>> Let's take this nice and slow Bruce. First, it is not "cheap shots",
>> the CBC is a loser, Jean Chretein having lived in an English
>> environment for 66 years should at least be able to speak properly
>> (Trudeau could) without his 'dis, dat and dem'. His physical
>> impairment (?) was caused by Bell's Palsy which I never mentioned, but
>> has nothing to do with his diction. "paying to much taxes".... you bet
>> you sweet bippy on that one Bruce.
>
>Whine, whine, whine!
Whining to you, but the truth just the same.
>> >Alcoholism is a _disease_, Frank; it is a disorder that must be treated.
>Is
>> >it the responsible thing to do to allow this man to freeze in -40 degree
>> >weather?
>
>> Cancer is a disease, chicken pox, ishemic heart, and the list goes on,
>> but unlike alcholism these diseases have no cures. Alcholism is a
>> 'personal' disease that require will power (firstly) by the stricken,
>> otherwise there is no cure.
>
>Many diseases have no "cures". They respond to treatment. Certainly one
>must be willing to accept that he or she has a medical disorder which needs
>to be treated but it is not totally a matter of "will".
So what would it be in the case of the alcoholic?
>> >As to following rules, I seem to recall to admitting that burn the
>occasion
>> >CD with music pirated using Napster. How come it's okay for you to
>violate
>> >copyright laws, depriving artists and record companies their income, and
>yet
>> >you bitch about a skid row alcoholic having a drink!
>
>> My, but you're a pitiful soul Bruce. Not many friends either I 'm
>> betting. I am one of millions that 'shares' music files through
>> Napster if you must know. Is it a violation of copyright laws, that
>> has yet to be decided.
>
>What has yet to be decided Frank is whether _Napster.com_ is itself in
>violation of copyright laws by allowing these millions to 'share' files.
>There is no question that _you_ are in violation of copyright laws when you
>burn a CD containing material protected by copyright without permission from
>the copyright holder.
Are you overruling the US courts? I don't think you have the power or
the knowledge to even question the fact. So take a hike!!
> This material does not belong to you! Think about CA
>Property Rights 101. No matter how you obtained the source (even if you
>purchased a CD and made a "backup" you violate the law unless the copyright
>holder grants you permission to do so.
So what is the 'copyright' law as it affects the internet and sharing
of files Bruce? Do you know? Or are you trying to impress someone with
your blather?
> The same holds true for computer
>software and intellectual material in general. It really bugs me that you
>guys are so high and mighty about the need of others to observe your
>virtuous moral standards but yet you defend your own right to steal if you
>think intellectual material is overpriced.
Eeaassyy, little man! Accusing someone of 'stealing 'can land you in a
lot of hot water. Ask your legal beagle friend Stephen.
> What you're doing, even time
>you burn one of those illegal CDs, is much shoplifting, Frank.
Now your accusing me of 'shoplifting'. Maybe I should have someone
take a look at this post. Naw, you're to insignificant Bruce. People
like you that carry things around on their shoulders are sometimes
born with short peckers. Accept the fact, enjoy life, it's later then
you think.
>> The "skid row" drinker can drink all he wants,
>> but until he accepts the fact that he has to quit to improve his life,
>> then he need not reach out to me. I know what I am talking about here
>> Bruce, I had an alcoholic brother. It took years for him to finally
>> accept the fact that he, and only he could make the decision to change
>> and turn his life around. The family never gave up on him, but once he
>> realized the free ride was over, he smartened up.
>
>
>But what would have happened if the family did give up on him (many do, you
>know) and there was no where else for him to turn because the available
>charitable shelters refuse to accept drunks?
He took the chance to 'dance'. The family did practically give up on
him. Once he saw what was happening he smartened up. A little late I
might add, as his health was gone.
> Do you think it would have
>been likely that he would have succeeded turning his life around under these
>conditions?
Only if he wanted to. Many 'skid-row' drunks prefer that life. They
drink to forget their plight and their plight is their drink. Only
they can turn it around.
>
>> >Again, it is uncertain with lower taxes as to whether good jobs - those
>that
>> >pay a living wage - would actually be created. I know you CA types like
>to
>> >blame unions for all that wrong is the workplace but the fact remains
>that
>> >few of the new jobs provide a decent income.
>
>> Hey, I have nothing against Unions. You're quoting one person again as
>> an entire group of people.
>
>I thought you wrote they were responsible for driving benefit costs higher
>than wages, thereby necessitating that employers only create part time
>positions.
In some cases they do, but not all. Unions are good for both an
employer and employee as long as it is a conciliatory action by all
parties. Once a union demands more then an employer can supply, then
they have crossed the line. As far as unions are concerned, I have
been on both sides of the table. Unions provide a singular voice that
makes it easier for an employer to negotiate.
>> Get used to one thing Bruce, democracy is
>> all about levels of prosperity. We will always have the poor, the
>> middle class and the rich. We are all (mostly) responsible for our own
>> fate. All we can do is try and make the 'poor' more comfortable even
>> if they may be 'lazy'.
>
>A certain extent of stratification is necessary. But I don't believe for a
>minute that a CEO is worth 500 times more than the person who answers the
>phones.
It's a matter of the fittest and the opportunist. Someone has to be in
both positions. When the crash comes to a company who loses more, the
receptionist or the CEO?
>> >Come on Frank, you know easy it is to read basically anything into CA
>> >Policy.
>
>> And this is different? Give me a quote of Liberal policy and I can say
>> the same thing (without proper knowledge).
>
>But the Liberal Party doesn't cosy up to the Christian Right like CA.
Is that what bothers you? Christianity? I am a Christian. What is the
Christian 'right' Bruce? Do you know? Are you for/against abortions?
Are you a homosexual/homophobe? Why do you condemn a man with strong
personal values? Are your values so lose? Who and what are you Bruce?
Time to come out of hiding. And besides, you haven't quoted a Liberal
policy. Avoiding the issue again?
>> > You'll recall our discussion as to whether or not "property rights"
>> >would permit a racist, white store owner to stop a black person from
>> >shopping in the store! If I recall correctly, after waffling all over
>the
>> >map, you finally agreed with Steven that governments' have no business
>> >protecting minorities from this kind of discrimination.
>
>> After I peeled away the crap you rolled his statement in, he wasn't
>> saying what you had stated and I agreed with him. Case closed.
>
>
>Layers of "crap"? You forget that you are a member of a party that voted
>for a name with this acronym. :-)
Only if you cannot spell. ;-)
>Steven said very specifically that a store owner should have the right to
>conduct business with clients of his or her choice. He acknowledged that
>this could have the effect of racist businesspeople declining not to serve
>black people although he would personally be offended by such a practice.
"could"?
>But the bottom line is that under this reading of CA "property rights, " it
>would _not_ be a function of government to protect certain classes of people
>from discrimination solely on the basis of specified personal
>characteristics.
That's a mince of words that makes no sense and does not conform with
the policy whatsoever.
>> You see
>> Bruce, you're not the political brain you think of yourself. You like
>> to plant your own words into things and then say that someone else
>> said it that way. In fact, you end up screwing yourself directly into
>> the ground.
>
>
>What I think is crap is that some CAers are defending the "right" of bigots
>to discriminate solely on the basis of their biases.
Until you can prove what you say and stop your name calling, your
words are little more then juvenile stickling.
> I'm still not sure
>where you stand on this issue. I was hoping that you would clarify your
>perspective.
Why, if I was 'bigot' I would call you one. But I'm not a bigot, I
believe in the CA policy and it's goals,values and it's fight for a
strong Canada. I am proud to have met (on several occasions) Stockwell
Day and Preston Manning and have full confidence in their leadership
and values. Whether you see them (and me) as bigots means little to
me, as you really don't count when it comes to tally time. I make that
assessment from your posts only. You are probably a much nicer person
then you depict here.
FP
>
>Bruce Freeman
>
>
>>
>
frank...@sympatico.ca
>In article <8l8dsskm0o2u19so6...@4ax.com>,
> frank...@sympatico.ca wrote:
<<snip>>
>> This is entirely wrong. I would much rather have someone who has
>> handled great wealth handle my wealth,
>
>Well, just be careful they don't turn your wealth into their wealth ;-)
Good point! But if you were smart enough in the first place.........
>
>>then someone who has never had
>> the opportunity. Read the history of some of the instant millionaires
>> in this country brought on by lotteries, then shake your head.
>
>As buying lottery tickets is in itself a sign of stupidity it is not
>surprising that the winners remain stupid even once wealthy.
No argument.
<<snip>>
>> >check-points with our well-armed neighbour to the South looks like a
>> >fine prescription.
>>
>> Well armed neighbor to the South. Unarmed neighbor to the North. Point
>> discarded.
>
>Just stop and think. If you are a criminal with a gun and you live in
>Buffalo would you do your next crime in the US, where the laws are harsh
>and the victim probably also armed, or will you simply drive across the
>'ex'border? Similarly, a fugitive from justice, with no border will come
>to Canada. I say no thank you.
First off, Buffalo is a bad choice of city as it is within the 'gun
zone'. Now if you said Detroit, then you would be on the right track.
But this is outside the point anyway that was being discussed.
>>
>> >The simplist way to see crime rates lowered would be to legalize
>> >marijuana and prostitution.
>>
>> Can you shoot someone with a 'joint'? ;-) Actually I agree that
>> marijuana should be legalized. Could be a lot of good revenue there
>> through taxes. Prostitution should also be legal and income tax
>> collected accordingly. Who cares who screws who and for what reason
>> anyway?
>
>As is, they pay their 'taxes' to organized crime. And as some people
>want these things they look at 'Mom' Boucher as a hero. Similarly,
>during 'prohibition' many considered Al Capone like a 'Robin Hood'.
>As Santayana noted: Those who do not learn from history are forced to
>repeat it.
Good point and a valid one.
>However there does not seem to be any libertarian wing of the CA,
>perhaps because it conflicts with authoritarian social conservatism.
The CA policy on this would fall under Article 72. You should read it.
True, but our current FM is part of the same game. What do you
propose?
>> >> > More deterrence.
>> >>
>> >> Deterrence to what? Crime? Society rules are made for law and
>order,
>> >> not the renegades. Deterrence is the means to the end result. What
>is
>> >> your solution?
>> >
>> >Normal people follow the rules automatically,
>>
>> not "automatically", the word is 'socially'.
>
>Maybe that word would be more accurate.
>Reminds me of a Bob Dylan lyric: "To live outside the law, you must be
>honest".
Right.
>> >so perhaps actually laws *are* made for the 'renegades'?
>> >Nothing creates 'renegades' more quickly than daffy laws
>> >like marijuana or alcohol prohibition.
>>
>> And gun registrations?
>
>Yes, agreed, that is dangerous. In fact it makes confiscation
>an option in the future. South of the US in our hemisphere most
>countries where only the police and army have gun ownership rights
>the result has been that the army and police have taken over the state.
>(An exception is the 'rosicrucian' experiment of Costa Rica where there
>is no army:)
Speaking of which. I just found out that if you have a Possession Only
License (POL) and your wife/husband doesn't and either one knows where
the keys are that locks the guns and ammo, one can be charged under
the shared property (or marital law). This is a quote right from the
registration office.
Not really.
>> >>pay down the debt,
>> >> lower taxes to create more revenue through increased productivity
>and
>> >> jobs. Every seasoned economist is on side with that theory.
>> >
>> >Care to name names?
>>
>> Why? Do you read financial reports. Educate yourself, it's the best
>> means of avoiding embarrassment.
>
>By themselves financial reports do not cover all the variables.
>For example it is fairly easy to trade ecology for economy,
>or long term health for short term cash.
>Currently topical is the price of gasoline.
>Ecologically it should be raised to combat the climate change weird
>weather. Europe did this, despite the short term pain.
>We prefer to spend our grandchildren's welfare (like drunken sailors;-)
But it didn't (hasn't) worked in Europe. What makes you think that
gasoline at $2.00 a litre will work here?
>>
>> >> >Refugees a problem? Ship 'em back.
>> >>
>> >> Unqualified refugee's should be "shipped back".
>> >
>> >So, what is a refugee?
>>
>> Never ask a bleeding heart that question.
>
>I don't know if I qualify as a 'bleeding heart'.
>A long quarantine for potentially infectious diseases would be
>reassuring. Also to weed out the criminal element.
Compulsory testing? But it would violate their ........rights! (slap!)
>>
>> >If a communist dictatorship like China persecutes religious
>minorities
>> >should we ship back those faithful who are desperate enough to deal
>with
>> >gangsters/snakeheads in the hope of reaching the 'western paradise'?
>>
>> No.
>
>I agree.
>
>>But the proof and not the 'say so' should be there in the first
>> place. These people lie better then cheap rugs.
>
>True, however communist China doesn't want the Falun Gong moralists
>mucking up their corrupt system. Of course investigation to seperate the
>'sheep' and 'goats' is necessary, but that should not be a problem for
>Canada as we are essentially a nation primarily composed of refugees
>(albeit political and economical as well as religious).
>Maybe what Canada needs is some equivalent to the US 'green card
>lottery'. Without immigrants who will pay the social security for the
>aging baby boom?
We need immigrants badly. But we need the 'right' immigrants. We don't
want all of them to be non-contributors, we don't need them all to be
contributors, but we do need a better mix then what we have been
getting by the boat load.
>> >Frankly, personally, I'd rather keep them.
>>
>> On welfare? Don't you think we should feed our own first?
>
>Yes, but we are well fed already. If they were permitted to work,
>they would work. Culturally, for the Chinese particularly, accepting
>welfare, or turning to crime, are causes of great personal shame.
>Downtown Toronto is full of beggars, but I have yet to see a single
>Chinese one.
Agreed. Chinese tend to look after their own.
>>
>> >>We need trained
>> >> immigrants to come here to work, not to live on welfare, (like the
>> >> Somalians).
>> >
>> >Award yourself 1 bozopoint for bigotry.
>> >In my Ontario riding's last election the Liberal candidate was a
>Somali
>> >Doctor with great persuasive powers of oratory. It was totally
>obvious
>> >that he had great intelligence and compassion. Stereotypes are so
>dumb
>> >eh..let's let them go..please..
>>
>> One in how many?
>
>You might be surprised. I have a large Somali family as neighbours.
>The mother shows great fear and trepidation whenever she encounters my
>dog. The father however brought out his kids to meet the dog. He
>apologized for his wife's fear, explaining that she came from an area
>where dogs were wild and dangerous. But now in Canada he wanted his
>children to understand Canadian ways. If you give it a chance,
>multiculturalism can be very heart-warming.
And rewarding. Most of these people make the best Canadians as well
(the most loyal). But there is that percentage that should not be
here.
>
>>The fact that he ran for the Liberals is reason
>> enough to know that he was 'selected' for the vote of 'his' people.
>
>Perhaps, but another 22% liked him as well.
Like Kings-Hants, paint PC on a pig and he would win.;-)
>
>> Call it bigotry if you want to hide the truth, but there was a
>> documentary on the CBC magazine on how they took over an entire high
>> rise in Toronto and then harassed the other residents until they left.
>> These are the bastards I am talking about. They had been on the dole
>> for two years and had deteriorated the building to a state of slums.
>> We don't need those people.
>
>Perhaps there is a hidden factor here?
>Harris's new laws allow landlords to evade rent control on any empty
>apartment. The landlords have developed all sorts of tactics to drive
>out residents. Hiring a few bad apples, and every barrel has them,
>may be simply a tactic in this ongoing struggle.
Can't blame this one on Harris. This was a situation that took place
in 1994, after the Somalian problem. These people occupied this
building before Harris was elected.
>
>>What about the Sihk problems in Vancouver?
>
>I don't know much about that.
>
>> The people that are causing these problems are the scum of other
>> countries, who should not have been allowed in on feeble excuses. If
>> their clean in their native countries, they will respect ours, if
>> their filth there they will be the same here. THOSE are the people I
>> am talking about, not the one case you have pointed out.
>
>Ok, perhaps this problem arises from the Mulroney-era 'economic'
>criteria for immigrants. People who get rich in poor areas are often the
>least moral. I would certainly support efforts to promote moral
>immigrants and eliminate scoundrels.
>Careful consideration looks like the desirable situation.
Right.
>> >>Trained or professional immigrants are needed to keep our
>> >> beloved social programs going.
>
>Yes.
>
>>Again the Liberals have finally
>seen
>> >> the light on this.
>> >
>> >Ahem, they saw it first and planned accordingly, and with timing.
>> >You saw it later, and were impetuous eh..
>>
>> If you call 1999 as seeing it first.................
>> >I'm not sure what this means??
>This thread is awefully long and the 'topic' has been passed by the
>currents of history. If we want to continue, a new header may be in
>order?
Naw. I think we are two pretty level-headed people that are not to far
apart in out thoughts. ;-)
FP
Neil Tupper
<frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> "Neil Tupper" <ne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Sometimes, when I read a particularly informative and interesting exchange, I
am
> >forced to change my mind. You have convinced me in this very succinct
response
> >that I was wrong some about the CA supporters. They are not one dimensional.
> >They are by their own admission, two dimensional.
> >
> >Neil
>
> capacity.
"Several levels above" two dimensional? Do I really have to explain "two
dimensional" to you?
>Hopefully that capacity is much higher then you display here
> in this forum that you appear to feel secure in.
>
Maybe you were tired when you wrote this. . . . ;-))
Neil
Neil Tupper
> What in heavens name are you trying to say?
>
I apologize, Frank. If you have trouble understanding what I write, just let me
know what words or phrases you don't get, and I'll rewrite them a more simple
form for you.
Neil
Bruce Freeman
<frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> "Bruce Freeman" bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> ><frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >> Bruce Freeman" bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
It would seem Frank that you are not aware of what the issue is that is
being debated before the US courts. Napster claims that it is not
responsible for what its "community members" do with the technology it
provides. Think it in terms of handguns (CAers seem to like guns). Glock
claims that it is not responsible for the people who kill other people with
the guns the company manufacturers. Like Napster, they simply provide
people with access to a technology. Both Napster and Glock contend that
they are not culpable if someone uses that technology for an illegal
purpose.
> > This material does not belong to you! Think about CA
> >Property Rights 101. No matter how you obtained the source (even if you
> >purchased a CD and made a "backup" you violate the law unless the
copyright
> >holder grants you permission to do so.
> So what is the 'copyright' law as it affects the internet and sharing
> of files Bruce? Do you know? Or are you trying to impress someone with
> your blather?
Frank, have a look the Act and Regulations. Here's the URL:
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/STABLE/EN/Laws/Chap/C/C-42.html
Can you really convince yourself that you are _not_ in violation of this Act
when download music protected by copyright from Napster and burn CDs using
this content?
I admit that the Act is complicated. Your CA "principles" on copyright are
far more to the point:
____________________________________________________________________
We will recognize and affirm the historic common law right to ownership and
enjoyment of private property
21. We believe the right to own, use and benefit from private property
(including labour and real, intellectual and personal property), and to
contract freely, lies at the very heart of our legal and economic systems
and distinguishes a free society. Therefore, we will seek the agreement of
the provinces to amend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include this
right, as well as a guarantee that no person shall be deprived of it without
the due process of law and full, just and timely compensation.
http://www.canadianalliance.ca/yourprinciples/policy_declare/index.html
_____________________________________________________________________
Note that reference to "intellectual property". That includes those music
files you pirate. You don't own that material, Frank.
> > The same holds true for computer
> >software and intellectual material in general. It really bugs me that
you
> >guys are so high and mighty about the need of others to observe your
> >virtuous moral standards but yet you defend your own right to steal if
you
> >think intellectual material is overpriced.
> Eeaassyy, little man! Accusing someone of 'stealing 'can land you in a
> lot of hot water. Ask your legal beagle friend Stephen.
I consider violation of copyright law to be theft. What else do you call
it? It's not "borrowing" when you burn a CD. I'll send a copy of this post
to Stephen as you suggest for a opinion (if he has time to respond).
> > What you're doing, even time
> >you burn one of those illegal CDs, is much shoplifting, Frank.
> Now your accusing me of 'shoplifting'.
No, I didn't accuse you of shoplifting. However, my text should have read
"much like shoplifting".
> Maybe I should have someone
> take a look at this post. Naw, you're to insignificant Bruce. People
> like you that carry things around on their shoulders are sometimes
> born with short peckers. Accept the fact, enjoy life, it's later then
> you think.
It really bugs me Frank is that teenagers, kids who go to school and work
part time earning minimum wage, respect intellectual property rights.
They're willing to fork out 20 bucks for a CD. You, on the other hand, say
that that you are "overtaxed" because you are in the highest income tax
bracket and instead of forking out your 20 bucks, you admit that you pirate
and burn your own CDs. Who is the one with the "short pecker" Frank?
Bruce Freeman
Bruce Freeman
<frank...@sympatico.ca
> "Bruce Freeman" bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> ><frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >> Bruce Freeman" bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
.
> >> > You'll recall our discussion as to whether or not "property rights"
> >> >would permit a racist, white store owner to stop a black person from
> >> >shopping in the store! If I recall correctly, after waffling all over
> >the
> >> >map, you finally agreed with Steven that governments' have no business
> >> >protecting minorities from this kind of discrimination.
> >
> >> After I peeled away the crap you rolled his statement in, he wasn't
> >> saying what you had stated and I agreed with him. Case closed.
> >Steven said very specifically that a store owner should have the right to
> >conduct business with clients of his or her choice. He acknowledged that
> >this could have the effect of racist businesspeople declining not to
serve
> >black people although he would personally be offended by such a practice.
>
> "could"?
Right. As I said, according to Steven, it is up to businesspeople to decide
whether or not they want to discriminate against people. Perhaps no
businesses will discriminate about a black person on the basis of race.
But, if you assert that property rights are the moral glue holding a society
together and are even more fundamental than human rights - like it would
seem that the CA does - businesses _could_ discriminate against black
people, solely on the basis of race.
> >But the bottom line is that under this reading of CA "property rights, "
it
> >would _not_ be a function of government to protect certain classes of
people
> >from discrimination solely on the basis of specified personal
> >characteristics.
> That's a mince of words that makes no sense and does not conform with
> the policy whatsoever.
If you are unable to interpret the sentence, how could you possibly
determine that it is inconsistent with CA policy? Tell me Frank, do you
believe that government has a duty to protect people from discrimination
based solely on criteria such as such skin color in areas like housing,
shopping, and employment? Steven has made his views very clear. According
to him, this would be violation of the owners' property rights and is
therefore unfair. Where do you stand on this issue?
> >> You see
> >> Bruce, you're not the political brain you think of yourself. You like
> >> to plant your own words into things and then say that someone else
> >> said it that way. In fact, you end up screwing yourself directly into
> >> the ground.
> >What I think is crap is that some CAers are defending the "right" of
bigots
> >to discriminate solely on the basis of their biases.
> Until you can prove what you say and stop your name calling, your
> words are little more then juvenile stickling.
You were reading and participating in these posts! You even say above that
you agreed with Steven!
> > I'm still not sure
> >where you stand on this issue. I was hoping that you would clarify your
> >perspective.
> Why, if I was 'bigot' I would call you one. But I'm not a bigot, I
> believe in the CA policy and it's goals,values and it's fight for a
> strong Canada.
And you used to say the same thing about the PC Party but you changed your
mind.
> I am proud to have met (on several occasions) Stockwell
> Day and Preston Manning and have full confidence in their leadership
> and values. Whether you see them (and me) as bigots means little to
> me, as you really don't count when it comes to tally time. I make that
> assessment from your posts only. You are probably a much nicer person
> then you depict here.
I wish I had this capacity to size up a person's character on the basis of a
few meetings. I think it is far more is telling to see how they respond to
questions. Such as the one put to Stock a few days ago. He was asked if he
ever lowered gasoline taxes while Alberta's treasurer. He said couldn't
remember whether he did or not. The fact is that he was a member of the
government that introduced a fuel tax and he never did take action to lower
it. If this is the kind of "values" you have confidence in, go for it
Frank!
Bruce Freeman
Bruce Freeman
"Hartmann Schaffer" <h...@paradise.nirvananet>
> <frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote in response to me:
> > >> This material does not belong to you! Think about CA
> >>Property Rights 101. No matter how you obtained the source (even if you
> >>purchased a CD and made a "backup" you violate the law unless the
copyright
> >>holder grants you permission to do so.
> >So what is the 'copyright' law as it affects the internet and sharing
> >of files Bruce? Do you know? Or are you trying to impress someone with
> >your blather?
> are you pleading ignorance of the law? i always thought that CA's
> position is that ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse for the
> law breaker. so please go and get informed before your next post.
It's interesting that CA defines itself as the "law & order" party. Of
course, it is has had its share of embarassment over this. In its early
life as the Reform Party, its former Justice Critic was himself convicted
and sentended for the attempted rape of a fourteen year old girl.
It's amazing that if a CAer claims they are "pro law & order," these laws,
evidently, only apply to everyone else.
And then there is stuff CA wants to do to young offenders! "Scrap the Young
Offenders Act," they claim. "Young people know the difference between right
& wrong". And then here we have Frank burning pirate CDs to save $20.
Is it any wonder that he feels entitled to a tax break as well!
> >> The same holds true for computer
> >>software and intellectual material in general. It really bugs me that
you
> >>guys are so high and mighty about the need of others to observe your
> >>virtuous moral standards but yet you defend your own right to steal if
you
> >>think intellectual material is overpriced.
> >Eeaassyy, little man! Accusing someone of 'stealing 'can land you in a
> >lot of hot water. Ask your legal beagle friend Stephen.
> making a copy of copyrighted material without the copyright holder's
> consent is theft, at least according to copyright laws. the fact that
> it is a common practice doesn't change that,
I was very surprised that Frank freely admited in this newsgroup that he
burns his own CDs using material downloaded from Napster and justified doing
so because, as he says, CDs are overpriced.
Bruce Freeman
Mike Warren
> And then there is stuff CA wants to do to young offenders! "Scrap
> the Young Offenders Act," they claim. "Young people know the
> difference between right & wrong". And then here we have Frank
> burning pirate CDs to save $20.
It's especially ironic considering Frank's stance on intellectual
``property''. I do think current copyright law is broken, however.
--
Mike Warren <mike at mike dash warren dot com>
<URL:http://www.mike-warren.com>
M-x yow, ``I'd like MY data-base JULIENNED and stir-fried!''
frank...@sympatico.ca
wrote:
>
><frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>> Shit Neil, you're starting to sound like your educated or something.
>> What in heavens name are you trying to say?
>>
>
>I apologize, Frank. If you have trouble understanding what I write, just let me
>know what words or phrases you don't get, and I'll rewrite them a more simple
>form for you.
>
>Neil
O.K. Given the above start with "Stephen......................
FP
frank...@sympatico.ca
wrote:
>"...I apologize, Frank. If you have trouble understanding what I write,
>just let me know what words or phrases you don't get, and I'll rewrite
>them a more simple form for you."-> Neil Tupper
>
>You'll have to use HTML and I think that's frowned on in this forum.
>You can emulate crayon with HTML can't you?
>
> Neil K
Used to crayons are you Neil? ;-)
FP
frank...@sympatico.ca
wrote:
>
><frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>> "Neil Tupper" <ne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Sometimes, when I read a particularly informative and interesting exchange, I
>am
>> >forced to change my mind. You have convinced me in this very succinct
>response
>> >that I was wrong some about the CA supporters. They are not one dimensional.
>> >They are by their own admission, two dimensional.
>> >
>> >Neil
>>
>> Which would still put them several levels above your thinking
>> capacity.
>
>"Several levels above" two dimensional? Do I really have to explain "two
>dimensional" to you?
You don't understand that there are multiple levels in
dimensions?.....come now.
>
>>Hopefully that capacity is much higher then you display here
>> in this forum that you appear to feel secure in.
>>
>
>Maybe you were tired when you wrote this. . . . ;-))
Not as 'tired' as bored with the rhetoric. I apologize. ;-)
>
>Neil
>
FP
frank...@sympatico.ca
Schaffer) wrote:
>In article <8mhisscag88q1ngts...@4ax.com>,
> <frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> My, but you're a pitiful soul Bruce. Not many friends either I 'm
>>>> betting. I am one of millions that 'shares' music files through
>>>> Napster if you must know. Is it a violation of copyright laws, that
>>>> has yet to be decided.
>>>
>>>What has yet to be decided Frank is whether _Napster.com_ is itself in
>>>violation of copyright laws by allowing these millions to 'share' files.
>>>There is no question that _you_ are in violation of copyright laws when you
>>>burn a CD containing material protected by copyright without permission from
>>>the copyright holder.
>>
>>Are you overruling the US courts? I don't think you have the power or
>>the knowledge to even question the fact. So take a hike!!
>
>no, he isn't. he was trying (apparently in vein) that the court is
>still undecided to which extent napster is involved in copyright
>violations. that this sharing of files with copyrighted content is
>theft was never disputed.
>
>>> This material does not belong to you! Think about CA
>>>Property Rights 101. No matter how you obtained the source (even if you
>>>purchased a CD and made a "backup" you violate the law unless the copyright
>>>holder grants you permission to do so.
>>
>>So what is the 'copyright' law as it affects the internet and sharing
>>of files Bruce? Do you know? Or are you trying to impress someone with
>>your blather?
>
>are you pleading ignorance of the law? i always thought that CA's
>position is that ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse for the
>law breaker. so please go and get informed before your next post.
And if you had demonstrated reading abilities you would note that the
argument at hand does not involve the CA. Given that, there is no
precedent for the courts to use as jurisprudence as to whether 'the
sharing of files, via the internet" is in contravention of copyright
laws. Why do you think that an injunction was granted to Napster?
>
>>> The same holds true for computer
>>>software and intellectual material in general. It really bugs me that you
>>>guys are so high and mighty about the need of others to observe your
>>>virtuous moral standards but yet you defend your own right to steal if you
>>>think intellectual material is overpriced.
>>
>>Eeaassyy, little man! Accusing someone of 'stealing 'can land you in a
>>lot of hot water. Ask your legal beagle friend Stephen.
>
>making a copy of copyrighted material without the copyright holder's
>consent is theft, at least according to copyright laws. the fact that
>it is a common practice doesn't change that,
True. But in the case of Napster the 'picture' is vague to the
argument of 'sharing files'. Besides, were you aware that some of the
artists listed in Napster and MP3.com had given consent to copyright?
>
>>> What you're doing, even time
>>>you burn one of those illegal CDs, is much shoplifting, Frank.
>>
>>Now your accusing me of 'shoplifting'. Maybe I should have someone
>>take a look at this post. Naw, you're to insignificant Bruce. People
>
>please do. if this someone knows about the subject he will tell you
>that he is right, regardless of how significant he is (or are you just
>trying to find excuses to stay ignorant of the law?).
Prove it little man!
>hs
Does the "hs" stand for what I think it does? ;-)
FP
frank...@sympatico.ca
<bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
>"Hartmann Schaffer" <h...@paradise.nirvananet>
>
>> <frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote in response to me:
>
>
>> > >> This material does not belong to you! Think about CA
>> >>Property Rights 101. No matter how you obtained the source (even if you
>> >>purchased a CD and made a "backup" you violate the law unless the
>copyright
>> >>holder grants you permission to do so.
>
>> >So what is the 'copyright' law as it affects the internet and sharing
>> >of files Bruce? Do you know? Or are you trying to impress someone with
>> >your blather?
>
>> are you pleading ignorance of the law? i always thought that CA's
>> position is that ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse for the
>> law breaker. so please go and get informed before your next post.
>
>It's interesting that CA defines itself as the "law & order" party.
There you go again Bruce, standing behind someone else. Why don't you
answer the post yourself?
>Of
>course, it is has had its share of embarassment over this. In its early
>life as the Reform Party, its former Justice Critic was himself convicted
>and sentended for the attempted rape of a fourteen year old girl.
You like that don't you little man? You sound like a broken record.
Even when someone agree's with you, you're not sure just how to handle
it. I'm betting someone as innocent and pure as you has a great deal
to hide. Maybe not in criminal violations, but in human factors.
>
>It's amazing that if a CAer claims they are "pro law & order," these laws,
>evidently, only apply to everyone else.
Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!! You poor repetitious little soul.
>
>And then there is stuff CA wants to do to young offenders! "Scrap the Young
>Offenders Act," they claim. "Young people know the difference between right
>& wrong". And then here we have Frank burning pirate CDs to save $20.
Yup, ain't it something. Almost like being human ain't it?
>Is it any wonder that he feels entitled to a tax break as well!
Tell you what Bruce, You like taxes, you can pay mine to. Go for it!!
>> >> The same holds true for computer
>> >>software and intellectual material in general. It really bugs me that
>you
>> >>guys are so high and mighty about the need of others to observe your
>> >>virtuous moral standards but yet you defend your own right to steal if
>you
>> >>think intellectual material is overpriced.
>
>> >Eeaassyy, little man! Accusing someone of 'stealing 'can land you in a
>> >lot of hot water. Ask your legal beagle friend Stephen.
>
>> making a copy of copyrighted material without the copyright holder's
>> consent is theft, at least according to copyright laws. the fact that
>> it is a common practice doesn't change that,
>
>I was very surprised that Frank freely admited in this newsgroup that he
>burns his own CDs using material downloaded from Napster and justified doing
>so because, as he says, CDs are overpriced.
Why? I'm not a coward. Stand toe to toe with me someday Bruce and talk
like a man instead of this pamsy, wamsy crap you spout. Do you run
home and tell Mommy that 'that bad Frank burns CD's and I don't got
none'? That's the way your coming across. Little wonder Steve Britten
feels like beating your ass. Time to grow up Bruce and try winning an
argument without the 'stick and stones' mentality.
>
> Bruce Freeman
FP
frank...@sympatico.ca
<bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
><frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> "Bruce Freeman" bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
>> ><frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
>> >> Bruce Freeman" bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>> Are you overruling the US courts? I don't think you have the power or
>> the knowledge to even question the fact. So take a hike!!
>
>
>It would seem Frank that you are not aware of what the issue is that is
>being debated before the US courts. Napster claims that it is not
>responsible for what its "community members" do with the technology it
>provides. Think it in terms of handguns (CAers seem to like guns). Glock
>claims that it is not responsible for the people who kill other people with
>the guns the company manufacturers. Like Napster, they simply provide
>people with access to a technology. Both Napster and Glock contend that
>they are not culpable if someone uses that technology for an illegal
>purpose.
You're defeating the bases of your own argument. This is exactly the
point. I can buy a gun to 'look at' and never fire. I could download a
'file' from Napster with a 'sampling' to buy an entire CD. Although
this is not the case as my search was for music no longer available on
any type of recording. People do things differently for many reasons.
You argue every point of Reform/CA policy regardless if it would or
could help other people, just to satisfy your own personal beliefs.
Could that also be deemed as 'intellectual bigotry'? I think so.
>> > This material does not belong to you! Think about CA
>> >Property Rights 101. No matter how you obtained the source (even if you
>> >purchased a CD and made a "backup" you violate the law unless the
>copyright
>> >holder grants you permission to do so.
>
>> So what is the 'copyright' law as it affects the internet and sharing
>> of files Bruce? Do you know? Or are you trying to impress someone with
>> your blather?
>
>Frank, have a look the Act and Regulations. Here's the URL:
>
>http://canada.justice.gc.ca/STABLE/EN/Laws/Chap/C/C-42.html
First off, realize 'where' Napster is based.
>Can you really convince yourself that you are _not_ in violation of this Act
>when download music protected by copyright from Napster and burn CDs using
>this content?
Maybe so, maybe not. From the point of individual freedom, I am not.
>I admit that the Act is complicated. Your CA "principles" on copyright are
>far more to the point:
>____________________________________________________________________
>We will recognize and affirm the historic common law right to ownership and
>enjoyment of private property
>
>21. We believe the right to own, use and benefit from private property
>(including labour and real, intellectual and personal property), and to
>contract freely, lies at the very heart of our legal and economic systems
>and distinguishes a free society. Therefore, we will seek the agreement of
>the provinces to amend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include this
>right, as well as a guarantee that no person shall be deprived of it without
>the due process of law and full, just and timely compensation.
>
>http://www.canadianalliance.ca/yourprinciples/policy_declare/index.html
>_____________________________________________________________________
>
>
>Note that reference to "intellectual property". That includes those music
>files you pirate. You don't own that material, Frank.
Don't I? Look again little man. BTW, I have a stack of the CA booklets
on by desk as I write. Want one?
>> > The same holds true for computer
>> >software and intellectual material in general. It really bugs me that
>you
>> >guys are so high and mighty about the need of others to observe your
>> >virtuous moral standards but yet you defend your own right to steal if
>you
>> >think intellectual material is overpriced.
>
>> Eeaassyy, little man! Accusing someone of 'stealing 'can land you in a
>> lot of hot water. Ask your legal beagle friend Stephen.
>
>
>I consider violation of copyright law to be theft.
Oh, now you 'consider' it a violation. That is a retraction from
saying I am a "thief".
> What else do you call
>it? It's not "borrowing" when you burn a CD. I'll send a copy of this post
>to Stephen as you suggest for a opinion (if he has time to respond).
Oh, I'm sure "Stephen" will see it. Are you retracting the accusation
or not of me being a thief? Not knowing how, for what purpose, or if I
retain these CD's, that is a very strong accusation.
>> > What you're doing, even time
>> >you burn one of those illegal CDs, is much shoplifting, Frank.
>
>> Now your accusing me of 'shoplifting'.
>
>
>No, I didn't accuse you of shoplifting. However, my text should have read
>"much like shoplifting".
Oh, but it didn't. There is a vast difference in the original
accusation then what you are defending now.
>> Maybe I should have someone
>> take a look at this post. Naw, you're to insignificant Bruce. People
>> like you that carry things around on their shoulders are sometimes
>> born with short peckers. Accept the fact, enjoy life, it's later then
>> you think.
>
>It really bugs me Frank is that teenagers, kids who go to school and work
>part time earning minimum wage, respect intellectual property rights.
You know this as fact, do you?
>They're willing to fork out 20 bucks for a CD. You, on the other hand, say
>that that you are "overtaxed" because you are in the highest income tax
>bracket and instead of forking out your 20 bucks, you admit that you pirate
>and burn your own CDs. Who is the one with the "short pecker" Frank?
Well now, there's one way of proving this.............
>
>Bruce Freeman
FP
frank...@sympatico.ca
<bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
><frank...@sympatico.ca
>
>> "Bruce Freeman" bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
>> ><frank...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
>> >> Bruce Freeman" bfre...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>.
>> >> > You'll recall our discussion as to whether or not "property rights"
>> >> >would permit a racist, white store owner to stop a black person from
>> >> >shopping in the store! If I recall correctly, after waffling all over
>> >the
>> >> >map, you finally agreed with Steven that governments' have no business
>> >> >protecting minorities from this kind of discrimination.
>> >
>> >> After I peeled away the crap you rolled his statement in, he wasn't
>> >> saying what you had stated and I agreed with him. Case closed.
>
>> >Steven said very specifically that a store owner should have the right to
>> >conduct business with clients of his or her choice. He acknowledged that
>> >this could have the effect of racist businesspeople declining not to
>serve
>> >black people although he would personally be offended by such a practice.
>>
>> "could"?
>
>
>Right. As I said, according to Steven, it is up to businesspeople to decide
>whether or not they want to discriminate against people.
Bruce, I really hate to tell you this but it happens a million times a
day. Not in the way you would like to associate with the CA, but even
you are a discriminator. Think about it. You would invite Stephen to
your party, but you wouldn't invite Steven and me. (sniff!)
> Perhaps no
>businesses will discriminate about a black person on the basis of race.
>But, if you assert that property rights are the moral glue holding a society
>together and are even more fundamental than human rights - like it would
>seem that the CA does - businesses _could_ discriminate against black
>people, solely on the basis of race.
Like they 'don't ' now? Look around you Bruce. Discrimination is
growing every day in many facets of society to all time levels. It
isn't as blatant as the 'whipping of black slaves', but it is worse in
some respects as it is hidden and festering. This IS NOT what the
policy eludes to either, regardless of what you think.
>> >But the bottom line is that under this reading of CA "property rights, "
>it
>> >would _not_ be a function of government to protect certain classes of
>people
>> >from discrimination solely on the basis of specified personal
>> >characteristics.
>
>> That's a mince of words that makes no sense and does not conform with
>> the policy whatsoever.
>
>
>If you are unable to interpret the sentence, how could you possibly
>determine that it is inconsistent with CA policy?
Simply because you interpret the policy as something 'hidden' and
would lead to the distraction from protection of individuals. Any
party that would propose such a policy (as you describe) would be
nuts!! You get the idea that people who support the CA are all
uneducated dolts of some kind. Well guess what? We went to school, we
have brains, we can think logically, we don't need to be lead around
by the nose.
>Tell me Frank, do you
>believe that government has a duty to protect people from discrimination
>based solely on criteria such as such skin color in areas like housing,
>shopping, and employment?
Yes of course I do. But this is not dealing with 'specific' criteria.
Legislation already protects people against this type of
discrimination. The real question here is who is the discriminated and
who is the discriminator? If you have one you have the other. Example,
and this is only an "example" Bruce, so don't read something into it.
I apply for a job and the entrance level calls for a passing grade of
80%. My colleague is a visible minority, and his passing grade is 60%.
We both are graduates of the same school. He gets 61%, I get 79%. He
gets the pass mark. Is that not discrimination toward me?
> Steven has made his views very clear. According
>to him, this would be violation of the owners' property rights and is
>therefore unfair. Where do you stand on this issue?
Same thing. I would never tolerate nor practice discrimination for the
sole reason of colour, religion, sexual orientation, disability,
gender or anything that is considered a 'natural' part of the human
race. Discrimination is a 'hot potatoe' in this country because of
some of the liberal laws now in place. The treatment of the Native's
is a prime example.
>> >> You see
>> >> Bruce, you're not the political brain you think of yourself. You like
>> >> to plant your own words into things and then say that someone else
>> >> said it that way. In fact, you end up screwing yourself directly into
>> >> the ground.
>
>> >What I think is crap is that some CAers are defending the "right" of
>bigots
>> >to discriminate solely on the basis of their biases.
>
>
>> Until you can prove what you say and stop your name calling, your
>> words are little more then juvenile stickling.
>
>
>You were reading and participating in these posts! You even say above that
>you agreed with Steven!
And I will re itinerate that support. Even though he believes in the
right to decide how he would administer or use his personal property,
he at no time advocates discrimination toward another being due to the
factors I have stated above.
>> > I'm still not sure
>> >where you stand on this issue. I was hoping that you would clarify your
>> >perspective.
>
>> Why, if I was 'bigot' I would call you one. But I'm not a bigot, I
>> believe in the CA policy and it's goals,values and it's fight for a
>> strong Canada.
>
>
>And you used to say the same thing about the PC Party but you changed your
>mind.
You bet your sweet bippy! I lost faith in the PC Party when they
started to sound like the Liberals and created all this animosity in
this country. A good friend and a member of the local board feels very
strongly the same way. And oh BTW, his skin colour is black.
>> I am proud to have met (on several occasions) Stockwell
>> Day and Preston Manning and have full confidence in their leadership
>> and values. Whether you see them (and me) as bigots means little to
>> me, as you really don't count when it comes to tally time. I make that
>> assessment from your posts only. You are probably a much nicer person
>> then you depict here.
>
>
>I wish I had this capacity to size up a person's character on the basis of a
>few meetings.
Have you ever sat down with either of these two men? Got to know them?
What did you form your opinions on? I can usually assess someone on
one meeting (a first impression). It was part of my job to be able to
do that.
> I think it is far more is telling to see how they respond to
>questions. Such as the one put to Stock a few days ago. He was asked if he
>ever lowered gasoline taxes while Alberta's treasurer. He said couldn't
>remember whether he did or not.
He did not say that. But anyway, can you remember everything you have
done on your job? I can't. And I have been told by staff that they
wouldn't challenge my memory. What he did say is that after he became
Alberta's Treasurer he 'lowered several taxes and done away with some
user fee's. Hansard would/could bear that out.
> The fact is that he was a member of the
>government that introduced a fuel tax and he never did take action to lower
>it. If this is the kind of "values" you have confidence in, go for it.Frank!
You're part right, but then again only partly. The part he defended wa
the Chretein accusation that he increased the gasoline tax by 9 cents
while treasurer which was false. He was part of the government, but as
he said, as "a junior member I did not vote against my party as I was
told to do that, much like a case is this House". A reference to
Nunziata. I don't have to defend 'what' he did in Alberta, he is on
the bigger scene now and the way Chretein is continually attacking
him, it appears he (Chretein) is running scared. That is usually a
tell-tale sign.
>Bruce Freeman
FP