shoop

Bravo. That is the proper way to proceed. We are all equal citizens. A measure that effects all Canadians equally is the fairest way to go.

THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF CANADA DIDN'T EXIST IN 2002 !!!!! Answer the question, yet again what did SES consider to be the "Conservatives" in 2002? Nice try though...

Let's be realistic. You will never support Harper and will always go out of your way to paint him in the worst light possible. When credible national voices like Chantal Hebert write positive pieces about him how can you honestly say he is damned either way? Do you mean the party attacks him from within? Your point being? Again, nice attack on the lack of wiseness (?) of the party. Lord burned a lot of bridges within the party with his waffling on running for leadership. He had assembled a solid team with which to run for the leadership and pulled the plug within 24 hours of when they were supposed to announce. He needs to make a serious commitment to leadership. If you really want to see an end to Canada's one-party state quit playing into the Liberals hands. It only helps the Liberals for the CPC to change leaders at this late stage in the game. Valid point. The party needs to make a concerted effort at putting a much more moderate face out to the public. The rise of MPs like Rona Ambrose are what will help in this regard. The party is moderating, they just need to be more forceful in showing this moderation publicly. Agreed. They need to continue to avoid talking about the SSM thing for one... This was a HUGE tactical error on Layton's part. When Layton had Martin over the barrel on the non-confidence vote that was the best chance he would have ever had to push proportional representation. If the NDs aren't going to take advantage of their golden opportunities, they shouldn't be expecting the CPC to come bail them out. Tremendously naive analysis about Adscam. People definitely do care. PM Dithers made the commitment to call the election to save his electoral arse. It was a shrewd move and it worked. He was desperate and playing for time. The reason he was so desperate, was Adscam. Adscam is a time bomb. Still has the potential to continue inflicting wounds on the Liberals. btw you did mean lower the "decibel" level, didn't you?

That's a very convenient analysis of a very misleading graph. It gives no indication of what is considered "Conservative" support up to 03Q4 (i.e. the approximate time of the merger.) Is it PC plus Alliance combined? Don't know the answer but can't really draw many 'trend' conclusions without knowing the answer - unless the conclusion you draw fits aone's pre-conceived agenda. The Conservatives biggest spike in the past two years was on election day. The only poll that really counts. The downward trend for the Conservatives only manifests itself because of this most recent SES result. Looking at the results up to 05Q2 you see a much more solid 30 percent vote for the CPC. But thanks for trying....

Indeed. Thankfully the hardcore anti-Harper rantings, that try and spin everything as negatively as possible really come off bitter when they are as weak as these are. Besides, where are the likes of Adler gonna go? A big tent may make them feel uncomfortable, but that's what is necessary to propel Harper into the PMO.

Reading that article points to three big cases with very long sentences. Bernard Ebbers (Edmonton-born yikes) CEO of Worldcom sentenced to 25 years. John Rigas President of Adelphia sentenced to 15 years. Dennis Kozlowski CEO of TYCO facing 15 to 30 years. These guys are all getting what they deserve. An educated guess would be that good old Conrad is facing a minimum ten years. The left may call it what they will, but this high-profile prosecutions have brought a lot of corporate execs into line. As they should.

Sorry kimmy. Realistically there are some 'true believers out there. There PMO also needs to appoint judges, commissioners yada yada from Alberta. A history of cutting $5k cheques couldn't hurt. Alberta has had the reputation of Redmonton for a long time. Yet again PM Dithers has proved to be a far less able politician than Chretien. Chretien realized the value of Edmonton and made money from it, inspite of the city's infestation with Martinites amongst its "Liberal elite". Not much of a change at all. Those who are cutting the cheques are doing so for personal gain. Those cheques won't help Edmonton anymore than all previous donations have.

The NDs have lost 4 points in Quebec from the previous SES poll. (That would be the poll you tout in your signature, so that means you do believe it's validity, doesn't it?) So they are losing support in a poll you are advertisng yet you ignore it to talk about the overwhelming evidence provided by the reaction of several young Quebeckers. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt...

Another personal attack. Another example of blatantly disregarding the rules for posting in the forum. Another example of Mirror getting to attack people with impunity. Another example of Mirror sticking his foot in his mouth, which will be ignored when he is proven wrong, yet again. From the above-mentioned Globe and Mail article. "We effectively have a monopoly in the sector, a very small number of very large companies that are setting the prices," Mr. Layton said. Actually Jack that would be an oligopoly. You think you would have figured out what you are describing in earning that PhD.

More empty, unsubstantiated leftie propaganda. When Jack Layton continually makes policy proposals that would hurt ALL Canadians economically it only goes to prove why he will NEVER be a realistic contender for 24 Sussex .... thankfully! Mindblowingly ridiculous policy proposal number 1 - Slap Tariffs on Canadian oil exports. Mindblowingly ridiculous policy proposal number 2 - Create a tribunal to examine the monopoly of multinational oil companies. What will be the third piece of this policy triple crown Jackie? Bring back FIRA? How about re-starting production of the Avro Arrow? Why not nationalize Petro Canada? Make Naomi Klein Minister of International Trade?

Totally right. Alas, they did start it and we have to do something to stand up for ourselves. Slapping duties on goods imported from the U.S. is much smarter than adding tariffs to anything we export.

Yet again proving the exact opposite of what an unnamed poster set out to do. Harper moderates stance. Gets praised for his mature handling of the situation in the Toronto Star. As a result of his statesmanlike behaviour the hard-core Reformers are pissed off. Hmmm, Harper is starting to appeal to mainstream Canadian voters. Too bad certain posters lack the capacity to scrutinize anything outside their myopic "I hate Harper" view of the world. You truly realize why this column is another positive sign for Harper, in spite of your posturing on the message board. Don't you?

Fighting the U.S. bully. Effective retaliation in this case would involve slapping import duties on American goods coming into Canada. Derek Burney recommends California wine and Florida orange juice. This would be a far shrewder move than imposing export duties on Canadian oil going to the US. The costs borne by Canadians would be much wider spread out throughout the Canadian population and it would help crete pressure on Congress to free up the funds held in the softwood lumber dispute.

Layton proves complete lack of understanding of macroeconomics. How many billions of dollars would such an investigation cost Jack? Couldn't the money be better spent on social programs? It is so much easier to propose actions with no chance of forming the government. Economy 101 Jackie, a few players in a market would be an oligopoly.

How much will the added costs of getting the oil to your "prospective new buyers" be? What will the legal costs be when U.S. companies sue Canadian companies for breaking supply contracts? Who will pay these costs? That would be great ... for the Conservatives. Piss off the Americans to the point where the start being really nasty. That would probably tip the balance away from the Liberals. Enough to get Martin out of the PMO.... Again, I miss the self-evident nature of your reasoning. err "The Iraq war is about oil." shoop "Why do you say that?" err "Because it is!" I applaud the well-constructed and laid out argument on that one. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stronach was terrible. Goodbye and good riddance.

Where does that figure come from? There is no way the Canadian Government has spent that much on official bilingualism. The fact that the amount you cite would neatly account for ALL of the national debt makes the figure that much more suspect.

Yes, we do have cards to play. But let's play to win. Taxing the oil hurts us more than it hurts the U.S. Sure they will still take some of their oil from Canada, but they will cut back on how much. Besides, what's to stop the U.S. from using that money to 'buy' a more stable oil supply from Venezuela? The belligerence of the Martin regime has strained the Canada-U.S. relationship. Let's avoid confrontation and work constructively. The unquestioned 'truth' that the U.S. is willing to "kill" for oil. Please don't attack me personally. Greg has laid out the rules of the forum repeatedly.

What is a mixed public-private business? Never heard that term before...

Let's look at the 'hurting' involved. To draw a physical analogy they could punch us so hard as to put us into a coma, but they would break a few fingers in doing so. While lying in our hospital bed recovering we could take solace in the fact that at least those buggers were injured in the attack. What a tremendous moral victory. Their economy is TEN TIMES the size of ours.The answer is shrewdness, not belligerence. By 'turning off the taps' we are not in a negotiating position at all. Deal with them professionally, not like children. ps, what's with the 'bend over' references? Can't such thinly-veiled homophobia get your anti-globalization leftie card revoked?

tee hee hee That is a bit of an issue I have with the NDs. If only people would really listen to them everything could be settled. Comes from a divine arrogance in the righteousness of what they believe. If only you could cast aside your self-minded pettiness for once second and really open your mind you would see the truth. The gospel according to Jack.

Let's consider what Layton has done in this parliament. After the election he said that his caucus would only support the Liberal government instituted democratic reform including proportional representation. Yet he caves and totally gives in merely to for a one-time outlay of 4-5 Billion on social spending that the Liberals have reneged on. Methinks Mr. Layton's momentum is illusory. With tempers having cooled down over the summer people are re-examining the leaders. Could some votes be termporarily parked with Layton, who was pretty much out of the spotlight during the non-confidence vote? A vote that left all the main actors bloodied...

Your assertion would make sense if parties completely outlined all of their spending plans while in office in the election. History has shown this to never be the case. Why try and change the term surplus? A surplus is, by definition, when the governmen takes in more in a year then it spends on everything except debt repayment.

Mirror, let's stick on topic please. What has the bigger readership The Toronto Star or Canada Free Press.com? Why is Canada Free Press.com considered right wing media?

How exactly would we turn off the tap? What about the thousands of Canadians thrown out of work by doing so? How would we replace the loss of income to the Canadian treasury? Do you honestly think the United States is going to back down in the face of Canadian belligerence? They are bigger and tougher than us. Best not to try and get in a pissing match with the U.S. or we will lose every time. If we sink to that level the U.S. is totally justified in doing so in return. But if we maintain professionalism and courtesy in the relationship then perhaps we can arrive at an agreement that leaves both sides happy.