I take it Dave doesn't read The Red Ensign Standard when it comes out? You should tell him to google that phrase and read some of what comes out.

Oh, and how do you like doing drywall, Ted?

The drywall is done except for finish mudding. Today I did the ceramic tiling in the shower.

Yay hats!

Baaaa

No, but seriously, I do vote for the opposition, but it's apparently never the populare opposition. Of course calling Canada's government corrupt coming from an American, that's a lot of the kettle calling the pot black brother. And I wasn't speaking just of our government but of all governments in general.

Besides, any corruption carried out by government officials is usually covered up so well during their time of office that no one ever knows about it. It has to be a seriously big stinker, like, say, outing a Secret Agent, before anyone is removed of office.

LOL Be sure of your facts, amigo. It's only against the law if the "agent" is undercover, and Plame wasn't and hadn't been for at least five years. I know several CIA agents (living near DC and working for Uncle Sam, you meet lots of gov people), and a very small percentage are actually "secret" agents. Plame wasn't one, therefor no crime could be committed because you can't "out" someone in that status. By the scenario that you suggest, then anyone answering the phone at CIA headquarters wouldn't even be allowed to give their name.

Now as for corruption being covered up, well, Gomery seems to have shined a pretty bright light on some rats in Ottawa.

But all that misses my point, and that's the frustration I feel when I see the apathy that people have when that sort of corruption happens. Go back and read through my archives, and you'll see that I hold the current administration's feet to the fire when they need it too. I'm not blindly partisan, there's enough stupid on both ends of the spectrum to be annoyed about.

Heh, yeah, Gomery shone a light on the rats in Ottawa, and the GOOD thing about the current liberal leader is he did something about it, and has all the books open to the public. He's trying to fix a party that's been long plagued by old farts in suits lining each others pockets.

The Conservative party though, that's an entirely different sort of corruption, man look at when THEY were in power and how much of our sovereignty they gave away, plus on top of that is their current religious fervor which so resembles the US Republican party hardliners (such as Pat Robertson).

You see why we have so little choice, I mean do you think that anyone will vote in a party like the NDP? They would in all honesty most likely drive us right back down the black hole of debt. I vote for them because I'm as you say left of you, mainly because I would never vote for someone who would govern based on his beliefs rather than the common good.

And do mind the mental wandering, that's what beer does to me :)

That's an interesting thing you say there Dave, about "govern based on his beliefs rather than the common good".

I'm not religious, but I can't see why an openly religious leader would be a bad thing. Religion is codified morality, and as long as the person didn't try to prosetilyze (I know I misspelled that) from office, knowing exactly what a person's beliefs are seems like a good thing to me.

And from my point of view, too often when I hear the phrase "common good", it translates into "we know what's better for you than you do, so we're raising taxes".

I guess since According to Wiki almost 80% of Americans proclaim themselves to be Christian then it would be the majority good. The minorities can suck it right? :) (I'm just jabbing at you now, you know that right? Poke the bear, poke the bear).

A politician who says he is acting for the common good has one hand in your pocket and the other stabbing you in the back.

If they say they are acting out of self-interest, then you can trust them... As long as they're in sight and in range.