shoop

As for a darkhorse, what about Dryden? My guess is he too will dropout once he sees the monumental task ahead of him.

Dingwall supposedly sits on *several* corporate boards at the moment. Don't think they would give him the boot. While I *wish* he was destroyed, I severely doubt that he is.

Please do tell where you would get that 10% return (compounded monthly) over the last 30 years. IMT also talked about companies returning 3000%. Hmmm, I sure bet those weren't companies with proven reserves. Gotta pick one side of this game if you insist on playing. Is it companies returning 3000% (or even 10% compounded monthly) or is it companies iwth proven reserves? You know the whole risk/return tradeoff. Tends to drive the returns down with the whole *proven reserves* thing.

Gerry is symbolic of how pathetic the left has become. Next they will start bringing up misdeeds from Diefenbaker's time in office.

Thank goodness indeed. Probably the best possible outcome. Had the government forced the issue Dingwall would have gone to court and it probably would have cost the government millions in court and legal fees. Disgusting weasels like Dingwall deserve the just desserts of pure karma. He will get what he deserves one day.

Fine. Then don't give taxpayer money to *any* news organization.

Ooooooh, the be all and end all. Tin-foil hat, you got me. What a great addition to the debate. Just watch *The Hour* to see the agenda of the CBC. Lok at the questions thrown at the leader's during the town hall's during the election. Look at the examples given by the OP. The agenda exists, it is real. Heck, look at Keith Boag's coverage of CBC News. Look at *anything* Evan Solomon does.

Double-post.

Could you please enlighten us with an example from your experience in Canada? Or are you just going to use these fictitious *experiences* of yours derail the conversation. Like a *social conservative* calling for more government expenses/money in broadcasting? CBC has an agenda. As a government-funded broadcaster it shouldn't. Period. Hmmm, the Alberta government privatized Access (basically the equivalent of TVO or PBS). I can't think of any complaints from *social conservatives* about that one. (Do you feel better use that hateful buzzword without any support?)

Being an *opposition* MP is not being a part of Government in the House of Commons by definition. Yes, your correction is better. Why is it self-loathing to look out for Canada's best financial and international interests? To me the self-loathing is more apparent in bits like *Talking to Americans*. Woo hoo, laugh at the dumb Americans. But when it gets down to it, they don't know anything about Canada because they don't have to. Boy we are superior to them .... (while deep down cursing the fact they won't give us any *respect*). Don't try and connect me to O'Reilly, Coulter or Carlson. They are arrogant, childish jerks. They are guilty of the same thing Parrish was guilty of. Not treating the other side with the respect they are due. How am I blaming Canada first? Why generalize when you have no proof? Is GW Bush perfect? ... No way. But does that absolve Parrish of behaving like an immature child? No way.

You are an all star IMT. The mistakes I made in the thread were admitted to. I apologize for you being too lazy and arrogant to actually have read the entire thread. However, you do miss one *huge* point. True there would be $26B left in the fund. However since its inception the fund has paid out over $28B into various government spending. Hmmm, the early 90s were definitely a rainy day given that prices fell in the crapper at that point in time.... This quote just shows how you lack the basic fundamentals in economics of your namesake. Energy stocks have always been among the riskiest and most speculative out there. Companies that are returning *in the order of 3,000%* are definitely trading on the Venture Exchange. There is no way Heritage Fund money should be trading on something that speculative. How about Bre-X? Why didn't all the Fund's money go there? Or Nortel? Am I making my point.... I am guessing you believe in the Kyoto Protocol. How much off a negative effect on the value of *all* stocks in the energy industry would there be if Federal (and Provinicial) Governments took the necessary steps to meet our Kyoto targets? Hmmm, shoud the Government really be in a position to choice against a policy you favour for economic reasons? BTW, do show how you would have turned $16B into $260B in just 30 years?

Actually it was family issues critc. Same in your view because your view is hatred and bile for the CPC regardelss of what they actually do. Yes, Spencer was never in Government. That was exactly my point. Your analogy to Mexico just shows how much you have blown the issue out of proportion. You see nothing wrong with what Parrish did? Man, you are a joke. Good thing you are in opposition now. The U.S. is Canada's most important trading partner and military ally. A government Member of Parliament doing what Parrish did deserves to be kicked out of the Government caucus. Thank you for doing the right thing Mr. Dithers ... for once.

Harper proved himself to be a lot shrewder than most people though going into this election. He realizes the biggest lesson to be learned - *moral* victories are for chumps! He will govern with an eye towards a majority in 2008. By delivering on his promises in the election he has a chance to make much bigger inroads in Quebec.

So, you aren't in favour of a Belinda Stronach candidacy I take it. Brison's French isn't all that good either - nowhere near the level of Harper's. Oh gerry, your comments about Harper's French show a lack of intelligence on your part, coupled with unjustified hatred of the man. How many *lines* would he have to remember to perform as well as he did in the French debates?

Disagree with you calling Spencer "family values critic." He never had that title. He was never part of the Harper *government*. Tsk, tsk your terminological mistakes have this odd effect of always making the situation look worse than it actually was. Believe it or not the leader of a party may not talk to *every* critic about *every* issue that may affect they are responsible for. There would be no reason for critics if that were the case. The leader would just handle every single issue on his own. The role of a party leader is to provide leadership (duh) for the caucus and party. This does not mean knowing the thoughts of everyone of his MPs. Do you really think that Paul Martin *knew* about Carolyn Bennett's hatred for Americans and her plans to childishly stomp on a George W. Bush doll on television? Trying to point to an issue more than 2 years old, that was dealt with effectively, is simply sad no matter what side of the aisle you sit on.

Did you want to actually look at the reasons why high profile candidates are fleeing running for the LPC leadership? I put forth three separate points to explain why high profile candidates won't run. 1. Cost of running a losing campaign. 2. Huge LPC debt. 3. Time out of power. Harper will be more effective than Martin was as a minority PM. Will it be enough to win him a majority next go round? Of course nobody knows that at this point. The GTA, Lower Mainland and Montreal are not even close to *strong holds the likes of Ralph Klein's*. Alberta has elected a majority (small-c) conservative members in every riding since at least 1957, likely far earlier but I didn't have the energy to look into it. 1988 wasn't all that long ago for Conservative wins in each of those metropolitan areas. You are definitely overstating the amount he needs to achieve in this Parliament. If he behaves like a leader, returns a semblence of decorum to the House of Commons and achieves results on each of his five priorities he will go a long way to putting the *scary* *scary* *scary* to bed for good...

Of course Harper knows that. He will definitely narrow the gap. Will it be enough to make the premiers happy ... time wil tell. But delivering nothing on the fiscal imbalance would hand the PMO back to the Liberals without a doubt.

Leadership races are very expensive. Candidates are personally on the hook for expenses they haven't raised from other sources. The big four dropouts (Manley, McKenna, Rock and Tobin) are all in their 50s. They wouldn't want to run, just to lose and have to postpone retirement by a couple years in order to pay their campaign debts. What if they were to win the leadership race? A reasonable expectation of 5 to 6 years in opposition. Rebuilding this party is going to take a long, long time. Lots of effort for very little reward.

This gospel truth has even begun falling out of favour in Quebec. Boisclair admitted during the PQ leadership race that Quebec probably would face many financial hardships upon gaining sovereignty.

I don't think there is anything really hidden, other than the size of the LPC debt. McKenna was pretty honest. It is an all consuming job and basically a ten-year commitment at this point. (6 years in opposition than you would want at least one *majority* term, i.e. an additional four years, as PM for the effort.) ft is partially right. Now is far too early for any serious contender to *commit to running*. But anytime is good to step out of the running if you really don't want to run.

I think Dryden *might* be the best candidate of the remaining lot. He isn't without his drawbacks though. Long-winded Noam Chomsky-esque answers to questions have to go. Reputation to get offended when asked tough questions ... no good. Supposedly his French isn't great. Probably not Belinda Stronach *painfully bad* French, but still not great. P.S. Could we pass a rule that any *jokes* relating to his previous career as a professional athlete have to at least be some what funny. tml I kid....

I think Dryden could very well come up through this sorry, sorry pack of candidates.

The idea of a trusteeship like the one that manages the Alaska Permanent Fund is an appealing idea. I have seen the idea floated that the Tories could grow the Heritage Fund to a large enough size that it could fund the provincs revenue needs of just the interest. I wonder how big *that* would have to be...

See that is the problem with what you are saying. The fund is bad because it isn't growing because the funds are going into general revenues. But the funds going into general revenues do *contribute to* the province.... More than $28 billion has gone into general revenues from the fund since its inception... (From the Fund link I provided a ways back...)

Liberal leadership candidates who have dropped off... Frank McKenna Allan Rock John Manley Brian Tobin The first four names mentioned as *remaining front runners*. Michael Ignatieff Scott Brison Belinda Stronach Bob Rae Why does Igantieff stand out? He is the only one of the four who *hasn't* sat in the Commons for a party other than the Liberals.... Sad, sad, sad. Natural governing party indeed.