shoop

A lot of the tarsands development got started back in the 80s. Then proceeded at a snail's pace throughout the 90s with the price of oil in the dumpers. Sorry to let facts get in the way of your *truths*. Oh yeah, the equipment used for off-shore drilling is quite different than that used for bitument extraction. tsk, tsk those pesky facts again...

Pot calling the kettle black with the *no getting through to some people* line. Tough to prove hypocrisy for someone who hasn't governed yet. Why not wait till the fall till making that statement. (Oh yeah, could you actually try and provide some evidence when you do it...)

Where does this weakest mandate in the history of Canada come from? Manley, Tobin and McKenna all choose not to run because they see 6 years in opposition. But *you* know and see more? When are you declaring your candidacy?

It's not a matter of poor promotion on the part of Newfoundland. They are developing their industry. This is an industry that takes time to build the machinery and infrastructure necessary. Especially for off-shore stuff. Part of the deal Williams struck with Paul Martin was to gradually clawback the equalization payments. Not to continue them in perpetuity...

It is a bit of a stretch, albeit a little impractical. To run as a candidate in a general election you have to pay a $1000 deposit. I believe the candidate has to receive a certain percentage of the vote to get their deposit back. My guess would be that it would serve to discourage frivolous candidacies...

Yes, remember those well. The $12.6 Billion in the Heritage Savings Trust Fund, is one example of *not pissing them money away*. The $3.5 Billion in the Debt Retirement Account, is what justifies Alberta being considered debt free. This money will be used to pay off the remaining debt when it matures. Albertans are being a lot shrewder this time around. But if you look at the factors that caused the first boom (late 70s and early 80s) and compare it to the causes of this boom we are much more secure in higher oil prices lasting a lot longer this time around.

How old are you? The Leduc oil strike was in 1947. Alberta has been a *have* province since then. Even the CBC says that. I guess memories tend to fade to what we want them to be...

The Alberta Heritage Trust Fund currently sits at about $12.6 Billion dollars. Would that be *enough* money put aside for a rainy day? btw, the Province tops it up every year so it keeps pace with inflation...

How would doing either of those thing prove how effective a province has been in modernizing health care?

In the 1984 election the PCs got 68.8% of the vote in Alberta and took every riding in the province. They took Albertan's support for granted. Two elections later the PCs got 14.6% of the vote in Alberta and *lost* every riding in the province. Things can change quickly in Alberta. Thankfully the CPC is much too shrewd to believe in *extended* holidays anywhere in the country. They will hold their vote in Alberta *if* they stay true to their principles and offer the change people are looking for. btw, oil was just under $16 a barrel (in 1993) dollars at the time of election. Oil price link Try using Google instead of pulling numbers outta your butt. My guess is there will be four cabinet ministers come out of Alberta tops...

So much to take issue with. (Asides from the atrocious spelling) McKenna isn't running. Manley isn't running. Tobin isn't running. Time will only prove I am correct, but I definitely don't expect you to confirm your error when this proves to be true. About your ignorance to the fact of Alberta. Yes, Harper cannot get anymore seats in Alberta. He can *only* lose them. Regardless of how it happens, he needs to keep Alberta happy. Care to state why There is not a chance in the world that a "New Reform' will gain traction in Alberta.? Prior to 1993 nobody thought the PCs could be budged out of Alberta. Oh what a fateful election that was.

tml, There is a lot I just don't get. For example, I don't understand what YankAbroad means by Colmes not breathing.... I probably *missed* the joke as would most people on this site.

You understand why it is so difficult to believe your first claim when you make the last one in the same post. I really hope the Liberals try the "They weren't scary in a minority, but wait to see what they will do with a majority - card." Sad, sad, sad. Harper doesn't just want six years in the top job. Two majorities would give him a lot of time to leave his impression on the country.

How about refuting the various claims on this thread for them being left-wing...

I don't really know where you are going with this. If you want to look at the National's "At Issue" panel you have leftist Hebert, centrist Gregg, rightie Coyne and leftist *moderator* Mansbridge. That would make it leftish. That is the closest thing on CBC to providing any semblance of balance at all...

True enough, but why does it have to be six far-left, five-left, four centre-left and that's it?

Uhhh, my statement asked for a commentator or show regularly broadcast on the CBC that you would consider *right wing*. Adler may have been on the CBC before, but definitely not regularyl. How does this go to *disprove* the leftwing bias of the CBC?

See Drea, What do you call the "morality rabbit"? Yes, SSM will be revisited. That alone won't be enough for the Conservatives to lose government. No other "morality rabbit's" likely to be pulled out of the hat. While you clearly won't open your mind to Prime Minister Harper *ever* enough Canadians did to entrust him with running our government. The Conservatives will govern for longer than the Liberals did in this recently passed minority government because the Liberals need time to pick a new leader. Who knows when the leadership convention will be, but it could be as long as 15 months from now. As that time passes and people see the Liberals *scary* *scary* *scary* was just empty rhetoric, the CPC will be well positioned to win a majority.

Why try hard to please Alberta? hmmmm, flash back to the Brian Mulroney government. Took Alberta for granted. Up popped the Reform Party, boom twelve-and-a-half years in the political wilderness. I think you are far too pessimistic about McKenna and Tobin's withdrawals. The language they used was far too straightforward if their aim was to just postpone for a while. While you think declaring now might be *dumb* there would be no reason for these guys to withdrawal from the race at this early stage. Do explain how withdrawing is better planning than just saying *I am thinking about it*...

Use my imagination or not, I cannot see one conceivable reason to run more than one candidate in a riding. How about helping me out with that. Here is the link to the Canada Elections Act read it for yourself.

Could you refresh my memory on how the whole strawman thing works?

That is a big question. *If* Martin had been re-elected he would have tried to take away the Government's ability to use the notwithstanding clause. However, in 2004 he promised to use it if the courts tried to force Churches to marry same sex couples against their will. I don't think anybody is trying to ram anything down your throat. Part of a return to the traditional definition of marriage must include a legal partnership for same sex couples that provides all the rights (and *responsibilities*) of marriage. PS. August 1991, the Quebec MPs will vote in favour of what? i.e. in favour of SSM or in favour of re-opening the questions and presumable against SSM.

Completely agreed. I don't know if I read it right, but what I said in the last post was the only way two candidates in a riding *might* lead to higher votes for the party in that riding.

A party *cannot* run more than one candidate per riding. Here is a quote from the Canada Elections Act. Want more info? Elections Canada Your logic of *maximizing* a vote escapes me. Most smaller party candidates have very low name recognition. Your suggested tactic would only work as a way of counter-balancing a candidate who has high name recognition, but isn't necessarily well liked.

I am sure the LPCs debt is a huge issue. McKenna was quite right that it is a ten-year commitment. Most of the people who have stepped out of the running don't want to be like Martin. Hoping for a win in his mid-60s. Brison being the future of the party really shows how sad a state the party is in right now.