Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (120)	11/2/2000 1:13:55 PM
From: canuck-l-head	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37128

Marcos: I agree that the state should not dictate control over a woman's body, but we already have a state that controls us. The Young Offenders Act was an attempt to give rights to offenders that they didn't deserve. The state, in its wisdom, has sanctioned the right of the offender over the right of the majority to protect itself and expect restitution. Why do you think there are victims rights groups springing up all over the country? Because the state figured it knew better, changed the laws, and now we have chaos. I believe I already know your take on the gun issue, but the state wants to implement controls over guns that law-abiding people have. Australia is a case-in-point. The incidents of home invasions and violent crimes with firearms has actually INCREASED since the state asked the taxpayers to voluntarily hand in their guns for destruction. Why? Because the criminal element knows that the law-abiding citizens have nothing to protect themselves with. Implementing controls on law-abiding people will not decrease the incidence of violence with guns. And the state says that putting controls on guns will reduce the incidence of gun-related crimes and suicide with guns? How come Mark Lepine was able to murder all those women in Quebec with a registered firearm? Did the "process" identify him as a possible wacko? No, and the "process" won't help identify ANYONE as a wacko any more than neighbours of Colin Thatcher knew he was likely to murder his wife. You want the state to stay out of your life as much as possible, but you jump to the conclusion that the Alliance Party will be more intrusive than the Liberals? I don't follow your reasoning. We have a state that has guidelines within which its Revenue Canada employees are supposed to respect the rights of the taxpayers. Unfortunately, the rights of taxpayers have never been passed into law. The reality is that if you are behind on your taxes, they DO have the right to clean out your bank account, the bank account of your spouse, the bank account of your kid, and any relatives they want. They CAN and DO. I am self-employed. I pay my taxes as I can, and expect to have my 1999 taxes paid up by Christmas. What does Revenue Canada tell me when they phone to remind me that I still have taxes outstanding? They don't say please, they don't ask when my next payment is coming, they start out with THE RANT: "We have the right and means to pursue legal action, which may involve seizing assets and your bank accounts." We have a state which demands that your taxes be paid on time, but which doesn't mind telling Canadians every second year, "Gee, we are behind in our paperwork, and the refunds are going to be delayed up to three months." What right do Canadians have to demand the same from the state that the state demands from them? When do we have the right and means to seize the bank account of the state when the state owes us money? What I am trying to point out is that REALITY is almost always very different than the IDEAL. Idealists and Liberals think they know how to fix all the social evils that plague us. Unfortunately, their good intentions are blatant social engineering. Lloyd Axworthy admitted that he wanted to socially re-engineer Canadian society. That, my friend, is far more disconcerting to me than a man who says he is a Christian, and actually practices what he preaches: he takes one day off for his family. If Religion is a crime, then maybe Trudeau should have outlawed it in the Constitution. However, the Constitution and Charter guarantee freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. How come Liberals would rather an athiest lead the country than one who believes in Christian principles? Trudeau, I might add, was technically not a Catholic because he broke the Catholic Law that says you shall not foster or encourage abortion. It was Trudeau who said abortion was okay. But in our twisted haste to crown the late Trudeau with some kind of holy status that he didn't deserve, we let his funeral service go ahead in the most holy of Catholic ways. That shows how much people respect religion anyway. canuck-l-head