Canadian Content - Politics

Canadian Content - Politics http://forums.canadiancontent.net en Mon, 07 Jul 2008 04:36:12 GMT vBulletin 60 http://forums.canadiancontent.net/images/styles/cancon/misc/rss.jpg Canadian Content - Politics http://forums.canadiancontent.net French military is falling apart, documents show http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75256 Sun, 06 Jul 2008 18:37:21 GMT New documents show that France's military is falling apart, with MOST of its tanks, helicopters and jet fighters unusable.

France is the world's third-biggest defence spender after the United States and Britain though, unlike the US and Britain, spnding on the police force is included as part of France's defence spending.

Whereas Britain spends cash on buying - or building - some of the world's most hi-tech weaponry, such as the RAF Typhoon, the RAF Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the British Army Apache Helicopter, robots to search for bombs in buildings and the new Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for the RAF, the French military, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be acquiring the best equipment.

French army falling apart, documents show

By Henry Samuel in Paris
06/06/2008
The Telegraph

Most of France's tanks, helicopters and jet fighters are unusable and its defence apparatus is on the verge of "falling apart", it has emerged.

France's military has been given a bleak prognosis

According to confidential defence documents leaked to the French press, less than half of France's Leclerc tanks – 142 out of 346 – are operational and even these regularly break down.

Less than half of its Puma helicopters, 37 per cent of its Lynx choppers and 33 per cent of its Super Frelon models – built 40 years ago – are in a fit state to fly, according to documents seen by Le Parisien newspaper.

Two thirds of France's Mirage F1 reconnaissance jets are unusable at present.

When it comes to military technology, France is far behind Britain, as this new helmet for the RAF's Joint Strike Fighter aircraft shows

According to army officials, the precarious state of France's defence equipment almost led to catastrophe in April, when French special forces rescued the passengers and crew of a luxury yacht held by pirates off the Somali coast.

Although ultimately a success, the rescue operation nearly foundered at an early stage, when two of the frigates carrying troops suffered engine failure, and a launch laden with special forces' equipment sunk under its weight.

Later, an Atlantic 2 jet tracking the pirates above Somali territory suffered engine failure and had to make an emergency landing in Yemen.

"External operations, in the Ivory Coast and Lebanon are a fig leaf: we are able to keep up the pretence but in ten years our defence apparatus will fall apart," one high-ranking official said.

The disclosure comes just ten days before President Nicolas Sarkozy announces a major reform of the armed forces, with a defence white paper outlining France's military priorities for the next 15 years.

He is expected to argue that the situation can only improve by reducing the number of France's operational troops from 50,000 to 30,000, and its fighter aircraft, as well as closing military bases.

He will also use the occasion to push for greater military integration in Europe, an issue that France will highlight when it takes over the EU's six-month rotating presidency in July.

French proposals circulating in Brussels show that France wants a new EU military headquarters based in the Belgian capital and run by Europe's new foreign policy chief. It is also calling for a bigger rapid reaction force and for countries to spend more on defence.
France has played down its European defence ambitions for fear of boosting the No vote in Ireland's referendum on the Lisbon treaty on June 12.

In parallel to beefing up the EU's defence capability, Mr Sarkozy is keen on France becoming a full member of Nato's integrated military command structure, which Charles de Gaulle left in 1966. But he is unlikely to make a decision on this until next year.

WORLD'S BIGGEST DEFENCE SPENDERS 2007/08 (US dollars)

1) United States: 583,283,000,000
2) Britain: 79,872,000,000
3) France: 74,690,470,000 (including the police force)
4) China: 59,000,000,000
5) Japan: 48,860,000,000
6) Germany: 45,930,000,000
7) Russia: 41,050,000,000
8 ) Italy: 40,060,000,000
9) Saudi Arabia: 31,050,000,000
10) South Korea: 28,940,000,000

telegraph.co.uk ]]> International Politics Blackleaf http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75256 <![CDATA[Ambiguous Albion: Gordon Brown's foreign policy is timid and unclear]]> http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75254 Sun, 06 Jul 2008 18:12:38 GMT British Prime Minister Gordon Brown may be more inactive on the world stage than his predecessor Tony Blair (being the former Chancellor of the... British Prime Minister Gordon Brown may be more inactive on the world stage than his predecessor Tony Blair (being the former Chancellor of the Exchequer he seems interest only in the economic side of foreign policy), but this isn't necessarily a bad thing....

Britain and the world

Ambiguous Albion

Jun 26th 2008
From The Economist print edition

Gordon Brown’s foreign policy is timid and unclear

Bridgeman Art Library

SO MUCH that has transpired during Gordon Brown’s first year as prime minister has been unexpected. A politician renowned for strategic cunning has erred repeatedly (most famously over whether to call a snap election last autumn) and now languishes in the polls; an intellectual with an eye for the big picture still lacks a theme for his government, or even a signature reform. Less surprising, perhaps, is that foreign policy has not played the vaulting role in his premiership that it did under Tony Blair, his predecessor, whose time on the world stage included five wars, the pronouncement of a radical doctrine of humanitarian intervention and a mission to put Britain at the heart of the European Union (EU).

Compared with such a record, Mr Brown’s foreign policy has shown a circumspection—five months elapsed before he made his first major speech on the topic, and he has few diplomatic initiatives to his name—that cannot adequately be explained by domestic distractions. True, a spluttering economy has grabbed his attention, made voters less indulgent of the jet-setting beloved of Mr Blair and diminished the soft power that Britain enjoyed when it was seen as a country that had mastered globalisation. But economic woes across the Channel have not stopped Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, rebuilding his country’s relationship with America (though he had more need to do so, given the unpopularity of the previous president, Jacques Chirac, in Washington) and propounding bold ideas for Europe.

Despite being hugely unpopular at home, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is very popular abroad

One explanation is that, after a decade as finance minister, Mr Brown has developed a taste for only the economic dimension of foreign policy. He has a zeal for international development (Foreign Office types complain of the aid budget growing while embassies are closed to save cash), wants reform of the Bretton Woods institutions and believes that trade can discourage conflict—as chancellor of the exchequer he once dispatched Ed Balls, now a member of the cabinet, to investigate the economic obstacles to peace in the Middle East. It is telling that Mr Brown was the only foreign head of government at a big energy conference in Jeddah on June 22nd.

Another theory is that, whereas Mr Blair felt liberated from public opinion in foreign affairs, Mr Brown’s conduct abroad is no less guided by political calculation than his domestic policy. As a result, vision gives way to cautious ambiguity. His equivocation over signing the EU treaty last autumn is a case in point; his habit of blowing hot and cold in relations with America (he was coolly correct with President Bush last summer but has warmed up since) is another. Robin Niblett, the director of Chatham House, a research institute, draws the contrast with Mr Sarkozy and Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, both of whom “made the call that improving relations with America was in their national interest, even though it would be controversial at home”.

Of course, Germany and France had ground to make up that Britain did not, and the prime minister can mount a decent defence to all this. For one thing, his desire (outlined in a speech in Boston in April) to bind rising powers such as Russia and China into a rules-based world does constitute a foreign-policy vision of sorts. For another, even if Britain is less visible internationally than under Mr Blair, it is too early to say whether its influence has suffered for it. Hyperactivity on the world stage is hazardous: the Iraq war that Mr Blair led Britain into is now regarded by most Britons as a mistake, and Mr Sarkozy’s pushiness has alienated Germany.

Seen in this light, Mr Brown’s caution has been well judged. A global poll for Newsweek, an American magazine, released on June 16th suggested that Mr Brown is one of the more popular world leaders—outside his own country, at least. And, though Atlanticists and Europhiles loudly urge him in opposite directions, this is the narcissism of small differences: no prime minister will ever be less than engaged with both America and Europe.

Unlike Mr Blair, who essentially ran foreign policy himself, Mr Brown delegates. David Miliband, his foreign secretary, has made high-minded noises on spreading democracy, as well as showing a tough streak on challenges such as Russia and Iran. “He is the first foreign secretary since Robin Cook [who served in Mr Blair’s first term] to have a vision,” says Mark Leonard of the European Council on Foreign Relations, a think-tank.

But Mr Brown cannot draw on vast reserves of foreign-policy thinking in his Labour Party.

Blairite outriders and left-wingers are united in their focus on public services. The old Labour right, whose no-nonsense take on national security was embodied by George Robertson, a former NATO secretary-general, is largely extinct. Whereas the Conservative Party harbours a cacophony of voices on foreign policy, ranging from youthful neocons to grizzled realists, Labour has only a few mumbles.

Yet Mr Brown’s lack of sharp elbows on the world stage still perturbs many. America and China can rely on their vast armies and economies to secure them a hearing; the influence of medium-sized powers such as Britain depends greatly on the guile and boldness of their leaders. Mr Niblett points to “missed opportunities” for Mr Brown to take a lead, such as on the future of the EU’s defence capability. Others worry that Britain cannot afford to wait for the inauguration of a new American president to reassert itself as Washington’s closest ally, given assiduous competition from France and Germany. Mr Brown, with Mr Sarkozy, was instrumental in setting up a United Nations peacekeeping force in Darfur. But he is generally more ambiguous on humanitarian intervention than his predecessor, though conflict in Zimbabwe may yet force him to take a stand.

In all these areas, Mr Brown’s constant hedging may be more in line with recent British tradition than Mr Blair’s sometimes reckless certainty. Only the prime minister’s worst enemies would claim that he has been an outright failure in foreign affairs; but not even his cheerleaders (a rapidly diminishing group) would suggest that he has distinguished himself either.

economist.org ]]> International Politics Blackleaf http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75254 <![CDATA["Put Mugabe under greater pressure," Britain tells the UN]]> http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75252 Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:51:43 GMT Britain's Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, has said that Britain will continue to urge the UN to put further pressure on tyrant Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe.

Meanwhile, the Zimbabwe Cricket Team has pulled out of next year's Twenty20 World Cup, which is being held in England.

"The demons in the British Government need to be exorcised," says the Zimbabwean president who rigs elections, tortures his own people and condemns millions to poverty and starvation

'Put Mugabe under pressure'

By VINCE SOODIN
03 Jul 2008
The Sun

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband

BRITAIN is hoping the UN will put further pressure on Robert Mugabe next week to end the violence and “political limbo” in Zimbabwe.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband told the Commons there must be targeted sanctions “punishing” those within or associated with the Mugabe regime.

“We will continue to push for a UN Security Council resolution calling for further sanctions including an arms embargo, a travel ban, an asset-freeze on key regime figures.

“A draft is now circulating. I can confirm it is a strong and clear draft resolution and very much hope there will be a vote early next week on it.”

In a short topical debate on the situation in Zimbabwe, Mr Miliband said EU foreign ministers later this month would decide how to “widen and deepen” existing EU targeted measures, including an extension to the asset-freeze.

Limbo

The England Cricket Board had also been asked to request that the International Cricket Council annuls Zimbabwe’s inclusion in the 20/20 World Cup due to be held here next year.

Mr Miliband said Mugabe had brought Zimbabwe “to its knees,” adding: “Politically it is in limbo.

“In his determination to cling to power, Mugabe has turned on his own people.”

The economic prospects were “bleak,” last weekend’s election a “sham” and the G8 had expressed its “disgust”.

Britain’s goal was simple “to ensure the Government of Zimbabwe reflects the will of the people of Zimbabwe.”

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague said the Government was right to seek a strong resolution from the UN Security Council and called for Mugabe to be referred to the International Criminal Court.

RE-ELECTED ... president Robert Mugabe

************************************************** ***************************
Zimbabwe pull out of cricket's World T20 Cup

04 Jul 2008
The Sun

The Zimbabwe cricket team has withdrawn from next year's Twenty20 World Cup in England

ZIMBABWE have withdrawn from next year's World Twenty20 tournament in England.

The International Cricket Council have been discussing the future of the country's cricket team at a board meeting in Dubai.

England and South Africa have already broken off cricketing relations with Zimbabwe over the election process that saw Robert Mugabe re-elected as president.

The future of the tournament was likely to be thrown into doubt had the country retained their intention to compete.

But this deal represents the best compromise with the event still going ahead while Zimbabwe lose none of their financial backing as a full member of the ICC.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown welcomed the announcement, saying: "This will allow the Twenty20 tournament in England to go ahead.

“It also sends a powerful message to Zimbabwe that the Government must change or face further isolation.”

An ICC statement said: "The Zimbabwe delegation to ICC Annual Conference week is aware of the decision of the British government not to allow its bilateral series in England in 2009 to go ahead.

"Zimbabwe Cricket has also taken note that the British government is likely to refuse to grant visas for the Zimbabwe cricket team to take part in the ICC World Twenty20 2009.

"Therefore, the Zimbabwe delegation has decided to recommend to its board that the team should withdraw from that event.

"The delegation has undertaken to report back on the decision of its board to the ICC within one month.

"The delegation will report to its board that it will not suffer financially as a result of its non-participation in the ICC World Twenty20 2009.

"The Zimbabwe delegation has agreed to take this decision in the greater interest of world cricket and the ICC.

"This recommendation should be viewed as a one-off and will not be taken as a precedent."

CURRENT CRICKET WORLD RANKINGS (TEST MATCHES ONLY)

1) Australia 141
2) India 111
3) England 110
4) South Africa 109
5) Sri Lanka 106
6) Pakistan 94
7) New Zealand 88
8 )West Indies 77
9) Bangladesh 1
Zimbabwe NOW BANNED FROM RANKINGS
thesun.co.uk ]]> International Politics Blackleaf http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75252 Our Queen is better value than a republican nonentity http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75250 Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:00:48 GMT Image: http://images.dailyexpress.co.uk/img/columnists/banner/274.gif The author, Frederick Forsyth, explains in his Daily Express column why the...

The author, Frederick Forsyth, explains in his Daily Express column why the constitutional monarchy is the best form of governance in the world today.....

By author Frederick Forsyth
5th Jully 2008
The Daily Express

Our Queen is better value than a republican nonentity

Would you rather have a constitutional monarch.....

...... or a president?

As usual when two words are mentioned together, half the media go into a slightly demented Robespierre mode.

Those words are "Queen" and "money."

I don't mind someone being called a republican but I do object to people calling themselves journalists sinking into grotesque distortion. So just a few points.

The palaces are NOT the Queen's. They belong to the State and thus the people and therefore us. If we had a president he would almost certainly live in something like Buckingham Palace (just as the US President lives in the White House, a palace in all but name), which would still have to be maintained by the taxpayer.

Buckingham Palace belongs to the people, NOT the Queen......

........ and it's not just monarchs who live in grand houses - presidents do, too

Two, since 1760 we, the people, have cut an annual deal with the monarch; we vote the crowned head a Civil List (an annual allowance) and the monarch passes over to the people the income from the Crown Estates. Last year, the monarchy cost £40 million; the Crown Estates made us £200 million. We made a PROFIT of £160 million out of the monarchy.

Third, the monarchy cost every Briton 66p. The Italian presidency costs each Italian almost double at £1.24. We get the most famous woman in the world. All together now - who is Italy's president?

I'm afraid it's either a dignified, dutiful constitutional monarch (Elizabeth II); an executive president two-thirds of the electorate can't stand (take your pick); or a charming entity called Giorgia Napolitano. No, he's not an ice cream, he's the Italian prez.

We Brits do pretty well. you know.

express.co.uk ]]> International Politics Blackleaf http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75250 Bush and the Olympic Games http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75244 Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:34:56 GMT Pres. Bush is in Japan today, and his first order of business was to defend his intention to attend the Olympic Opening Ceremonies in Beijing, China.... Pres. Bush is in Japan today, and his first order of business was to defend his intention to attend the Olympic Opening Ceremonies in Beijing, China.

Quote:

“I view the Olympics as an opportunity for me to cheer on our athletes,” Mr. Bush said, at a press conference in nearby Toyako, after the two leaders met privately. He said not going to the opening ceremony “would be an affront to the Chinese people” that might make it “more difficult to be able to speak frankly with the Chinese leadership.”

For that attitude I applaud Mr. Bush, even give him a standing ovation, plus 10 greenies!!!:lol:

Quote:

Mr. Fukuda, PM of Japan, seemed to adopt the president’s reasoning. “Olympics are sports events,” the prime minister said, adding, “I don’t think you have to really link Olympics with politics.”

Bravo, Mr. Fukuda!!!
Other world leaders, including Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain, are skipping the opening ceremonies, and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France has indicated he may stay home as well.
I boo Angela Merkel!! She attended the recent soccer games, why not support the German Olympics team? She might still change her mind, seeing her idol, Mr. Bush, will attend.

By the way, today is Mr. Bush's 62nd birthday!!!

Oops, that was the wrong photo!!8O Let me try again....

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MISTER PRESIDENT!!! Enjoy the cake!:smile:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/world/asia/07prexy.html?ref=worl

Anyway, there's lots more than birthday and Olympics. Read the above link. ]]> US-American Politics dancing-loon http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75244 <![CDATA[Canada bought Saddam's Uranium!]]> http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75220 Sat, 05 Jul 2008 19:58:16 GMT Canada gets Saddam's uranium

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The deal culminated more than a year of intense diplomatic and military initiatives — kept hushed in fear of ambushes or attacks once the convoys were under way: first carrying 3,500 barrels by road to Baghdad, then on 37 military flights to the Indian Ocean atoll of Diego Garcia and finally aboard a U.S.-flagged ship for a 13,500-kilometre trip to Montreal.

The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth “tens of millions of dollars.” A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, declined to discuss the price, but said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors.
“We are pleased ... that we have taken (the yellowcake) from a volatile region into a stable area to produce clean electricity,” he said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...rnational/home
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, who would have thought!! If any of this is true, then I wonder why the US didn't just take the stuff? After all, they spent trillions on the war to keep America safe.... they are entitled to some reward.

Edit @ 8:52pm
The original article got re-written ... same link, though:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...rnational/home

Canada is the new home to a massive stockpile of concentrated natural uranium from Iraq, the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program.
The 550 tonnes of “yellowcake,” the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment, was sold to Canadian uranium producer Cameco Corp. in a transaction the official described as worth “tens of millions of dollars.”
A ship carrying the cargo arrived Saturday in Montreal and Cameco spokesman Lyle Krahn said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors.
“We are pleased ... that we have taken [the yellowcake] from a volatile region into a stable area to produce clean electricity,” he said.

However, there was no confirmation from the Port of Montreal.
Robert Desjardins, co-ordinator of the port, said “we don't have any information” on such a shipment arriving there.
He said no ships under American flags were listed as being in the port Saturday, or as being expected.
---
But it also raises serious security concerns, an environmental activist said Saturday.
“Cameco has made it clear that this uranium will simply be integrated into their commercial processing stream at its refinery in Port Hope and I assume that this uranium still needs to be shipped from Montreal to Port Hope – if it hasn't already been sent, not clear whether that's going by land or by sea, could be either, or by air,” said Dave Martin, the energy co-ordinator for Greenpeace Canada.
“I think Cameco and the Canadian government owe the Canadian public some disclosure on that front.”
etc.
--------------------------------------------------------
Confusing information. It arrived in Montreal today, but no, it didn't!

I agree with Greenpeace... some explaining is due! ]]> Canadian Politics dancing-loon http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75220 Conservative Canada our future http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75215 Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:36:35 GMT The Conservatives want to rule the world and they are doing this by studying the American domination of the world. The Republicans spend most of... The Conservatives want to rule the world and they are doing this by studying the American domination of the world.

The Republicans spend most of their tax dollars on the American war machine and if Canada wants to play with the big boys they have to do the same.

The Conservatives have to get rid of healthcare and welfare and let the people fend for themselves just like in America.

All that healthcare and welfare money can provide a better Canadian war machine that will be an envy of any country.

There will be lots of job opportunities in the Canadian military with the expansion plans.

The Conservatives will have to bring in a bill or law that will take away rights of the Canadian people just like in America like The Patriot Act.

The Conservatives have support from the Liberals who is helping pass all their bills into laws because they refuse to vote because they are afraid of an election.

The Conservative party is the best choice for Canada at this time and they will be the only choice when they finally change the Election Act. ]]> Canadian Politics Buzmeg http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75215 Does this surprise you about Iran? http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75169 Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:54:59 GMT Iran is considered the most liberal muslim country in regards to assisted human reproduction. * There are approximately 50 IVF clinics in Iran. ... Iran is considered the most liberal muslim country in regards to assisted human reproduction.

* There are approximately 50 IVF clinics in Iran.

* In 2003 the Iranian Parliament ratified the Embryo Donation to Infertile Spouses Act, allowing married couples to donate embryos to infertile couples.

* The Supreme leaders (religious) approve of IVF based on writings in the Qu'ran.

I find it interesting that Islam supports IVF and Christianity (or at least the Catholic Church) doesn't. ]]> International Politics Kreskin http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75169 Preparing the Battlefield http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75155 Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:46:47 GMT Please read this article posted by the New Yorker magazine. It is scheduled to be on newsstands this Monday, July 7th. If you do anything,... Please read this article posted by the New Yorker magazine.

It is scheduled to be on newsstands this Monday, July 7th.

If you do anything, please read this entire article and come to your own conclusions.

The future does not look good for American people.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all ]]> US-American Politics quandary121 http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75155 Iraqi Oil attractive to America http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75139 Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:30:43 GMT * Panel Questions State Dept. Role in Iraq Oil Deal* Bush administration officials knew that a Texas oil company with close ties to President Bush... Panel Questions State Dept. Role in Iraq Oil Deal

Bush administration officials knew that a Texas oil company with close ties to President Bush was planning to sign an oil deal with the regional Kurdistan government that ran counter to American policy and undercut Iraq’s central government, a Congressional committee has concluded.
........
The company, Hunt Oil of Dallas, signed the deal with Kurdistan’s semiautonomous government last September. Its chief executive, Ray L. Hunt, a close political ally of President Bush, briefed an advisory board to Mr. Bush on his contacts with Kurdish officials before the deal was signed.

The release of the documents comes as the administration is defending help that United States officials provided in drawing up a separate set of no-bid contracts, still pending, between Iraq’s Oil Ministry in Baghdad and five major Western oil companies to provide services at other Iraqi oil fields.

In the no-bid contracts, the administration said it had provided what it called purely technical help writing the contracts. The United States played no role in choosing the companies, the administration has said.

Disclosure of those contracts has provided substantial fuel to critics of the Iraq war, both in the United States and abroad, who contend that the enormous Iraqi oil reserves were a motivation for the American-led invasion — an assertion the administration has repeatedly denied.

Please, read the full article to see how a web of lies and contradictions tries to hide the truth: America is there for the oil, and a Bush buddy gets first dip!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/wo...hp&oref=slogin ]]> US-American Politics dancing-loon http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75139 Happy Fourth of July!!! http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75129 Thu, 03 Jul 2008 01:56:23 GMT Image: http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_14_9.gif Image: http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_14_7.gif Image:...

Happy Birthday USA!!! ]]> US-American Politics gopher http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75129 Canadian Workers Demand Immediate End to War in Afghanistan http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75125 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:08:49 GMT On 29 May 2008, the delegates at the national convention of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), representing more than three million workers from... On 29 May 2008, the delegates at the national convention of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), representing more than three million workers from every region of Canada and Quebec, voted overwhelmingly to demand that the Government of Canada immediately end its participation in the illegal war in Afghanistan.
This CLC demand represents a significant consolidation of labour power. Several national unions, notably the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) had already adopted policies to oppose Canada's participation in the war in Afghanistan. However, some powerful unions whose members work in the rapidly expanding Canadian military and development industries could profit from continuing the war. The women and men of these unions made the difficult decision to stand in solidarity with the working people of Afghanistan rather than act on self-interest. ]]> Canadian Politics quandary121 http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75125 Big Brother Canada: Real ID to be adopted in Canadian provinces http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75123 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:04:18 GMT

Quote:

The REAL ID practice is coming to birth in various Canadian provinces as a result of federal and provincial commitments to "North American integration" under the 2001 Smart Border Declaration and the 2005 Security and Prosperty Partnership Agreement. The new liberty stripping identification is being slipped into Canadian drivers' licenses incrementally in various provinces without a peep of dissent from media or any provincial or federal opposition parties.
The best the NDP and the Greens have mustered to date in opposition to the integration of North America is to work for renegotiation on NAFTA ( a uselss and deceptive action). They are totally silent on the police state apparatus coming into effect (of which biometric identifiers in drivers' licenses is one part).
They are silent on the attack on Canadian liberty by our antiterrorist act, and they refuse to acknowledge the deliberate stifling of dissent by that act,and they refuse to expose the real role of the September 11, 2001 explosions in three New York buildings one of which was never hit by a plane as being the justification for the deliberate ultimate elimination of free citizenry under a police state apparatus.
At least in the USA there are some elected forces who can read and who understand the writing on the wall, and who still have the jam to defend their people.

Ive spoken about the biometric identifiers before in other threads of mine, i was called a nut job now that this is happening in Canada will you now sit up and take notice ,or are some of you going to put this down as another conspiracy case.lets see ]]> Canadian Politics quandary121 http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75123 Africa: Is there no cure? http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75117 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:49:13 GMT Zimbabwe is already destitute, now a new crisis looms over Somalia: Fears of another Somalia famine rise ---Quote--- At a dusty, windblown... Zimbabwe is already destitute, now a new crisis looms over Somalia:

Fears of another Somalia famine rise

Quote:

At a dusty, windblown emergency feeding centre in Somalia just three kilometres from the Ethiopian border, one-year-old Abdiqadir is being weighed by medics. Skin and bones, he weighs just nine pounds, less than many newborn babies in more fortunate countries than this one.

I can't imagine how this child can still be alive! The body is a miracle machine!

Quote:

Destitute, his mother, 30-year-old Miriam Tawil, walked for two days with her four young children to the emergency centre in the town of El Barde. They made the journey without food or water.

I wish I could pack my knapsack and walk over there and bring them the contents of my pantry shelves!
Last night we Canadians blew a little fortune into the air, celebrating Canada Day. Couldn't we for once skip such a frivolity and instead have a food drive for the poor on this earth?

Read the full article here:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/0...-mcguffin.html ]]> International Politics dancing-loon http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75117 Nelson Mandela - no longer terrorist suspect http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75101 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:51:05 GMT http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7484517.stm ---Quote--- Tuesday, 1 July 2008: US President George W Bush has signed a bill removing Nelson... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7484517.stm

Quote:

Tuesday, 1 July 2008:
US President George W Bush has signed a bill removing Nelson Mandela and South African leaders from the US terror watch list, officials say.

So Nelson Mandela no longer risks Guantanamo after being released from Robben Island.

Fine present to his 90th birthday. But what says it about the donator, the US administration?

Mai Tubie (chimbwidzz) wrote:

Quote:

You misunderstood. There got included only ANC members.
Not your Mugabe and other thugs of the ZANU gang, who active struggle to belong to such terror list (struggle heros). http://newzim.proboards86.com/index....&thread=145073 ]]> International Politics data http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75101 Canadas 1st mistake http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75088 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:03:12 GMT CANADA'S FIRST MISTAKE
One hundred and forty one years ago today, July 1st, 1867, Canada DID NOT declare its independence from Great Britain, but rather officially became a member of the Commonwealth.
Posted Jul 1, 2008 09:11 AM PST
Category: CURRENT EVENTS
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/200...first-mistake/ ]]> Canadian Politics Stretch http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75088 <![CDATA[I've lost interest in politics.....have you?]]> http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75086 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:39:31 GMT 'Nuff said....I've lost the urge to spew out superlatives against the most villainous politicians there are on the planet in a day and age where the government's conscientiousness has all but zipped down to zero.

Now it's like people have to take up arms to help the rest of those left behind through private volunteer organisations, NGOs, philanthropists, foundations and yes, Oprah!

WTF are politicians doing?

We're experiencing a future of higher costs due to power players and having to work harder and earn more so that we all become dead droids by the time we come home which is probably why we aren't able to think or be even bothered about Minister X's account logs.

I've really lost interest in political analysis. All it is is a total waste of energy where we get to ding-dong all day about an individual who probably is only in it for the power and not to make a real change. ]]> International Politics jellyfarm http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75086 The Truth About Fema http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75066 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:57:19 GMT http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-yFamOK-Lk The Threat of Slavery in 2008 (FEMA Death Camps) ... http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-yFamOK-Lk

The Threat of Slavery in 2008 (FEMA Death Camps)

Confession of a CIA Agent about FEMA - Important !!!!!!!

Fema's Coffins for the American People !!!

Do you really know whats going on or are you still unaware of the things around you and whats next ]]> US-American Politics quandary121 http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75066 Will Canada Last http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75065 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:20:29 GMT Will Canada Last? Not if we surrender our energy lifeblood to the US. By Murray Dobbin Global Research (http://www.globalresearch.ca/), June... Will Canada Last? Not if we surrender our energy lifeblood to the US.

By Murray Dobbin

Global Research, June 30, 2008
thetyee.ca

Harper: the big sellout?

What will it take persuade Canadians that if they do not act soon to reverse the course of their nation, there will be nothing left to save? I am talking, of course, about so-called "deep integration" and its official expression, the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).
The SPP, moving inexorably on many fronts, is nothing less than a blueprint for the gradual dismantling of one of the most successful nations of the twentieth century, and its piecemeal distribution to the decaying empire to the south. Yet there seems to be, even amongst those who have heard of it and believe it is a threat, a surreal acceptance of it. It's like a meteor hurtling towards us: there's nothing we can do so we might as well go shopping while we can.
What this country needs is a little outrage -- stirred by something from the package of outrages, treasonous policies and breathtaking giveaways of our country that make up the plan to append Canada to the U.S. What will it be? The militarization of the country and an industrial policy of selling arms to the world? A foreign policy determined almost exclusively by the interests of big business, from peddling asbestos, to opposing bio-diversity, to forcing Europeans to accept GMO food? The mimicking of a paranoid United States and the adoption of its crusade against the Muslim world?
Each worthy of a good dollop of outrage. But some believe that unless you get to people where it actually has an impact on their daily lives, sustained outrage of the kind that influences elections, is too much to expect. I have never been convinced by this theory but accepting it for the sake of argument, perhaps the sell-out of our energy to the U.S. under NAFTA's energy provisions would fill the bill.
Betrayed from above
No other policy, either standing alone or as part of a larger scheme, demonstrates the extent to which the economic and political elite of this country has betrayed us. Even in the age of corporate globalization in which the transnational corporation has become the dominant institution of our time, there is simply no other example of such duplicitous behaviour on the part of a national leadership. No other country in the world has or would consider voluntarily signing a treaty that guaranteed the other party an ever-increasing proportion of its energy resource.
The perverse beauty of what is tediously called the "proportionality clause" of NAFTA is that it’s virtually guaranteed to get worse. It would have been bad enough if we had agreed to sell half of our energy production to the U.S. But the NAFTA deal says we cannot ever decrease the actual proportion of gas and oil we sell to the U.S. So, each time the proportion of our oil and gas exports to the U.S. increases (virtually every year), we are presented with the new floor. And we no longer even maintain a strategic reserve -- a 20-year supply that is ensured before any oil is exported.

There is no limit to this madness. Right now we export two thirds of our oil and 60 per cent of our gas to the U.S. Under NAFTA this means we can never reduce that proportion, even if our actual production dropped by half and we began freezing in the dark. In NAFTA there is no ceiling on what we can sell, just a floor. And each year that passes, the floor looks more like a ceiling. What makes it even worse, of course, is the new determination of the US to secure dependable supplies of oil and gas -- and that means Canadian supplies.
Harper's radicals
While the U.S. is preoccupied with its national interest and a secure energy supply, the federal government under both the Liberals and the Radicals (Harper's party is anything but conservative) trades our natural energy security for America's insecurity. We now import 49 percent of the oil we use, almost half of it from the same insecure sources from which the U.S. is trying to wean itself. Almost all of Eastern Canada is dependent on foreign oil.
The catastrophe of global climate change is upon us. Even if we started to seriously address it tomorrow it would take a generation to even begin to create a post-carbon economy. With secure supplies of oil and gas and careful government regulation of how quickly they are depleted, and who gets to purchase them, Canada's future as an environmentally and economically sustainable country would be virtually guaranteed. But our Quisling elites, for all the talk of being an energy super power and the need to be internationally competitive, has been eagerly selling off our energy heritage for twenty years while the rest of us whistle in the dark.
Time is running out
A recent study by the Parkland Institute of Alberta and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) examined the NAFTA proportionality provisions to see if there was any policy flexibility at all in this bizarre agreement. The conclusion of "Over a Barrel: Exiting from NAFTA's Proportionality Clause" is a resounding No.
The study looked at three policy areas that are increasingly critical to Canada's future: conservation and the environment, using natural gas increasingly for value-added industries and substituting Canadian oil for the foreign oil we now import. The co-authors, Gord Laxer and John Dillon, conclude that we can do none of these things without violating NAFTA and triggering American use of the proportionality clause. The only possible solution involves either the abrogation of NAFTA or the renegotiation of the energy provisions, with the aim of taking back control.
This stunning situation begs the question: At what point does a nation cease to be viable? While there is a legitimate debate about the role energy security plays in the answer, there is no debate about the role of the economic and political elite. In a market economy, once that elite has abandoned its commitment to the nation, it is just a matter of time. And time, like our oil and gas, is running out. ]]> Canadian Politics darkbeaver http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75065 <![CDATA[Northern premiers reject Dion's carbon tax plan]]> http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75063 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:32:26 GMT Image: http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20080619/160_dion_080619.jpg ...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...629?hub=Canada

Quote:

It appears that Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has a lot more work to do if he wants to convince Canadian leaders to back his carbon tax plan.

Northern premiers say they're not buying the Liberal proposal. They emerged from two days of meetings in Yellowknife giving the thumbs down to Dion's plan. Northwest Territories Premier Floyd Roland, Yukon Premier Dennis Fentie and Nunavut Premier Paul Okalik said it would not be fair to their residents.

"We'd rather focus on alternatives to get away from fossil fuels. But to add on a cost to very high fuel costs already is just not an option for homeowners in our territory," Okalik said.

"(In the North), there really are no alternatives for us in Nunavut to turn to, to get away from diesel generation for power and for heat,'' he said.

Dion unveiled his "Green Shift" plan earlier this month. It would put a $15.4 billion tax on carbon emissions. The Liberals say the increase in taxes would be offset by cuts in income and corporate taxes. They claim the tax will be revenue neutral and punish big polluters.

"We think there are better ways to deal with this issue than another tax being applied, especially in the North where the cost of goods and services is already predominantly higher than anywhere else in the country,'' Fentie said.

Critics have called the proposal a tax grab and say it won't help the fight against climate change. They say it will also raise the prices of goods related to energy.

Roland said the carbon tax may pass "on to the end user an additional cost of doing business.''

Critics have said they are not convinced the carbon tax will reduce emissions.

"In fact, it's not even possible to know how much greenhouse gas emission reduction would happen with (Dion's) plan," NDP Leader Jack Layton told CTV's Question Period.

"We need real, firm limits on pollution."

The NDP is about to introduce radio ads attacking the Liberal and Tory environmental plans. Layton said Canada needs to adopt a cap-and-trade system which would allow companies to buy emission credits if they go over an allowable limit -- or if they are below their allowance, they can sell the credits to other companies.

On Canada day, B.C. residents and businesses will begin paying a provincial carbon tax. It will add 2.4 cents to every litre of gas. Diesel and home heating fuel will also fall under the carbon tax.

It is a money grab and I'm glad that some premieres are seeing this, among many other problems that will arise from this scam. I'm all for looking for ways to reduce pollution, but this has no substance let alone any method of proving that it would actually work.

And as mentioned in a previous thread, they will grab more taxes overall on everybody in the country, then they would normally through income taxes. Not everybody files their taxes, not everybody gets money back on their taxes when they do.... and for people who are not citizens of the country, but living here and working here under visas or residency, those people do not file income taxes in the first place. So they would still be paying this carbon tax on the foods and products they eat everyday, on the fuel they use to heat their homes and power their cars....

and guess what? They're not going to see any of that money again.

Their so-called balanced approach isn't balanced at all and this is just another method of getting more income from the public then they originally would have.... during a time when everybody is already feeling the crunch on the cost of living. ]]> Canadian Politics Praxius http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75063 <![CDATA[A cup of Morning Joe for y'all]]> http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75059 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:47:59 GMT This is from my friend's web site, Joe Bageant who published the book, Deer Hunting with Jesus.
I've had the privilege to know this guy in our town here. He eventually wants to be an expat in Belize.

His web site attracts a lot of letters from his fans, and this is a letter from one of his readers.

As you know, a lot of people like to say, "Oh, I don't do politics." To me, thats like saying I dont do life.

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2008/0...ling.html#more

'Because killing people is what we do'

Hi Joe,
I want to share a chance encounter I had last weekend while visiting my brother in southern Ohio. My trips there invariably involve our stopping at various pubs in several surrounding communities. Late Saturday night we visited the pub whose owner my brother considers to be a good friend -- except for his politics. But the guy has a good heart. And he tells funny stories. And he is a good guitar player. He even supplied and “ran” the fireworks display at our parents’ 50th anniversary party a number of years ago. But this particular evening, I don'’t even remember how my brother and I “got started” with him regarding politics,– the military, the war, blah, blah.

It was an unusual night at that pub because just the three of us were there. Usually, it’'s crowded, the juke box is playing, and guys and gals are playing pool in a back room. A few people eventually wandered in. Our friend, tending bar that night because his “help” didn'’t show up, served them and came back to us to continue our debate that got louder and louder. Mainly because my brother and I had already had a few beers.

After a while, the gentleman sitting next to me (to whom we had not directed any conversation) got up, started walking out, and peered at us saying, "“If we don’t fight them there, we'’ll have to fight them here."” Same old. Same old. I didn’'t reply.

Back to the bartender. Next, the only other two people there, a young couple, walked by to leave the establishment. The bartender was probably figuring at that point that we might be driving business away, but he didn'’t stop arguing with us. The young man looked our way as he was leaving, saying something (I can’'t remember exactly what) about Iraq and his having been in Iraq four times. Although I knew better, I replied with some comment about the immorality of the invasion and occupation. His wife at that point angrily kept repeating the fact that her husband had been in Iraq four times.– I guess she expected that we should thank him for that, and when we didn'’t, she was upset. The couple ended up staying in the pub, and the four of us argued debated.

Now, a few days later, I remember only three things the vet said: The old, "“If you don'’t like it here, just leave."” And, "“I hope you die before I do."” I couldn'’t– and still can'’t figure that one out. If he would have just said "“I hope you die"” I would have “gotten it.” But why is it a good thing that I die before he does?

But, then he said incredible thing and this is really why I am writing this to you. My brother and I kept asking the bartender and the couple, "Why? Why? Why are we there? Why are we doing this?" And, of course, we chimed in oil, empire, Israel. And this is what he said:

“"BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT WE DO. THAT’S WHAT AMERICA DOES. WE KILL PEOPLE.”"
I know it’s a cliché to say it, but I almost fell off my bar seat. I told him another cliché, "“You hit the nail on the head. I agree with you completely.”" I didn'’t get the feeling he was mocking us. In fact, he seemed satisfied that he came up with a reason.

He then quizzed me about the number of deaths in Iraq, Vietnam and World War Two. At first I didn'’t understand where this was going, but his point was, "Hey, only 4,000 some Americans have been killed compared to 50,000 in Vietnam." And, of course, there was absolutely no mention of the Vietnamese or Iraqi dead.

I don'’t know why this exchange continues to haunt me. I never really “talk politics” in redneck country. I even hate that we use the word “politics” to describe the concept. As you know, a lot of people like to say, "“Oh, I don'’t do politics.”" To me, that’s like saying “I don’t do life.”

At any rate, that was days ago and I am still thinking about what he said. I'’m not even angry. I never got hateful with him or his wife. I never “attacked” him personally. Maybe this stays with me because I realize my alienation from most Americans (including and especially my "liberal" friends) and my culture has reached grotesque proportions. I had already lost all hope, which I think is rational so I don'’t know why this is staying with me. Do you believe it? THAT’S WHAT WE DO. AMERICA KILLS PEOPLE.

Thanks for listening. I wanted to go to Belize before I die, but now I figure I'’ll be lucky to make it to West Virginia. I need to find a cave near a stream. I love to read emails from your fans. One email from a fan of yours stays with me. This one I have saved:

“"As a weirdo and a life-long contrarian, I can say that it isn't easy to go against the herd, and the pay and hours suck. You lose much of your social interaction since you don't have much to talk about with other people once you stop believing in the collective mass-hypnosis."”

Best to you.
Paulette ]]> US-American Politics jimmoyer http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75059 Canadians prefer Obama over own leaders http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75058 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:17:09 GMT A new poll suggests Canadians would prefer to vote for Barack Obama rather cast a ballot for their own political leaders, while 45 per cent of... A new poll suggests Canadians would prefer to vote for Barack Obama rather cast a ballot for their own political leaders, while 45 per cent of Americans envy Canada's health care system.
The bi-national survey, conducted by the Strategic Counsel for CTV and The Globe and Mail, showed that here in Canada, Obama was more admired than Prime Minister Stephen Harper -- or any other national leader.
"Some would read (the results) as an indictment of our political leaders," the Strategic Counsel's Peter Donolo told CTV.ca. "Others would say it's an acknowledgement of the phenomenal nature of Obama's appeal. He really is a prototype of his own; he's broken the mold."
Stephane Dion trailed far behind the other leaders, just ahead of Republican presidential nominee John McCain:

Barack Obama: 26 per cent
Stephen Harper: 21 per cent
Hillary Clinton: 16 per cent
Jack Layton: 9 per cent
Gilles Duceppe: 6 per cent
Stephane Dion: 5 per cent
John McCain: 3 per cent

Obama appealed to people across Canada's political spectrum, with 24 per cent of conservative-minded voters choosing him and 28 per cent of liberal thinkers.
"I think there's a sense in Canada that we're in a rut with our political situation, and I think there's a fatigue with the nature of politics in Ottawa as we watch it through question period -- the very cranky, minority-government style politics. There's a little more envy than usual south of the border," said Donolo.
This recent poll by The Strategic Counsel surveyed 1,000 Canadians and 1,000 people in the United States.
When it came to health care, 45 per cent of Americans felt Canada had a superior system, while 42 per cent thought the United States should stick with its own.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of Canadians, 91 per cent, felt that Canada's health care system was better than the United States.
Canada tilts to the left
When Canadian respondents were asked how to define their political views, regardless of how they actually vote, slightly more than half described themselves as liberal:

Very liberal: 12 per cent
Liberal: 39 per cent
Conservative: 38 per cent
Very conservative: 3 per cent

Respondents in the United States were slanted in the other direction, and also had more people who considered themselves on the extreme right of the political spectrum:

Very conservative: 10 per cent
Conservative: 47 per cent
Liberal: 30 per cent
Very liberal: 7 per cent

"In general, I think on a lot of issues the United States are a more polarized society," said Donolo. "When you look at the number of how many hardcore conservatives there are in the U.S., it's a pretty significant number."
Gay marriage
The same poll also suggested Canadians are far more liberal than Americans, with 70 per cent supporting gay marriage.
When it came to gay marriage, 68 per cent of Canadians backed supported it, while 28 per cent were against it. In 2005, when the government was considering whether to repeal the gay marriage bill, 55 per cent were in favour of gay marriage.
"I think this points to the reality being a lot less threatening to people than the concept. As people have gotten used to the issue, there's been less anxiety over it," said Donolo.
Aside from being more politically right-of-centre, Americans also appear to be more religious.
Respondents in the United States went to religious services more frequently than Canadians:

Every week or almost every week: Canada 23 per cent, U.S. 46 per cent
Once a month: Canada 8 per cent, U.S. 11 per cent
A couple of times a year: Canada 27 per cent, U.S. 16 per cent
Never or hardly ever: Canada 42 per cent, U.S. 27 per cent

Technical notes

The poll was conducted between June 12-22 by The Strategic Counsel for CTV and The Globe and Mail.

The sample size was 1,000 people in each country. A proportionate random national sample has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories ]]> Canadian Politics I think not http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75058 Welfare Reform http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75028 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:46:43 GMT Toronto and most cities in North America is paying too much for welfare and is in need of a major review and overhaul. There are people on our... Toronto and most cities in North America is paying too much for welfare and is in need of a major review and overhaul.

There are people on our welfare roles that has been receiving hard earned tax dollars for years and will keep on getting that money for more years because this is their perceived career.

Welfare is a program to help the people who fall on hard times and is there as a temporary solution until they got back on their feet.

Lets face it, things happen in life that we have very little control over and we will need help until we can start over.

Years back when the American President Clinton was in office he came out with a simple welfare plan where a person could draw welfare in their lifetime of five years maximum.

That is sixty months of welfare and when you consider that the average crises lasts about six months before you get back on your feet and if this happens six time in your working career this equals 36 months and the person would have 24 months to spare.

When Mike Harris was premier years ago in Ontario he tried to bring in welfare reform but he tried by cutting back the welfare payments overnight to a ridiculously small amount and he said that people that were on welfare had to work a certain percentage of the time on municipal or provincial projects but he never followed through with that idea.

They tried the food stamp program but abandoned it because people complained that it was a psychological hardship for then when other people saw that they were on welfare.

Now welfare recipients get cheques so a certain percentage of them can buy their cigarettes and beer and wine and drugs and their movie channels on cable TV

With cheques you cannot follow the money to see where it is spent on.

With today’s technology welfare recipients can get a welfare debit card issued by the government so they can access their welfare account for the basic necessities like food and shelter.

People that have been on welfare that are able to work have to go to work for their welfare like government projects with time off so they can search for work and they have to provide a list of businesses that they went to so it can be verified.

If the cities and towns were to adopt the welfare debit card and working for welfare the welfare roles would dramatically decrease to the people that really need it. ]]> Canadian Politics Liberalman http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75028 Seniors Losing Mobile Homes in BC. Government at Fault?????? http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75027 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:21:35 GMT *Seniors losing mobile homes blame B.C. government* CBC - A group of seniors being evicted from their waterfront neighbourhood on Vancouver Island... Seniors losing mobile homes blame B.C. government
CBC - A group of seniors being evicted from their waterfront neighbourhood on Vancouver Island are imploring the B.C. government for help.
The mobile home park they live in has been sold and the seniors - some in their 70s and 80s - have been told to move their trailers out by next May.
"Inhumane is the term that I've used," said resident Joan Auld, 72. "It's inhumane to treat people like this."Auld and her husband, Terry, live at the Saltair Seaside Trailer Park near Ladysmith along with nine other residents. Last year, the property was purchased for $1.9 million by two businessmen who want to rebuild there.

Above is the caption from the internet.

I would like to know why the people believe that the government is at fault. The government did not make them pay rent in the mobile home park. Free enterprize did and when free enterprize sold the land the new owner can do what he wants with the land, as long as he complys with zoning laws.
Maybe what these people want is that the government take them from cradle to grave. The governement can do this but need some more money. Instead of paying a tax rate of 35% maybe it should be 70% of your earned income, to pay for these people that cannot think for themselves ]]> Canadian Politics justfred http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75027 <![CDATA["Obama Must Kiss My Ass" - Bill Clinton]]> http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75024 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 00:03:04 GMT That's one helluva soundbite:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...s-support.html

Will Barack pucker up? ]]> US-American Politics Kreskin http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=75024