Riverwind

I did not say that. I said that they should not use their religion to justify laws that take reasonable freedoms from someone else. If you don't believe in abortion then don't have one. If you believe that a gay relationship is sinful then don't get involved in one. But you have no right to go around calling doctors murders or describing homosexuals as pedophiles. Someone who is a devoted evangelical christian can be a excellent MP provided that person is willing to accept that others have a different moral framework and that framework is perfectly valid. It is the unwillingness to compromise which is the problem. That has to be the biggest irony of the right-wing conservative christians: they seem to have forgotten this very worthy tenet of Christianity in their crusade to rid the world of gays and evolution. At the same time that Bush was moralizing about the sanctity of Terri Schavo's life he was cutting the medicare programs that many poor people depend on in order to pay for his tax agenda.

There is a saying that "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". No one questions the right of anyone to pratice the religion of their choosing. No one should question the right of someone who has a deep belief in a faith to seek public office. The only time someone's religion becomes an issue is when they use their religion to justify restricting the freedoms of others. Unfortunately, that is exactly what many 'evangelicals' have been doing in the US and are trying to do in Canada.

People who express concern about Christians are talking about the subset of Christians who are usually called fundementalists or evangelicals. These kinds of Christians are equivalent to a muslim fundementalist that wants to impose Sharia law on everyone in the country whether they believed in Islam or not.

I agree. The were the system needs seperate the teenaged psychopaths from the normal problem kids. A kid who gets caught doing break-ins or even killing someone driving drunk is different than a kid who participates in a unprovoked beating of someone in a park.

You make too much of the divisions within ROC. Every healthy democratic society has a debate and that is what is going on in Canada. Furthermore, there are complex debates going on simulateously across different axes: free enterprise vs. socialism; securalism vs. religion; regionalism vs. centralism. These debates will not disappear if Quebec seperates. I think the sovereignty debate has poisoned the politics of Quebec because it is quite literally impossible to talk about any other issue without relating it to the sovereignty debate. That is probably why when Quebequers look at the ROC they think there is a major crisis going on when there isn't. Unlike some other Liberals on this board, I do believe that it is necessary to address the 'fiscal imbalance' and give some taxing power back to the provinces since they are responsible for the programs that consume most of the tax dollars. Lastly, I think that Quebec separation is a social and economic pandora's box that should never be opened. I think that people who believe it could accomplished painlessly are being naive largely because both sides have completely different definitions of what is 'fair' and no amount of 'good-faith' negotions can resolve them. If ROC and Quebec cannot agree on a constitution then there is zero chance of them agreeing on terms of separation.

I really don't see the difference between leaving your party to be an independent or joining another party. If there was that firm rule in place, Stronach just would have sat as an 'independent' with a cabinet seat to avoid a by-election. There is nothing in the parlimentary rules that prevent that. For example, Kilgore sat as an 'independent' which, for all intents and purposes, meant he joined the conservatives (FYI - I was pissed off a Kilgore but I have never called him a 'traitor' or a 'turncoat'). That said, it would not bother me to bring in rules requiring a byelection instead of official party switch provided MPs are always allowed to become independent with having to face a byelection. My reasons for allowing MPs to become independent is to give individual MPs some protection from the party whips.

So you are accusing the prime minister setting gov't policy to facilitate a drug traffiking business he has on the side? That is so absurd, I find it hard to believe that you consider a reasonable thing to say. What you are doing is taking complex issues of gov't policy and over simplfying them by omitting many of the facts and circumstances that lead up to the decision and inventing some nefarious motive that suits your partisan objectives. Too many times I have seen media stories about something that the gov't does that make it sound like the people in the gov't must have been idiots to make such as decision only to find out later that the decision makes sense if you take into account all of completing interests and facts. I don't have a good example at the moment, but I will post one when I find one.

When I say 'I think that ...' or 'I am sure that ...' I am expressing an opinion which is not the same as a fact. If you disagree please respond.

I don't understand why people get so exercised about MPs switching sides - particularilty ex-Reformers who used to say that MPs should represent the will of his/her constituants over the views of the party. A few points to consider: 1) Any MP that switches sides usually comes from a riding where the voters were split and the election was close. In the case of Stronach she only won her riding by 600 votes. The combined NDP and Liberal votes in 2004 in her riding were 51%. So Stonach could correctly argue that supporting the Liberal budget reflects the will of her constiuants. 2) There is little practical difference between voting against the party on a single important issue and crossing the floor (i.e. voting against your party on all issues). The logical extension of a 'by-election before crossing rule' would require a by-election whenever a MP votes against the party. I think that such a rule undermines our representative democratic system. 3) There is no reason why an opposition MP could not be appointed to the gov't. So in theory, Stronach could have accepted a cabinet position as a Conservative MP. She would have been likely kicked out of the Conservative caucus, however, I believe that requiring a by-election when an MP is kicked out of caucus would be quite unfair.

I agree that whether or not Martin had a hand it in is irrelevant from the point of of Quebequers. I defend Paul Martin in this forum because I really believe he has a lot of personal integrity and he does not deserve to be called corrupt. I agree with you 100%, and I really would like to see a national party which can be an alternative to the Liberals and would send a message to Quebequers that Canadians do not consider this behavoir acceptable. That is why many of my posts to this forum have been 'this is what the CPC has to do to get my vote' type of post vs. the 'if you don't vote Liberal you will destroy the country' type of post. The fact that so many of the conservative members of this forum have more or less responded to with 'a take or leave it attitude' when it comes to key policy issues makes me feel that the CPC just does not understand the urban voters in Canada. Particularily in Ontario.

That is exactly my point. In the world of the 10 second sound bite you cannot afford to have polices that can be twisted and used a lightning rod. Another CPC poster claimed that I wanted the CPC to become Liberals with blue signs - this is probably true. Here is something to think about: if the sponsership scandal had never happened Paul Martin would have been leading a majority gov't and would not be any danger of losing it. The only reason the CPC have a hope of forming a gov't is sponsership. Really think about it. This fact implies that Canadians are very happy with the Liberal policies and do NOT want any change. So the CPC needs to give them that: the new CPC campaign slogan could be: "Liberals without the corruption - all the flavour without the bad taste". I know all of conservatives on the board will choke at this idea but I don't think you can deny the pragmatic reality of what I am saying.

Question: What is the best way to teach a teenager to become a career criminal? Answer: Put him in jail with adult criminals. There are teenagers that are basically psychopaths that need to be locked up for a long time, however, they are a small minority of the kids that get entangled with the justice system. What the system needs to get better at is recognizing who the 'psychopaths' and divert them from the youth system.

Suggest some policies for them to 87...I"d like to see what you think. The CPC needs to understand that it is not enough to have reasonable policies on paper because nobody reads policy books. For example: 1) The current CPC policy on same sex unions sounds like a reasonable compromise, however, the most vocal opponents to same sex unions are far right extremists. As a result, the CPC looks like it is supporting these people by opposing the bill in parliment now. 2) In the last election the CPC promised tax cuts without spending cuts. It does not matter how much the CPC thinks it can save by cutting un-needed programs people believe that you can't get something for nothing. As a result, the CPC platform sounds like Bush/Regeanonics. I could go on. But they all follow the same logic.

Or the conservatives could 'deep six' some of their policies which are associated with extreme right wing parties.

Take your pick http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/feder...d-no-seats.html

This is the first time I have heard a conservative supporter explicitly disavow the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration and his band of merry spenders. Do you have any more information to confirm that this is a widely held belief within the Conservative party?

If you look at how the opinion polls were looking up to the election day you will see that about 5% of the voters shifted at the last moment from the Greens to the NDP. The net result was a much better than expected performance for the NDP. It sounds like strategic voting and it paid off for the Green supporters that made the switch. Here is a link with some numbers: http://esm.ubc.ca/BC05/index.php

That is only true if the NDP can take seats from the Conservatives in place that the Liberals have no chance of winning such as rural Saskatchewan, Manitoba and BC. If the NDP and the Liberals are fighting over southern Ontario then the Conservatives are the winner. You must remember the current electoral system is weighted in favour of the rural/conservative ridings.

Great news for the conservatives. NDP and Liberals will split the vote in the cities and the Conservatives will take the ridings. That's exactly what happened in Saskatchewan in the last election.

It sounds silly. Probably because many people automatically assume that someone appointed by a political party must not be qualified. I think most people would agree the Frank McKenna was a good choice as ambassador to the US even if he is a Liberal. That said, I am not going to defend all politically motived appointments. I don't like them any better than you do.

And your point is? Every political party would do/has done exactly the same thing. The Repuplicans, the ideological kissing cousins of the CPC in the US, arecompletely unapologetic about stuffing the justice system with people that represent its views on society. That said, I don't think it the appointment system is right - I just think it is hypocritical of any other party to claim that they would not do the same.

Sorry, there is no evidence to back up such sweeping accusations about the entire Liberal party or even the current Liberal leadership. Gomery is supposed to sort through the various accusations and claims by people that have a vested interest in making it look like they were not responsible. His terms of reference are broad enough that his report will seperate fact from fiction even if he cannot specifically assign blame to individuals or organizations. I have noticed that many conservative supporters feel that the corruption scandal should give them a free ticket to power and seem to get extremely self-righteous since many Canadian voters are not willing to do that. I could equally say that conservative supporters are in denial regarding how little their party and its policies appeal to people outside of Alberta. From my perspective, I would have gone over to the CPC a long time ago even though I think the Liberals are being unfairly accused because a timeout from power would give the Liberals to properly expunge the guilty from thier ranks and to fix their internal systems. However, the social conservative bent of many of the CPC leadership a concern that they would make ideologically driven tax cuts like the Republicans in the US have left me with two unattractive choices. I am sticking with the Liberals for now because policy is more important than mismanagment of a relatively small government program under a different leadership team. More unfounded accusations.

Where on earth did you get that idea from? I did not want him as premier because he was an NDP supporter, however, he was probably the best qualified candidate among the choices that were available to the NDP party at the time.

That may be, however, the spectacle of legislatures in US trying the ban evolution from the school curriculum (among other things) does make one nervous about a party that seems to be attracting these kinds of people.

I am an image consultant for Steven Harper