Yaro

Why would people be surprised that the American ambassador is defending his country? Isn't that one of his primary responsibilties? He works for the them not us.

Wow what a stupid pointless post.

What I find offensive is how the Christians stole Saturnalia from the pagans and renamed in Christmas. I mean come up with your own holidays! Oh, and the GST is a progressive tax, but not by much. What determines whether a tax is progressive or regressive is the rate at which people of different income levels have it applied. Because low income earners receive a GST rebate (they still do that right?) it would have to be considered progressive although not significantly so. A flat tax with a bare leaning to progression.

Lie much? oh ya that's right you do. The Democrats were unilaterally responsible for the Civil rights movement in the 60's in fact until that point most of the south had been democrat to the same degree it is now republican. And Abe Lincoln had more in common with today's democrats then then republicans. But as per the norm you love to take the Ann coultier route. Careful with your stupid statements or I might point out that more "brown people" were killed in South America by your beloved Reagan then were killed by Saddam, not that there is even a shred of evidence to support the scope of US claims on how many people Saddam had murdered. Wow is this paragraph full of factual errors, lets count? 1. The rise of Muslim fundamentalism started around 1890, it has continued at pretty much the same pace world wide only ever resulting in a single rather dysfunctional government (Afghanistan). It should be noted that this government came to power largely because of US support. 2. Saddam was considered a blood enemy of Al-Qaeda, he was a militant secularist that believed strongly in Iraq and its people. More calls had been made by Muslim fundamentalists for the head of Saddam then any other world leader, and every US leader combined. 3. There is a question as to whether he ever had a significant weapons program, and there is absolutely no evidence he EVER had a nuclear program. Indeed noted Hawk Hans Blix, a man virtually hand picked by the Bush administration to find some/any possible pretext for invasion came out of Iraq with the statement that he could find neither evidence of there being any weapons or that they ever existed. 4. There is no mystery of "where the weapons went", there weren't ever any real WMD. Although chemical weapons are nominally considered WMD most military experts agree that they don't belong in the group and any chemical weapons that Saddam is believed to have once had were expired long before the turn of the millennium. Basically everything you said in that paragraph was factually wrong, research is our friend. Muslim fundamentalists have been striking western targets since WWI. They have not been gaining strength or popularity, in fact there influence had been noticeably diminished in most muslim countries right up until the Afghan/USSR conflict. Saddam was a mortal enemy of fundamentalists, they literally couldn't have thought more differently. Saddam did not meddle in the affairs of any other country, in fact he was quite the isolationist. The Shah and Saddam were completely opposite at the time Iraq and the US were staunch Allies, and Iraq and Iran despised each other. Good god that was a horrific post. Good post, the missing piece your looking for is Iraq Reparations. Reparation payments will be the method by which the US recovers the cost of the war--theoretically, of course the war paid for by the citizens of the US won't ever see that repayment as the vast majority of it will be made directly to US corporations. The same thing has been going on since Iraq I.

Says the man with the moral compass of a pit viper. Clairify what exactly? that if you spent a little less time worrying about what would offend the US and a little more about what would be good for Canada you wouldn't come off as Bush's answer toe Lewensky? Hardly that complex really.

An election is a poll.

While I agree that electoral reform as an issue would be immensely difficult to cram down the throats of the federal politicians, why does the fact that the BQ and Liberals benefit from the current system enter into it? Shouldn't the federal system be determined by the nation as a whole? Or are you simply meaning the charter issues involved? I don't know of any nation which has a popular system that didn't see a sharp rise upon implementation of that system. I agree that it’s a severe problem; voter apathy is a democracy killer.

The introduction of the GST was necessary because of NAFTA, and that situation has not changed. It did nothing more then shift the taxes from manufacturers to consumers and it won't be disappearing any time soon. A few facts that have been misrepresented in this post. GST is a progressive tax, those with higher incomes pay more GST then those with lower incomes. Therefore any reduction in the GST is regressive in nature. Savings are not taxed, never have been. Taxes in Canada compared on a worldwide standard are not heavy, indeed they are light compared to most first world countries and extremely low for a first world country running a surplus. Which polls? I have only seen support for the liberals on the steady rise? Our corporate taxes rates are already lower then all of our competitors why would we lower it further? What advantage would that provide? It should also be noted that income level is only to a minimal extent related to productivity. Indeed it is just this reduction in RoL that has caused many of these issues to begin with. Considering how warped your arguments have been on virtually every topic I have a great deal of difficulty believing you would invest your money 1/10th as well as the Liberals have. However it’s moot because it’s not your money, what is yours and what is mine is a manner of social contract. In absence of said contract what is yours is what you have the ability to defend and what is mine is what I have the ability to defend. That’s funny actually the thought of the Conservatives getting into power and putting the country back into deficit with fiscally unwise tax cuts is pretty terrifying to me.

Crime is inexorably related to social condition. When the ROL falls then there is a segment of society which will seek reward by whatever means necessary. In the past this has not been a major problem in Canada because of our relatively high ROL. Interesting fact, the two economic groups with the highest levels of testosterone are criminals and CEO's.

Your like this decades Monica Lewensky aren't you?

The funny thing isn't that you think the economy isn't doing as well as is popularity reported, it’s that you think the conservatives would improve any of the issues you have with the country. However there are enough factual errors in your post to obfuscate any statements of substance. That’s sad, you should be voting NDP. And just to point out that the US does not have an option as to where to buy there fuel from, there are logistical costs carried by the purchaser. So long as any export tax is less then the logistical savings of purchasing fuel from Canada then there really is nothing the US can do about it.

Wow, overflowing maturity is evident everywhere. I mean why actually bother arguing points when you can simply point out that the other end of the country can't think for themselves, I mean it’s simply not possible to hold a different viewpoint on exactly what the facts are or to believe that the nation should head in a different direction in general.

I agree, lists would have many benefits on the federal scene including creating an atmosphere in which Canada as a whole can be viewed as something greater then its parts. Combined with a rebalancing of regional/federal powers it would give us the best federal politic setup in the world (IMO).

More reliable reports list the cost of a federal election at 300 million. However the cost of the election isn't really directly applicable, the cost of the difference between the normal length of a governing party and a forced election probably is so I suppose if the average government lasts 4 years (SWAG), and this government will last 2(just because I don’t care) then the cost would be about 150 million extra. Although I suppose that since the election will be in reality 3 months earlier then it would have been regardless the cost is more like 3/48 or about 7 million more then it would have been. Not really a significant cost addition.

It betrays the statement for what it was, the worst kind of gutter politics, and it betrays Harper for what he is, a classless imbecile no more capable of reforming Ottawa then any other chimp.

Or maybe people see actual problems in the conservative party? Like a leader with the mind of a head of lettuce? Or the powerful minority in the party that are hardcore social conservatives? Or the foreign policy disaster in the making? I don't like allot of things about the liberals, but honestly the more I hear some of you the more I realize that if these are the people that make up the current conservative movement then Canadians really do have something to fear, and to think before I came here I was planning on voting conservative. Perfect? No, halfway competent? Yes. Preston was never too intellectual, Stockwell was a nutcase, and Stephen is a policy moron. It’s not the nature of conservatism that’s the problem its just that this current batch really is that bad, sorry but as we move along it becomes more and more obvious that some people just refuse to see the most obvious warts. To honest? Are you insane? No party has spread the retarded rhetoric around thicker then this incarnation of the Conservatives, PM is soft on Pedophiles? The Liberals are in bed with organized crime? They actually said these things. You know, its funny there is a grand total of 2 media empires in Canada, one founded by a man that called himself a conservative and also stated that his media will of course be a reflection of his personal beliefs, the other run by a massive corporate body. I would like to know where this ridiculous notion of an anti-conservative media started, is it just another one of those uneducated wild sprays like the attacks on academia? I tend to see the similarity I suppose. A real tape? I guess you missed the part where the Conservatives admitted it had been altered right? What I found shocking out of the whole thing is that the guy was allowed to stay in the party. But go on, continue with your paranoid fantasies there highly entertaining. Its odd, but this is always what it comes down to isn't it? Obviously democracy isn't the right system since its not giving you personally what you want. People in Alberta have (about) the same ability to influence the election as people anywhere else, yes there are small issues with vote distribution but that doesn't change the fact that everyone gets to vote, and just because they don't vote with you doesn't mean there vote shouldn't count. Actually I would bet your not Cynical, just another angry loner who thinks they have it all figured out even though they have never even opened a book on history or politics. But let’s have fun with your little list anyways? Inertia? Well considering the number one reason that anyone is going to vote for this group of "conservatives" is because they want a change in government after 15 years I would tend to think that the Inertia is pretty solidly in the Conservative corner. Propaganda? Oh you mean like the PM is soft on pedophiles? Or like the Liberals are in bed with organized labour? Or maybe those great tapes? If any party in Canada is guilty of propaganda it’s not the liberals. Unless of course you can come up with some examples of this wonderful propaganda? Corruption? Well it’s hard to be corrupt when you have no power, but there is no doubt there is corruption issues within the liberal party. Hardly surprising after 15 years in power and maybe a reason to change the government all on its own. Now if we could only get a realistic replacement we would be all set. Anti-Americanism? Ok what exactly does this mean? Do we as a country have to always agree with the US on everything? Maybe always do what they say? Just roll over regardless of how big a mistake they make? Unexamined Bias? What the hell does this even mean? What political party isn't biased? Sheer Carelessness? Huh? Are you binging? At the end of the day do you actually have any topic of some substance to post? I mean by that do you have an issue? Something that you think the Conservatives will do right that the Liberals are doing wrong? I would love to have a reason to vote for the Conservatives, but they give me NOTHING to vote for, and they show huge holes, and I am not voting for change for the sake of change when the party in power has done a very good job even if there are corruption issues.

The judge did no such thing, he stated quite clearly that it was not proven that he was guilty nothing more and no it was not minor compared to adscam, in fact it was far worse. Mulroney who was from the day he became a politician backed by many extremely powerful lobbies in the US (least we forget flying in German citizens to vote for him on corporate dime thanks to a loophole in the law), the man was and is a worm. I don't know if he was any better or worse then Chretien as a man, I do know however that the Mulroney was far worse for the country. I agree, which is why I wanted Gomery's final report a month before the election so the parties could at least make campaign promises around it.

Yes so just and right, that the guy wouldn't breath a word of it away from the house floor knowing that a judge would take all of 2 minutes to determine that Harper is guilty of slander. So now nobody who isn't prosecuted successfully is guilty? I guess that means that Chretien was clean as a whistle? The standard between likely and legal is a pretty wide one. Not that you would care to make the distinction obviously.

Actually, it was a horrible mistake and not apologizing exasperates the situation considerably. The fact of the matter is that if it wasn't said on the floor of the house Harper would be getting his ass kicked in the courts about a week and a half before the election. In addition even though this statement isn't actionable in and of itself it can be used in court to show a precedent of slander. For the rest of the run up to the election the conservatives won't be able to say anything close to that again without serious risk. It’s the exact kind of stupid rhetoric that displays for the entire country just how big an idiot Harper is. God the conservatives need a new leader.

Ya I have to agree, I don't think this will hurt the conservatives at all. If this reduces the perception that they may very well form government then that can only help them. One of those, elect nobody situations.

It's true that Mulroney ran the first operating surplus in about 20 years and his GST was a contributing factor in eliminating the deficit in the 1990s, when the economy was growing steadily after inflation had been tamed. Ok let me get this straight after just saying In which you take a direct swipe at the notion of ignoring debt financing, you go on to now say That’s a pretty severe lapse in logic. And not just on saying that budget deficits and surpluses are irrelevant, which unless you have a pretty impressive explanation for I am thinking would have failed you in a first year macro economics course. So there is no circumstance under which increased government spending is a good thing? Does that go for the military and police forces as well? I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were just drunk in this thread.

Well for starters, Yes, Yes I am. However that’s not really what I said which was, what I said was that anyone who doesn't want them to beat on each other over the Gomery report findings before the next election isn't very bright. But in essence what you say is true, if you don't agree with me you’re clearly not very bright. As for relating my arrogance to the liberal party, that’s just silly. I may seem like a liberal to some of the more extreme right wingers but the truth is I just end up defending them from moronic statements because that’s the party that tends to have moronic statements made about them right now. Just like my position on communism, I’m certainly no communist but I end up defending it, not because I believe it’s good or right but because most of the comments made about it are rather outlandish. Communism is purely an economic philosophy; it is the philosophy of a completely centrally controlled economy. It is in no way in conflict with democracy on any level. Even the Leninist bastardization of communism was a completely economic shift (the inclusion of limited capitalism). If anything communism lends itself rather well to democracy. There’s nothing innate to communism that necessitates a one party system however. There is also not necessarily a contradiction between a one party system and a democracy because there is simply no difference between a one party system and a no party system if the party in question has no innate leaning. Most definitely, one party systems (and wholly/strongly centrally controlled systems in general) tend to degenerate rather quickly. However that of course raises the question is a no party system maintainable at all? People tend to extend the "yelling fire in a theater" example well beyond its natural form and this is a good example of it. Limits on freedom of speech should be limited to those of absolute necessity, the right of an individual to believe and express a belief in whatever they wish is so central to a free society that I really don't understand how something as far removed from the kind of direct danger that "fire in a theater" proposes as a litmus that its hard to make the rational link and certainly not worthy of limiting. There are plenty of things that people say that I don't like, and there are no doubt plenty of things that I say that other people don't like and if the limiting factor is going to be a democratically determined line I really don't see how minority rights can possibly be protected, on this issue or quite frankly on a host of others. Say virtually whatever they want, scream it from the mountain tops. But maybe it’s just me that prefers my nut jobs out in the open where I can keep an eye on them. Well I would say its more a case of art imitating life but that’s really not of consequence, when you are going to deal with a problem and this is a good example, attack the problem not the symptom. Yes, once again deal with the problem of why people would listen to such a message instead of simply encouraging an underground mentality in them.

The same Fox news that has been censured 3 times by the British government, and whose carrier has been warned that if the show continues to be broadcast as news it will be shut down? While I don't approve of most of what Al Jazeera has to say, I don't think many people take every story represented on it as being believable, I don't even think it’s presented technically as a news source. Fox news however has and continues to lie often and consistently. Neither Fox news nor Al Jazeera if held strictly to Canadian broadcast standards could broadcast in Canada as news shows.

I have to agree, inequality should be dealt with where it is found it should not be created. All this will do is create a justifiable backlash against a new underclass. There are many government departments that are made up primarily of women and the ministry of aboriginal affairs is made up of aboriginals to a large extent, are they going to put in a hiring policy which encourages white males are hired first in order to balance out the workforce? The whole notion is childish in the extreme.

Your kidding me right? You didn't seriously just say that? Its some kind of joke that I am not getting?