shoop

I think it is probably better to stick with the scandals that at least have some merit to them. i.e. Adscam and Income Trust. The other one's are at far too early a stage to be relevant to *this* campaign. The moving one seems a little difficult to get out in public. At least something *appears* to be very wrong with income trust. Some of the allegations were proven in Adscam. All there is to this so far is a cheezy pro-conservative web site with pictures of *vacation spots* and dollar figures below them. You need a little more than that to go on...

A strange example. Sadly I suspect you are correct.

Strange how this guy uses the environment as an example of how bad Bush is. Yet the U.S. has gone further in reducing greenhouse gases than Canada has since the Kyoto Accord meetings. So who is the real environmental laggard? You know honestpolitician, maybe if you had a clue what you were talking about people would be more inclined to listen! Are you a member of Paul Martin's *brain trust*?!

If any random dude could coax over six pounds of weed outta one little plant in their backyard they are a magician who could magically make any charges go away. It would also be pretty tough to hide a plant like that. So your first example is pretty useless. The only dude with that much weed at one place is the second guy you mentioned. Personally, I have no problem with the cops turning a blind eye to kids smoking a joint or running around with a couple grams of pot on them. But over six pounds is some serious, serious weight. btw Is anyone familiar enough with the drug laws to know *which* weight is used in court? i.e. the dry or wet?

Wow listen to all the gloom and doom. The Liberals have been *planning* to offer a daycare programme for 12 years. There is no evidence that conservative tax credits, to parents and businesses, will create a slew of unintended costs. Ohhh, I forgot the Liberals are trying to play the hidden agenda card. So is part of the hidden agenda a highly expensive daycare plan? If this hidden agenda is so well known to party insiders why didn't Belinda or Scott Brison spill the beans when they crossed the floor? Sad, sad grasping for straws. The Liberals truly were a proud party at one point.

Uhhh, most people don't smoke with their kids. A real hardcore smoker could probably smoke five joints a day for a year with that much...

Please define a *wing* of the government. What is with your fascination with the *back door*?

Do what? Enter sweepstakes?

3 kg is a *huge* amount of pot. Some dude would have to be CHRONIC to have that much for personal use.

You are right. It doesn't sound like you have anything against Westerners at all. Except accusing them en masse of having an inferiority complex.

Nice avoidance tactic. Funny how you ignored the question about 75% of the participants in a contest to win a car were drawn from a province with 40% of the population. I can't see how that would get *anybody* upset...

And not blow their money on beer and popcorn, right? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Because not all choices are equal. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Who doesn't like free money? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There is the good old Liberal arrogance that is costing them this election.

double post. oops

shakey ... that is a *HUGE* omission. You made it sound like Vancouver fans were booing a player from Toronto. Funny how Ontario is roughly 40% of Canada's population but they get three out of four people in the shootout. I can't see why that would cause fans in *the hinterlands* to get upset.

That is the shrewdness of the CPCs plan. The Liberal plan played to their base of support. They won't win one new vote for it. The CPC plan palyed to the soccer moms who lead the charge away from the Conservatives at the last minute in 2004. These parents want choice in their daycare and don't want a bunch of men in suits making choices for them.

Is the over-reaction and hyperbole a symptom of stress from the way the campaign is crumbling for the Liberals? Some of the most negative ads *EVER SEEN* in Canadian Politics ... would be the hyperbolic statement I am referring to. Finally the Conservatvies got smart. Better to be debating how negative the CPCs ads are then to be bombarded by Liberal attack ads. btw still waiting for you to show all the *holes* in the CPC daycare plan.

The CPC had far too many loose cannons in 2004. Arguably that is what cost them government. Isn't it amazing how we haven't heard anything offensive or foolish from the candidtes this time around. (OK, the Jason Kenney OMNI thing was a little odd, but not that big a deal.)

Will the Liberals ban all currently existing home daycare facilities? How would that help alleviate the lack of daycare spaces? The numbers of licenses and new inspectors will be far less because there will be fewer daycares with more spaces per. Plus the fact they will be staying in daycare centres and not someones home, means there is no need for new minimum guidlines, for a different type of environment. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Personal attacks are the sign of a weak mind. *AND/OR* The supporter of a political party on the verge of a historic loss.

They won the last three elections with fear mongering (and a divided right). The Canadian people appear to have smartened up though. The Conservatives have a 9-point lead outside of Quebec in today's SES research-CPAC poll.

Since they appear to be working I suspect they will keep them coming. Hmmm, can't remember the *big scare* from the Liberals. Let's go all the way back to yesterday. Thanks for the positive campaign Paul Martin! Paul Martin's negativity on CTV.

How will any of these costs not be required as part of the Liberal plan? Granted licensing and inspection already exist. (Your atrocious spelling is indicative of the lack of time you put into preparing your arguments. Slow down a little. You are missing the point on soooo many levels.)

Regardless of the use of the term *back-door* or poor spelling of expenses, I haven't seen anything credible pointing to the CPC plan costing more than the Liberal one.

Post a link of what you just read. Haven't heard that but a lot depends on how much the *certain amount* is.

Bah! Not all that much older than Paul Martin though....

Clearly you didn't take a look at either Web site. Or you wouldn't have posted such uninformed *starters*. SSM - significant difference between the CPC and the Republicans plans. CPC will hold a free vote in parliament, recognize existing marriages if the vote passes and *will not* envoke the notwithstanding clause *IF* any new legislation is overturned by the Supremes. The Republicans will not allow any SSMs of any kind and favour a constitutional amendment if the U.S. Supremes force them to do so. Marijuana laws. The Republicans favour stricter laws, including mandatory incarceration. The CPC is in favour of the current status quo in Canada, with very lax enforcement. Environment. The U.S. has made more strides in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the last 15 years than has Canada. Maybe Martin shouldn't have been throwing stones in Montreal. Glass house and all...