tml12

Funny, the conservatives on thi sboard like to say that the Liberals didn't make a move without sticking a wet finger in the air... what makes this any different? The Conservatives are SINCERELY doing more than the Liberals on the issue of the environment, that's what makes this different.

I'm all for it and I support stricter penalties for people who use these drugs too.

Dear Rovik, "And how do we keep Afghanistan secure? By keeping coalition forces in there perpetually? And is Afghanistan really much more secure (outside the larger centres) after almost 5 years of coalition forces?" We keep Afghanistan secure by working with our friends and allies and by winning the peace of the Afghan people. Is Afghanistan more secure? I don't know. Will it be less secure if we cut and run? Most definitely. "I'm sure that ArmyGuy is sincere and really believes what he says, but his is only one soldier's opinion. I've talked to a friend's brother who served over there and he is pessimistic about what will happen. He said that out in the villages, the locals support the Taliban wholeheartedly and they kept their eyes on any local that came close. He also mentioned that there were many soldiers who didn't like the direction of the Canadian military but they would never come out in public and say what was on their mind, because if they did, they would be marginalized and isolated. And no matter what role the military has, people will always respect the soldiers as it should be." That is based on a lot of speculative information and "he said, she said" stuff. What is the direction of the Canadian military? Our soldiers are working with allies to make Afghanistan a better place and of course in war you are wary of somebody who might be the enemy. "The NDP believes in peacekeeping, which in my mind is a form of militarism." I'll accept that as a fair statement. "One can't compare Afghanistan to WW2. In WW2, the enemy had one of the great military powers of its time and wanted to control the world. They even had subs off Canada's Atlantic coast. In Afghanistan, we have a small ragtag group whose technology doesn't even come close to the coalition. To even consider comparing the two is really pushing it." I don't believe I compared the two wars. I compared Canada's role in each war and that was/is to defend the freedom we enjoy as Canadians. I love the myth "America Fights Wars, Canada Makes Peace." It is the biggest lie if there ever was one and it degrades Canada's veterans and our current military. They worked hard and shot and killed the enemy in cold blood because they were at war. We didn't work for peace until the enemy was defeated. We did it in World War II and we will do it in Afghanistan as well. Pulling out would embarass us in front of our allies and give the Taliban and its terrorist allies exactly what they want.

Hey geoffrey I am glad to see you're still writing on this forum. Is that above statement really close to being true? BTW I still read your web page but I see you haven't updated it for awhile.

Safe injections sights are silly I think. What are they for? To prevent people from using the same needles to prevent the spread of diseases like AIDS? If you ridiculous enough to use needles that might have been used by eithers just so you can blow off cash to get high on dangerous drugs is ridiculous. Make it a law that anyone can buy needles in their local pharmacy. If they've got money for heroin they've got money for needles. Then at least we can say some of the money is being used to support the local economy.

I don't think it was done to appease the Americans. While the Americans must be pleased by it, I think Canada recognizes that it is in the world's best interest to have a more secure Afghanistan. Furthermore, ArmyGuy reported that Canadian troops there were making a difference...and if he says that, I believe him. The NDP doesn't want Canada in Afghanistan because they don't believe in any kind of military action. They may support the troops, yes, but they can never support any kind of militarism. Canada's role needs to be more aggressive. The fact that Canada "keeps the peace" just isn't true...it is a myth propagated by Liberal governments. Canada had strong and proud roles in past wars, especially WWII. It is time we recognized this and appreciated what our troops were doing over there.

I don't care what you think, understand? Stop polluting the forum, take your complaints to the admin. edit: Harper is a bad PM thus far. He is dishonest and divisive. His policy in many things is following lockstep with Bush, and given that they share the same Frank Luntz advice it's not surprising. Assuch, I am free to be critical of Harper to my hearts content. I care not at all that you find it "disrespectful" to Steve, because it's respectful to our great Country. If Harper starts acting like a PM...if he treats issues like global warming with full honesty and engages the press openly THEN I will start to respect him. Until then he gets what he deserves. The partisanship that you accuse me of is what you have fallen victim to, ironically. Harper agrees with Bush about some issues, yes, but does that mean he has not been a good PM so far? Right now, he's the best option but we don't have much to go on and not much to compare to. We are all partisan to some degree on this forum. If we weren't interested in politics, we wouldn't take time to sign up and type here right? I respect people no matter what they believe and I don't think my opinion is better than anyone else's. I am pretty open and moderate. However, gerry, I find it sad that you criticize Harper for polling on the environment. That is more than the Liberals did. And you forget that Mulrooney won that award for being the greenest prime minister.

Her job is definitely on the line in this one. She is seen in the media as one of the less successful Cabinet Ministers to date. Ambrose Link. She isn't the most popular person around the cabinet table. So we will have to see. My gut tells me that Harper won't give her a lot of latitude on the file. If he isn't happy with the first draft he'll essentially take the file out of her hands and then keep her as a placeholder minister until the next election. A lot of that criticism seems speculative. Would they have given Harper an "A" if he had kept Canada in Kyoto? Not sure I understand but if Harper replaces Ambrose that would be OK with me but I think she inherited a lot from the Liberals.

Minister Ambrose seems to be a flexible person. She is known for being more libertarian. Perhaps it is better this way as she will be willing to offer more flexible solutions that will be worked out here instead of bureacratic internationally-unflexible regulations.

That is very beautiful post ArmyGuy. Please know that you have my support and that I don't know if I will ever be able to thank you for the sacrifices that you and your fellow soldiers have made so that we can live freely here in Canada.

I should correct myself. I am as pro-environment as most NDP members but I agree Kyoto is not a good thing for Canadians. We never had a Kyoto plan anyway. Furthermore, I don't think Kyoto was realistic from an international point of view. We would be much better off creating and enforcing our own environmental laws here in Canada, which is exactly what I think Harper is trying to do.

Uh huh, right. I personally can't wait to see Harpers plan. From the previews it's been getting it sounds like it will take the rug out from under him. Canadians aren't stupid, they will recognize a lack of action on important issues even if it's dressed up in good-sounding language. If in fact Harpers plan DOES take some real action on global warming I will give due praise. I am in fact very pro-environment. If the environment was the only issue, I would probably vote NDP. Can you at least recognize that the Liberals failed us with their environmental plan?

That is your opinion. The CBC is under constant attack from the rightwing mostly due to the fact that it's paid for (mostly) by taxpayers. I listen to the CBC news every morning and I hear no bias. It's the straight news. Every day during the sponsorship scandal the CBC gave me all the developments and opposition accusations. Where you crying "bias!" then? The accusation that the CBC opposes a Conservative government because it fears for it's funding is ludicrous and unfounded. Not every second of the CBC is biased. I can turn on the CBC right now and probably not hear somebody say something biased but that's not the point. The point is the CBC makes suggestive comments now and then that shows they have points to make and views to express and if my tax dollars go towards that I find it unfair.

Gerry, What would you like Harper to do on the environment: follow the Chretien Liberal "do-nothing but talk big" approach? The U.S. under Bush pulled out of Kyoto but the U.S. followed a "Made In USA" approach and the EPA saw to it that the U.S. released it's greenhouse gas emmissions 25% MORE THAN CANADA. Canada has no EPA, no Clean Air Act, just a lot of promises so we can tell the world we're better than the USA. Currently, the joke seems to be on you. And is Harper comes through with his own plan, the joke will REALLY be on you.

There's something wrong with labelling some behavior or action as idiotic nonsense? Why, exactly? If all you can do is run around complaining that people are being mean to Harper then don't waste your time. Every media outlet in a democratic society should seek to present a fair and balanced broadcast unless they clearly state their partisan opinion up front. When I watch Sheila Copps or Ann Coulter I know what kinds of opinions I am going to hear. CBC should be as non-biased as possible but it is not because it fears greater fiscal conservatism in a Conservative government will mean the end of more taxpayer money. It is about as pro-left as Fox News is pro-right and that is unfair.

You need a tin foil hat. That is flaky sh#t. I guess we'll agree to disagree, unless of course you can offer me proof that the CBC is centrist.

"You don't poll on the environment, you act." I agree with you. We need action on the environment. The Liberals signed Canada on to Kyoto because it was what Canadians wanted. They proceded to do absolutely nothing while Canada's greenhouse gas emmissions rose 25% more than the big bad environment-hating USA. It's hard to believe a country governed by Bush is more environmentally-friendly than trendy Liberal Canada, but it's true.

"Is THIS pathetic" I wrote. The obvious translation is that the hiring of the pollster is pathetic. You warp it into me calling Harper himself pathetic. This is not the first time you've done this kind of thing. You are well capable of dishonesty, that much I've learned from the small amount I've seen you in action here. Stop complaining that I an above the rules here. You've done it before, and it's BS. If you have a complaint about me alert the admin rather than start flame wars. Come on Gerry it's fairly obvious you think Harper is pathetic...you've insinuated as much.

If you were Harper, would you want your cabinet to talk to the media? The media in this country is funded by Liberal/NDP special-interest groups who want desperately for Harper to fail. He has to be extra careful because the media is looking for him to slip so they can produce something big that they can give to the Liberal/NDP candidate in the next election. I think Ricki Bobbi makes a lot more sense than you Gerry.

It seems like Harper is trying to figure out what Canadians want and I'll bet he'll deliver for us if it's reasonable. Unlike the Liberals who talk a lot but walk very little.

The Liberals are not left, centre, or right. They are whatever they think appeals to a significant portion of the Canadian population at any given point in time. Lot of back scratching going on in this topic. The Liberals are what they are. The irony of your general insult though is that the Conservatives are twice as guilty of what you speak than the Liberals have ever been! Have you not noticed how they've governed? It's been an election campaign from the beginning. And now we learn they're polling on the environment. Did you hear about that? News just this last week. Stephen Harper hired Strategic Council to poll Canadian attitudes on the environment. What a thing to poll about. So the next time you want to swiftboat the Liberals about acting on Canadian attitudes just remember that that Cons polled on the environment. Don't forget to mention that at the same time. Stephen Harper has governed more or less as he campaigned. Can you say that about the last few Liberal PMs???

The Liberals are not left, centre, or right. They are whatever they think appeals to a significant portion of the Canadian population at any given point in time. They will cut funding to health care, then claim they created Medicare in this country, then reinvest in it again if they think it will win them a majority government. And, of course, they propagate the anti-American myths that Canada is less like America than any other country in the world because they think that is what a lot of Canadians want to hear so they can get elected. As for Harper...I haven't written a post on this forum in almost 6 months but I will continue to now what I said then...that Harper is still the best guy to run this country because he has consistently stuck to his gut and governed this country to the best of his ability, which is more than I can say for any of the silly ridiculous Liberals running around Canada seeing who can feign their "Canadian values" platform better.

Actually, the US is suffering from that today as well. Yes, another good straight across comparison. The USA and the former soviet union. Very similar. you are hilarious. JERRYSEINFELD: I agree with you for the most part. LEAFLESS: The USSR went bankrupt with the arms race...in fact, it precipitated the need for Gorbachev.

his books are required reading at my university.

I also beleive any one who think Hitler was left doesn't understand Hitler, the Left or flush toilets. Here's hint, kiddies: the first people Hitler rounded up were the Communists, Social Democrats, union leaders and other leftists. Why d'ya suppose that is? After all, if state economic control was the sole plank of the left, surely a socialist like Hitler could have found common ground with those (then mainstream) political parties instead of, you know, banning them and murdering their members. Fact his, Hitler's ultra-nationalist, racialist, authoritarian beliefs put him at odds with the western liberal tradition of individual and equality rights (which is why he was welcomed by the right-wing establishment). I thought I had explained it to you all but since you still feel the need to debate the point, why not look at this, as it substantiates my claim: "In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground. " (Source: www.politicalcompass.org)