shoop

Hmmm, from your link here is the promise Harper made. You do realize that the $1/2 million capital gains exemption for fishers was included in the budget, thus allowing them to pass on the assets and maintain the family enterprise. OK, Normie, he only fulfilled half of this promise wthin his first 3 1/2 months in office. As well as the promise on an exemption for donations to charity. He will have another budget before the next election. But you don't actually have a link to the full text of what Harper said, instead of a report on it, in those numerous URL's do you?

Never said conceal normie. The promotional material for the scientists book clearly stated where he worked and tried to use that as a selling point. Why don't you post on here giving information on your job and employer as part of your signature?

Show me where he made this *mythical* promise to which you refer....

Hmmm, I didn't see McGuinty (or any other Premier for that matter) complain about the UNESCO promise during the election. Call it pandering if you were, but the CF-18 maintenace contract - THE main example of pandering to Quebec that lead to the rise of Reform was just plain wrong. Offering Quebec a seat at UNESCO and meeting with Charest will not lead to the formation of another right wing party of any significance. Have fun with those dreams though... Harper hasn't *given up on further political gains* in Ontario. This summer will be full of negotiations to address Health Care wait times and the fiscal imbalance. Will McGuinty enter those negotiations with a good faith attempt to strike a deal? Seems like politics are trumping the best interests of Ontarians in Dalton's mind at this point. Only 17 months till the next Ontario election....

So I guess you see how ridiculous your OP about UNESCO is. What else could explain your completely changing the subject? What exactly do you think should happen with the Senate Normie? Harper should be responsible for what Liberals did with in the Ministry of Public Works? Wow, guess there is no pleasing you. Here's a hint Normie. Harper will never take responsibility for Liberal corruption. But he will change the rules to make sure that corruption doesn't take place in his Government. For you, that won't be enough. But that's OK. We can all live with that.

If he is doing it in his free time, then he shouldn't promote it as being associated with his employer.

Where was this actually promised? Garth never said that it was a campaign promise to start with. Really normie, if you intend upon lying, don't try and link to something off point for support. Do provide a link of where this promise was actually made.

It was a choice. We respected that. Conservative supporters don't choose to play politics with the falling of our soldiers. Too bad the Harper haters can't show the same respect.

Not because there was an official policy not to attend. With the way the opposition politicized the deaths, Harper attending the funerals would have merely detracted from the primary purpose for the events. Paying respects to dead Canadian soldiers. Harper treated the soldier's funerals as respectfully as possible by staying away.

Normie, what's with the pathetic false analogies. Academia is the one case where tenure exists to protect freedom of ideas. University professors are expected to publish as part of their jobs. Try and come up with an example that isn't so weak next time. The guy from Environment Canada is free to publish the book as a private citizen. His job does not have a requirement for publication. He can do whatever he wants on his own time.

This will be another promise the Government will fulfill. The Liberals can't really afford to fight them on this. As much as the Liberals could likely swing left after their next leader has been chosen, they can't afford to alienate the remaining base they have in rural Canada. So the eventual abolition of the Long Gun Registry will pass and the Government will have that much more reason to head into another election.

Smugness. Hmmm, Carolyn Parrish stepped on a GW Bush doll, referred to one of his policies as a 'coalition of the idiots' and you equate that to the Prime Minister scheduling a meeting with McGuinty at a time that wasn't ideal for McGuinty. That's a pretty big stretch. But keep at it BM. With such thoughtful analysis as that coming from the Liberals side you will only guarantee a majority for Harper.

Are you saying that entitles McGuinty to special privileges? Why should Harper go out of his way to be nice to this guy? McGuinty campaigned against him, and changed his characterization of their meeting for political gain. If McGuinty wants to be treated with more than just a base level of respect, he should start treating the Prime Minister with respect. Strange how that works.

OK, since you are "telling" us this is the beginning of something very wrong. Exactly what is that slippery slope the Government is headed down with giving Quebec some inovolvement at UNESCO. Again, not a big issue, and your Harper hatred is quite draining...

Fair enough, but none of the Government's proposed changes apply to minor offences. So using the class of offences effected by the new sentencing guidlines could be a very good basis for creating the crimes eligibile for three striikes.

Do you always have to attack without adding anything to the discussion?

It is a very tough question to "actionize". i.e. It's very difficult to prove what acts as a deterrent. How would you go about proving that, interview everybody who didn't commit a violent crime after a particular law was instituted to see their thought process? I haven't seen any study that could honestly deal with that issue. So it gets down to gut feelings on the issue, with plenty of studies to support beliefs on either side.

Power to you for reading through that. That was some heavy tough to read stuff. I did notice that the author said without actually providing any references to the studies.Seemed to me a large part of his argument was the US Constitution's prohibition of "cruel and unusual" punishment. Is there an equivalent clause in either Constitution Act?

Ahhh, so *cowboys* aren't real Canadians? Hmmm, thanks for the stereotyping. Sounds like an egotistical Eastern Canada reaction to me. (Schools in Alberta dun learned me go so's I know how to properly use a adjective)

Hmmm, taking a look at your article doesn't really call the efficacy of three strikes, as it would apply to the Government's tough on crime legislation. The only problem your article calls into question is when three strikes is used in cases where the offender hasn't committed violent crimes. I think three violent crime strikes and you're out is perfectly reasonable.

That is exactly the treatment McGuinty got ... businesslike. Too bad he couldn't have been more professional in the way he represented the meeting, after he changed his mind and saw political advantage in attacking the Prime Minister over it.

Why? Harper realizes there is room for growth in Ontario. Supporting Tory activates the base of support. Power to him. Quite sad how McGuinty can't decide if it was a good or bad meeting. Isn't it? No it just goes to show that both Harper and McGuinty played politics with the event. Imagine that, they are politicians.

Sure you would have Shakey. Does anybody here really know what UNESCO does? Or care? It was a campaign promise and Harper is fulfilling it. Enough said.

There is the rub. I guess that is why Martin ignored so many warning signs when appointing her to the position, guess he knew she would serve as a Liberal lapdog no matter who was in the PMO.

So Hedy is running for Liberal leader. Hedy running for Liberal leader. What is the point? I still love her explanation for the "crosses burning on the lawns of Prince George" line. So she is basically saying that she has no ability to filter the information that she receives for crediblity OR she thinks the most ridiculous possible explanation will be considered plausible. At least she'll make the race interesting.