Rovik

It's unbelievable. Canada and it's Conservative govt. doesn't support a bottom trawling moratorium which would protect fish from what "some critics have likened it to bulldozing the ocean floor." (quoted line from CTV article) This flies right in the face of what Canada has done in the past in trying to protect marine life. Countries such as the US, UK, Australia and others support this is moratorium and even George Bush is for it. From the CTV article: Canada won't support bottom trawling moratorium And any of you who disagree with Bush must be anti-American because that is what some of the right wingers here have said when people have disagreed with American policy before.

The Conservatives in all their wisdom are cutting vital funds for labrador communities to connect ot the Internet. These communities are some of most remote communities in all of Canada and don't have the money of a typical Albertan town. It will be devastating to many in these communites. If the Conservatives have a heart they should cancel this cut in funds. From the article Labrador communities fear losing net connection

Probably. Remember that such an election would polarize left and right. It would get all their regular supporters marching determinedly to the polls, split the Liberals, and move a lot of middle-of the road types into their camp simply because they support the military. Why? Because no one but the NDP can really contemplate just packing up and running. And that's the alternative to supporting the current mission. Packing and running? Here we go again with the exaggeration. The NDP want to pull the troops out of their COMBAT role which is different in what the Canadian's role was previously, which the NDP supported. The Conservatives pushed this down our throats by fast-tracking the vote to extend the mission because they knew what was coming and were afraid they wouldn't win such a vote if tbey wanted a few more months (when the people of the country would sadly see the casualties piling up and the situation in Afghanistan getting worse with the coalition having no set exit plan in sight.) There are a lot of people out there that support the military but not the mission. And anyone who says that if you don't support the mission, you don't support the soldiers is talking garbage. I can see many people moving to the NDP, especially if Iggy wins the Liberal leadership and if the war in Afghanistan doesn't change for the better.

Well if that doesn't work, other scare tactics might be to look at the quality of NDP government in Ontario (under Bob Rae), Saskatchewan (going great guns, eh), Manitoba, and of course Glen Clark in BC. Well let me see, how about the quality of Grant's Devine's Conservative govt. in Sask., perhaps the most scandalous govt. in Canada's history or the successive Conservative and Liberal govts. in Newfoundland that for years put Newfoundland further and further into debt. Funny how people conveniently forgot about the bad Conservative and Liberal provincial governments over the years So what's so bad with the government in Sask and Manitoba, I believe they have done a pretty good job, I do admit they they have made some mistakes but name me one provincial govt. in Canada's history that hasn't made some mistakes. OK, this is my last off-topic post in this thread.

True enough. I have two questions on this. First, do people here agree that the Afghan govt. should deal with the Taliban and secondly is it in the coalition's best interest to be on the sidelines, perhaps no even knowing what is being put on the table and may put them in danger. For example, The Pakistani agreement, in most experts' eyes seems to have made matters worse, not better.

Well, when someone uses the word , "negotiate"...it means he's willing to do some compromises. So what is Jack willing to compromise? The gays? Womens' Rights? Canadians converting to Islam? Harper's head on a silver platter? So who wouldn't think he's gone bonkers? Automatically you assume that negotiate means to give into all the demands of the Taliban. Of course, you paint this scary scenario to paint Layton in the worst light...almost a mini smear campaign if you will. Negotiations means give and take for both sides. For example, many of the Taliban might be offered immunity, some may be offered govt. posts and a form of sharia law kept in place. In return, these people must be willing to accept rights for women and non Islams and accept that the Taliban be disbanded. Of course, if the Taliban are not willing to move from their extreme views, then negotiations are not a viable option. What you suggest about what Layton is willing to compromise is just plain off-the-wall and untrue. When has Layton ever mentioned what you suggest.

Instead of been considerate and saying "lend us your vote," what they should have said was "abandon the arrogant and corrupt Liberals." Why don't you tell the whole story, not just the part of the story that suits you. From Wikipedia Jack Layton I'm sure i can dig into Harper's past as well, and distort some of his history (perhaps his days at the NCC,) to suit my purposes if I wanted to as well but I won't because I don't want to get into such a petty war with you.

Darn!...I was hoping to get the most ridiculous thing you seen ever written here. Many people would also argue that they don't need scare tactics to not vote for Conservatives as well.

And so it begins, the twisted logic... Like yourself, there are many Conservatives who exaggerate Jack Layton's style and blow it way out of proportion. What you call "crazy," others call passionate and caring. I could call Stephen's Harper "cold and heartless," and Conservatives would call him "cunning and logical." Let's face it, the Cons and the Libs use '"Jack Layton is crazy" as a scare tactic to try to drive people from voting NDP.

It's quite humourous how NDPers blowing things out of proportion and can't spell? Why would we consider Layton crazy? Hmmm ..... because he is. And Conservatives don't blow things out of proportion by saying that Jack Layton is crazy?!?! And in regard to spelling, everyone makes mistakes; we are only human after all (you must be well above us simple humans if you have never make a spelling typo in your life.) It's pretty childish to invoke "your spelling is bad" ploy as part of your argument and it may colour how others view you on this forum.

It's so funny how many Conservatives and Liberal supporters as well try to colour Jack Layton as crazy. In your case, you seem to imply that this is a fact. Of course, I could say that Stephen Harper is cold, calculating, heartless and tell you that you can see this by looking in his eyes and also he deflects all critcisms Bush-style by saying it's for the good of Canada...of course I don't know that for certain, unlike many people here who seem to know how Jack Layton's mindset is exactly It would also be hiliarious if NATO and the Afghan govt. end up negotiating with the Taliban. Those who ridiculed Layton for even suggesting such a move, instead of given kudos to Layton would try some twisted logic to turn it around and say "well what I really meant was...." It's also hysterical that now many right wingers are suggesting that there are indeed such a beast as a "moderate" Taliban, while not to long ago in another thread, many of these same people argued that there was no such thing as a "moderate" Taliban.

First, grouping the NDP with the Liberals is not fair to the NDP because the Liberals were in power in the early '90s, promised to cut the GST but didn't. The NDP weren't in power, therefore never had the opportunity to cut the GST as the Liberals did. I have to agree that the Liberals out and out lied. Second, when Harper and the Conservatives promised to cut the GST, at the same time to offset losses, they increased the income tax rate for the lowest income bracket. Many experts came across and said that the GST cut would not be as benefical as the income tax cut (for the lowest income bracket) and the NDP and the Liberals used this reasoning as part of why they were against the GST cut. Third, as you mentioned, it was Mulrooney's Conservatives that created the GST in the first place and did the highly unethical act (in my opinion) of getting the 8 new Conservatives members in the Senate so that the bill could pass. And yet, fast forward to recently and it was a Conservative government who cut the GST...as I mentioned once before, it's pretty ironic. I hope that there are two things that people don't forget. 1. The Conservatives created the dreaded GST in the first place 2. The Liberals promised to cut the GST but didn't

And do you believe that David Emerson also did the same thing politically? Harper could have really started the ball rolling if he introduced legislation banning MPs crossing the floor (as the NDP proposed and even mentioned during the Leadership debates during the last election,) and betraying the constitutents that voted them in. If these MPs wanted in with another party, then they would have to resign and run again in a byelection or general election (if it was close enough.) Most people say that Stronach crossing over to the Liberals and Emerson to the Conservatives was wrong, yet nothing has been done to prevent it happening again in the future. If Harper and the Conservatives were serious about cleaning up parliament, this would have been huge step in the right direction.

Yes, many Newfoundlanders have left the province for work elsewhere such as Alberta, but not all can easily get up and go. Again how does one expect a young mom with no skills or a 58 year old fisherman who can't even read and write to up and leave. And regarding companies paying transport for workers to get to Alberta and BC; this is true for the most part for skilled workers but as far as I know this is not the case for unskilled workers and many on social assistance are unskilled.

I disagree. The training and adult literacy programs are very important. To me, to teach an adult how to read is a big deal and will greatlly improve a person's quality of life and work opportunities. Adult literacy programs have been broadly advertised on media such as tv and radio. Many people have taken advantage and have benefitted greatly. I admit that these cuts are not as bad as many have been fearing but you have to remember the the Conservatives have a minority and don't want to scare off potential voters next election. If they had a majority, I shudder to think how deep they would have cut programs.

I agree, but it needs to be taken further. It hurts Albertans that there are unemployed Newfoundlanders, et al., that refuse to help us out with our labour shortage. It's not like we haven't funded Newfoundland for the last 50 something years. If we were at 8 or 9 percent unemployment, different story. But people out here are suffering under high inflation because people don't want to work. It's not an "Alberta problem", it's a Canada problem. If the ROC continues to suggest Alberta needs to deal with it's own labour issues, then I suggest the ROC needs to learn to deal with their own financial issues when we pull out our support of equalisation. Canada either works together, or it loses all crediability as a nation. Right now, it's not working together. I don't understand why Alberta politicans continue to support a nation that doesn't support them in return. Pulling out of equalisation would force Maritimers to move out here as they'd have nothing left to eat otherwise. It's the heavy handedness that we need, all other options have failed so far. Canada has gotten more from Newfoundland then Newfoundland has gotten from Canada since Confederation. Excerpt from this article Michener nomination Seems to me that Canada has got the better part of the deal. By the way, Newfoundlanders are not Maritimers. The Maritimes consist of NB, NS and PEI.

A couple off the top of my head would be to pull out of Afghanistan after Feb. 2007 (or offer a much smaller contingent which only concern would be rebuilding not combat.) This would save millions and millions in money since we wouldn't need to ship and maintain a larger force. It would be easy to justify as majority of Canadians do not support Canada's new role in Afghanistan and are alos concerned about the lack of an exit time ot deadline for the soldiers to leave. Secondly, I would implement a "windfall tax" on the oil companies as they are considering in the United States. Here is an excerpts from the following article Specter Says Rising Gas Prices May Lead to Tax on Oil Profits We're not talking about an industry who are breaking even or making only marginal profits but as the article mentions "obscene profits." There are many instances when the person on social assistance has no other choice, I gave a couple of examples in my previous post. And I wonder if the govt. should subsidize the costs to these people of leaving one province to another to fiind work, especially if these people can't afford the transportation and moving costs themselves. As I mentioned in my previous post, I used this example to make a point. Though, this particular example might not have been the best to make the point. HRDC is a federal department not a provincial one so it is indeed under the auspices of the federal government.

Here you go again with your degrading, stereotypical attitude. In regards to adult literacy, youth employment and skills development programs, people who use these are not slackers and are trying to make improvements in their lives. It would indefensible to tell someone, who was illiterate, not to learn how to read but to go to Alberta because they are hiring everyone. And here in Newfoundland, we have lost a huge number of people to Alberta and elsewhere who have had to leave the province to find jobs, These people end up enriching the coffers of Alberta. I can assure you that people here living on social assistance are not skiing in the winter or biking in the summer. I'm sure that many don't feel so great about having to use food banks and receive clothes from places such as the Salvation Army. Many would gladly be off social assistance if they could. I like to see you tell a single young mom to get a job or tell someone with a disability to get a job. And what would you do to get them off social assistance; take out your whip and force them to work. Would you give them money for plane fare if they needed to leave the province to find a job or to help them move their belongings halfway across the country? The point I was making is that many who leave to work in Alberta, even with the higher wages don't come out that much ahead or in some cases find themselves worse off. Many would rather benefit from the training and skill programs offered by the government and find a job locally then go to Alberta where bachelor apartments are often over $1000/month to rent or where a typical house costs well over $300000 (in comparsion to a similar house here that would cost about $125000.) There is no "sense of entitlement", this is a myth pushed by yourself and other sadly like-minded people.

Perhaps this is true in Alberta, BC and parts of Ontario but it is not the case in all of Canada. The fact of the matter is that there are people who would rather live in the area that they are currently in, for a muititude of reasons; perhaps the spouse has a good job, perhaps it's to take care of family members (parents, siblings, etc.) who are in failing health, perhaps there are opportunities in the area if one has the necessary skills, perhaps the cost of travelling to Alberta or BC is beyond what they have to spare (oftne costs +$1000 for such trips from Newfoundland,) perhaps they are older and want to avoid the rat race of a bigger centre and so on and so on. A friend of mine, recently came back from Fort McMurray and took a job here in Newfoundland for half the wages he was getting in Fort McMurray. He said with the high cost of living in Fort McMurray he really wasn't coming out ahead and he could understand why many would rather work here at lesser rates then to move to places like Alberta and BC, and if these government programs can help these people find a job here, rather then elsewhere then so be it. And then these people would be paying taxes and spending money in their native province, whom need the money more then Alberta or BC does

CBCThe CBC leads with marijuana. Right. Who is going to howl on that? The big item is the allocated $380 million that the bureaucrats didn't manage to spend. (The end of fiscal year would make any taxpayer cry. It's real money.... ) The other interesting item the CBC notes is the $78.8 million for GST refunds to foreigners. (That was an invitation to fraud.) Peanuts? Overall, the Tories just took one 25 cent can of house brand Cola out of a $100 dollar grocery cart. It'll make no difference to the monthly budget but we're going in the right direction. Some of the items that are been cut are critical services and it hits the people who need help the most such as lower income or poor people. This is not a step in the right direction but a cruel, heartless one which makes one wonder what they would have cut if they had a majority. For example, they are cutting programs geared toward adult literacy skills, youth employment and programs to boost work skills. These are essential programs to help get people into the workplace and to cut these programs doesn't make any sense.

As much as it pains me (lol), Argus is absolutely right. The Liberals are being hypocritical to criticize the Conservatives since as Argus mentions, the changes in the Afghan mission (to a more offensive role) was given the go-ahead under the Liberal rule. The Liberals also had a part to play in the Conservatives extension of the mission when many of them voted with the Conservatives in passing the extension through the Commons. If all the Liberals voted against the motion, it wouldn't have passed.

I guess they have to do their best to make it as easy as possible, you know, considering if it was very hard their supporters would never be able to figure out how it works. I really don't take you seriously because of the way you attack individuals or groups that don't agree with your own views. There are many on this forum that I disagree with but I won't call them dumb, stupid or idiotic. In your case, there have been several times that I considered your views as either misguided, prejudiced because of your right-wing leanings or just plain wrong (in my opinion) but I have never considered you either dumb or stupid. Anyhow, I believe that the NDP have brought up several valid points that need to be addressed and if a online petition can help to put pressure on getting answers then so be it. Of course, it might not help at all but at least no one can say that they didn't try.

Looks like the Conservatives are picking up Liberal habits. To bad, since Harper said he was going to clean up the system, yet it seems the Conservatives are on the road to being as bad as the Liberals. Sad.

The Americans did not join the war until 1941, two years after the beginning of WW2 in 1939. Guess they figured it was not in their best interest to get involved for 2 years. It's kind of funny that they initially criticized countries that didn't join them at the beginning of the Iraqi war, yet historically the Americans have not always been so quick to join their allies in the trenches.

My take on how the other parties would like to see how the Liberal leadership concludes: - Conservatives would love to see Bob Rae win and would hate to see Michael Ignatieff win. - NDP are the reverse. Thye would love to see Ignatieff win and would hate to see Rae win. - Bloc would love to see any non-Quebec born contender win (though i'm not sure about Dryden) and would hate to see Stephane Dion win.