tml12

The wiretap information doesn't look favourable to Wayne. Stop supporting an inferior team, I cannot respect you any longer. The team is so bad, it destroyed one of the best defensemen in the NHL. Canuck: Did Chretien actually have a homeless advisor? I can almost believe this. I am a Habs fan but between the two (Flame/Oilers) I gotta go with the Flames. I like Jerome and I think Oilers fans are a little too stiff. Flames fans are hilarious!!!

Mimas, I don't get what you're saying here. "Thousands" of Canadians are better qualified? In what way exactly? What is it specifically that you disagree with? Fortier's personal qualifications? Fair enough, list them. The fact that he was appointed a senator, on the basis that Harper campaigned against this? Fair enough, though as I mentioned before it brings the question as to how Harper deals with any senator at this point. Is it that Fortier is not elected? Historically its happened before, so is it just that Harper used this convention? Well, someone suggested earlier that Fortier is qualified for the job. I don't see that he is because being elected is a prerequisite for a cabinet seat. Besides he has no previous experience in running a government department, while many others do. Harper specifically said on TV that if Montreal did not elect a Conservative, he would not appoint anyone to cabinet to represent the city because he "believed that cabinet should be made up of ELECTED representatives". Also, the Conservative party and it's predicesors have long argued that the law on appointing senators did not have to change in order to have elected senators. Have people run for available senate seats and then appoint those who win in the election. Now that they are in government they suddenly completely forgot about that. Finally, as I already mentioned, Harper did not run on having things done as they have been done BEFORE. He ran on CHANGE. Over 50% of those who voted Conservative in the last election voted that way because they wanted CHANGE. Appointing friends and turncoats to cabinet is NOT the kind of CHANGE they voted for! Liberal or Tory - SAME OLD STORY Can you find a transcript of that Harper quote on TV???

I think you mean illegal...and yes I agree with that.

I am not a fan of Bush...but I am no Democrat either. The problem with Bush is that he is stubborn, short sighted, and not schoolded in foreign affairs. The problem with the Dems is that all they can agree on is abortion. Abramoff claims he met with Bush 14 times and what do the Dems say? We're pro-choice!!! I am not saying I'm not pro-choice. What I am saying is the top executive Dems from different parts of the country need to get together and put together a platform that can at least incorporate something that will make a difference in the States. They more they bitch at each other, the longer the Republicans will remain in complete control of all three branches of government in DC.

"Ah do declah, these heah Dehm-o-crats are such beastly creetchas. It's just so unseemly the way these culluhed folk behave at their funerahls, all dancin' and talkin' poltics, insteada demurely sippin' mint juleps on the verhandah." Damn I haven't had mint juleps since my last trip to Kentucky!!! I'll give it to you BD, the post was creative...

There have been instances of people in BC joining the Bloc, even though you *technically* have to be a resident of Quebec.

I don't view all government spending as unnecessary. . . certainly spending on courts and appeals. My view is that the soldiers in question were conned. The sad thing is, they'll get in trouble and go to prison if they return to the USA -- but George W. Bush won't -- even though he's the one who committed high crimes and misdemeanours. Neither do I...I am not an anarchist. I do believe that government should not force individuals to act in ways they see fit...it isn't an issue of government or no government...it is not black and white. However, I don't support living off the system if you don't have to. I have friends on welfare and they deserve it because of medical conditions and other complicated reasons I won't go into. The fact is, I do question our appeals system if a ruling can be laid down and years later you can still appeal it and live in the country. It becomes a question of how many times is too many times?

The war was undeniably illegal -- both under the laws of the USA and "international law" (which I give less respect to). Further, the use of National Guard and reserve troops in the war is also illegal -- anyone in the national guard who signed up under the pretense of homeland defence has a very strong case against the government. I am no pro-Iraq war hawk and I will leave the question of the legality for a minute. But let's get back to Hinzman and the soldiers there. What should we do about it? Would you, YankAbroad, someone who shares an agreement with me about the ridiculousness of bloated huge government authoritarian policies, support paying to keep this guy appealing the system?

That was an unbiased website newbie...you have brought me around to your POV... Ah deleted...

That was an unbiased website newbie...you have brought me around to your POV...

A soldier is trained how to interpret that law when it comes to treating individuals he encounters. A soldier is not trained how to interpret the law when it comes to determining the legality of the war. Furthermore, a soldier has all the information he needs to know whether killing a prisoner or raping a girl is legal - the law is very black and white when it comes to those things. The law is considerably more ambiguious when it comes to deciding if the war itself is legal or not and making an informed decision requires access to information that a soldier does not have access to. YES!!!

The Point IMT is missing here is: THIS MAN SIGNED A CONTRACT. HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS DOING. HE WAS SOMEONE WHO WANTED MONEY FOR COLLEGE AND HE GOT IN OVER HIS HEAD. It was unwise. It was a foolish choice...the result is unfortunate but it is what it is. All this stuff about the legality of the war and this and that is stupid leftist garbage in defence of this guy. I feel for him. But you know what? When you sign a contract, you are expected to live up to what you sign. When I sign contracts for my employer, etc. I don't tell them later: "What I meant, etc." The fact is he wanted money for college. He was never prepared to go into that world. He was not mentally prepared for it. That doesn't mean he should not be held accountable for his actions. All these questions of "legality" are completely irrelavent.

How is the relevance any different in those two cases? One involves a real incidence which may or may not take place on the battlefield. The other involves a theoretical question of legality which will vary depending on your opinion.

Quebec daycare has many problems...like this one: http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...b6-768ced9a44de The CPC plan is probably the best for Canada.

Mimas, I'm curious. Are you outraged because you voted for the Conservative Party of Canada, therefore feeling personally betrayed or are you a supporter of another party and using this as an excuse to bash Harper? There is an important distinction. Could you elaborate please? Good point... Well?

I did not and theres nothing on the NDP website.

So what you're saying is that if he was ordered to deploy for an illegal war, it would be his responsibility to disobey? What he is arguing is if his general told him to rape and murder a 7 year old girl, it would be his responsibility to ignore the order. He is in no position--what with no law or even a Bachelor's degree (???)--to determine whether or not the war was legal, nor is that even (as the government argued) relevant to this case.

That it is. Let hope its all up from here. Although day one has us all wondering if that will be the case. Only time will tell but I doubt it...Harper is no fool.

All of the reasons for starting the war have been proven false, so it wasn't a defensive war. There were no grounds for it. He's also saying that the war is violating human rights. Seems to me starting a war does violate human rights. Ah, Human rights violations happened in World War II. Does that make that war illegal? As for the pre-emptive strike, it was based on (we now know faulty) military intelligence that France/Russia, etc. believed in. Hinzman's claim that the war was illegal and he couldn't kill a man evoke no sympathy from me...

Nope, I respectfully say you're way out of whack saying that. Once a person signs up in the military, they're commiting to do their term generally and war is part of the risk. A soldier has a responsibility, (a big one), to maintain certain composure on a battlefield and not commit crimes against humanity within his scope or job level. They have to leave the policy decisions to people assigned that task. He obviously recognizes and accepts that war is part of the risk of serving in the military. He did serve in Afghanistan. It's the war in Iraq that he's against, and I think he should stand up to his principles there. There's a huge difference between fighting a defensive and an offensive war. Just because he signed up doesn't mean he shouldn't even question what they tell him to do. People get charged with war crimes when they don't question participating in the violation of human rights. He gets that point across when he said "... I think it's been well established at Nuremburg that in those instances, you cannot simply just say that you're following orders, but you have a duty and obligation to disobey." Also, international law does say one has the right to object to specific wars. There's a reason for that. Not all wars are "defensive." Defending one's country is a totally different matter from starting a war. As for recruitment tactics: that's a real sore spot with me. They call kids who aren't even old enough to take a drink (they get their names and phone numbers from the schools, thanks to the No Child Left Behind act) and tell them what a wonderful opportunity it is to join the reserves. Easy money. They don't mention fighting. They definitely take advantage of them. They aren't old enough to have good enough judgement to drink a beer, but they do have the maturity to sign up for the military and fight in a war. That's what's way out of whack. We know the recruitment tactics are controversial... His whole basis was the war is illegal...how can it be proven?

He seems pretty well versed in Canadian politics given the time he has spent hiding in caves in Afghanistan. Who knew? Didn't you here, the Liberals fast-tracked his citizenship application because he said he'd vote Liberal... His passport didn't arrive on time, so he went to the polls and verbally told them he was a Canadian citizen and they let him vote anyway... Now he is working for the CBC... I should add it disgust me that this could even be a reality...remember when the Chretien Liberals said they'd give Saddam amnesty...

Agreed.

That's because they buy their own books and resell them to the bookstores. Regnery Press is particularly notorious for those. WalMart often receives truckloads of "new" books from Regnery which already have Walmart stickers on them -- because Regnery went in, bought the books, stuck them in inventory, and then resold them to Walmart. So the same book counts as being "sold" 20 or 30 times. As for Michael "Savage," he's not one to talk about immoral homosexuals. It's widely assumed that he had a homosexual relationship with his very close friend, gay beat poet Alan Ginsburg. He's rather good at playing his schtick, though, and proves that in American politics, you don't need a point of view so much as you need to tell people what they want to hear and you can be successful. "Savage" caters to the reactionary nuts who think the feminists are out to castrate them and that gays are "interested" in them. His thesis revolved around a Pat Buchananesque plan to close the U.S. border to everything foreign. What's that the little birdie just tole me? That's how the Republicans are going to run in '08?

No but if Harper can't get enough support around Vancouver, the GTA, and the island of Montreal, then it won't be a strong majority.

I would like to nominate the guy on the ING Direct commercials. He bears a weird resemblace to Chretien and he tells us to "save your money." I think he would ignite a passionate debate.