tml12

Phzzzt. end White House transmission. Most Iraqis want US forces out. Almost half say it's OK to attack them. Why is it so hard for the war supporters to see that the time has come to leave? It's got nothing to do with "bleeding hearts" or any of that bullsh#t. The simple truth is that it's more destabalized with US troops there. Gerry, How stupid can you be? Answer this question: regardless of whether you are left or right-wing do you honestly see Iraq being stable if every non-Iraqi troop left overnight? Do you REALLY????????

Carolyn Parrish despises the Americans. She, of course, is a despicable unscrupulous bitch and thankfully will not be returning to Parliament. How can you not say she is a person full of hate and loathing? Isn't she the one that stepped on that GWB doll too? That's right. That's when Martin had to dump her (he would carry the anti-American rhetoric later). People don't understand that our relationship with the Americans is important. The Americans can be jerks sometimes but they generally want what is best for people. A recent poll showed almost 80% of Americans (and that would include the American right-wing) want strong relationship with Canada. They don't care if we don't agree with them. They just don't want us to be uncivilized about it. Look, Mulrooney didn't always agree with Reagan. Yet, Mulrooney wasn't an assh*le about it. He would just talk to Reagan and say, "Canada does not endore that position." Is it so hard for the Canadian left to see how important that position is? If not, then no one in Canada should be able to watch the Super Bowl, or the Simpsons, or Family Guy, etc. That's right...I sense a 24 hour "Train 48" marathon in the future...

Carolyn Parrish you mean? She didn't hate Americans. This is getting pretty sad now. And there was nothing wrong with what she did on that comedy show. Quite funny actually, too bad there's so many PC folks around. "damn Americans, I hate those bastards." Carolyn Parrish Yes, I'm aware of that quote. I still say she does not hatre Americans. It was an offhand comment made during the run-up to the Iraqi war, and she's quite obviously referring to the American administration pressuring Canada to give them support for Iraq. To argue that Carolyn Parrish has a "hatred for Americans" because of that statement is plain silly. That's like saying a frustrated child hates thier parents when they tell you they do. Carolyn Parrish despises the Americans. She, of course, is a despicable unscrupulous bitch and thankfully will not be returning to Parliament. How can you not say she is a person full of hate and loathing?

...And it gives us a seat at the table. Agreed Geoffrey... Ohhhhh a seat at the table! My goodness, a seat at the table! With the Americans! How wonderful! Yes yes, let's support it, and anything else they want!! We should review their proposal and then see what we think about it. Yes we should have a seat at the table "old boy" so we can agree together about how to defend Canada...

The only reason the argument of deterrence doesn't carry weight is because the penalties have become an absolute joke. I repeat, a punishment for a violent crime that is so severe that people would not consider committing the crime would work. Jails should not work on a revolving door. If you commit a violent/sex crime we'll throw you in and lose the key for no less than ten years. If at that point you've been rehabilitated in the opinion of the parole board, then you may leave. If not every two years after, you'll be re-evaluated up until the end of the twenty years. If you kill another prisoner or are involved in a violent crime while in jail you never get parole. If we don't get serious with these people they'll just keep laughing at the criminal justice system. I do believe that deterence in the country is not sufficient, an is no longer carrying weight, however compassion is required for a humane justice system. Not to the point however that the rights of the criminal are often above the rights of the victom and future victoms. To improve our society we must study our criminals and what caused their behaviour, and try to get to the bottom of it through social programs that can keep the crime off the streets in the first place. Many of these types of social programs have been wiped out, including adequate social programs for children living in disturbed home care situations. It all starts with our children, and so many of them live under poverty and abuse (example 5 year old Jeffrey Baldwin died at the hands of a previous child molestor who managed to win custody of 4 children). Mothers who abuse alcohol and drugs during pregnancy create kids that cannot function properly in our society. As a mother, I think that is a greater crime than throwing a brick at a bride to be. Rehabilitation for youths of non-violent crime should also be a high priority, to keep them from stepping to that next level of violence. Perhaps stricter penalties towards violent criminals today should be coupled with some kind of community service work: make these criminals work for their food, shelter, instead of being supplied by the public. The money saved from having to jail, house, feed, medicate, police and otherwise take care of criminals in city jails could be put towards better social programs for children, youths, and non-violent criminals, and towards the study of violent crime to help prevent it in the first place. Concerned, I think you make a lot of good points. Rehabilitation has always been a key to achieving a healthy criminal justice system. Although a conservative, I don't believe in simply executing every criminal or person who is convicted of a crime. Rehabiliating a criminal should always be the first part of every civilized society. Community service should play a part, as should stricter penalties, in dealing with violent criminals.

Does it ever...

deleted

Gerry, "You make that assumption only because it supports your position that the US should stay. All rightwingers in the Western world supported this war and thus all want to see the US leave when things are rosey in Iraq, not before." Ah, I have that position because only a damn fool would think otherwise given the circumstances. "Tell us, why would there be more "anarchy" than there currently is? Do you have such little faith in Iraqis to govern thier own affairs without a bunch of US troops running around that you think anarchy would break out? Why would anarchy result? Why, instead, wouldn't the different factions and local clerics be able to stabalize the nation given the absence of US inspired violence?" Iraq needs U.S. troops to stabalize it...soon they will be capable of governing themselves...

The two parties have been around for awhile. They will not gain any seats in the next election. If anything, they will result in PQ vote splits in several ridings which will produce Liberal or ADQ wins.

I was not favour of the Iraq war but I am in favour of democratizing Iraq today. You know, democracy, something that will benefit the children of Iraq?

"What a pathetic response. This news is a lot newer than the sponsorship scandal. I supose you were out chastising the Cons and the NDP for dredging up really old news?" I suppose you think the sponsorship scandal is really old news. That is the only bad news the left has to worry about... "But you need to get real here. I am not "the left" and I'm certainly not "desperate". I am overjoyed with the election outcome, thankyou v.much. I brought this up just for betsy to stand in contrast to her post about EGALE. I thought she needed to have a look in a mirror in the form of Larry Spencer." You certainly do a good job of imposing as a leftist...or are you just *not right.* "Sure it's an oldie (2 WHOLE YEARS!) but a goodie." Ah, corrupt Liberals are still in power. This guy was never in power, in fact, hasn't even been an MP in almost three years. Furthermore, you just criticized me for criticizing your post for being old, then you agree it's "an oldie." I love you Gerry, I really do... "Now, which one of you rightwingers was talking about the National Energy Program just the other day......you remember which one? I gotta find him so you can tell him your line about "old news"." Relax Gerry, no one is talking about the NEP.

That CPC commercial where a smug and full-of-himself Dingwall is sitting there saying "I am entitled to my entitlements" comes up in my mind and makes me want to vomit. He is entitled to being put in jail for abusing the Mint. Sad...really sad.

...And it gives us a seat at the table. Agreed Geoffrey...

Excellent strategy Shoop. I agree.

I don't care what the reasons are for Iran to get nukes. The question is why should WE oppose or support them in their quest for nukes. The answer, of course, is that they're nuts, and we don't let screwballs play around with nuclear weapons if we can possibly avoid it. The prospect of wacko mullahs in Iran setting off nukes in Tel Aviv, and the Israelis retaliating by nukeing most of hte middle east, is simply too horrible for us to care one way or another about the likes of international law or the sanctity of borders. If the Iranians won't stop they should be stopped. Completely agreed.

It wouldn't surprise me. A vote for the Liberals is a vote for lack of self-respect. A vote for the NDP is a vote for all of the above. A vote for the CPC is a vote for a strong Canada.

Sorry I forgot we to have the ability to kill our children when we can't afford them... these are the reasons that abortion should be prohibited. Selfish greed is a ridiculous goal. There are some real reasons where I think freedom of choice could be acceptable, I'm not an anti-abortion radical. But when women choose to kill their children because they don't want the financial burden, well, that sickens me. I'd love to see the CPC come out with a policy that requires the father's consent for an abortion to occur, as long as the father has the finacial resources to take responsibility for the child (otherwise the ma would get the choice as too many fathers would agree and then poof, be gone). Won't happen though. Responsibility for ones actions is something thats escaped the feminist movement. Really if a woman can't decide in the first two months whether or not she wants to have an abortion, then we have a problem. I used to know someone who performed abortions. He used to tell me about having to crack a baby's skull, etc because a woman spent three months dithering. I am sorry to all those left-wing feminists out there. That is disgusting and disturbing. Legal abortion for the first month. After that, it's murder. Cracking a baby's skull is murder...

Stephen Harper never said he would "go after" "same sex marraige" (which by the way is an oxymoron), he simply said he'd allow a free vote on the issue. Something that has never been done. Why are people so afraid of free votes? Why are people so afraid of democracy? I dunno Shady...

I was just looking at that thinking, wow tml really is a day ahead of the rest of us. We'll I've figured out my career path. Head some government agency, quit, and get a huge cheque. Why not? Who needs ethics when you have entitlements? Well it is 12:40AM here so I technically am a day of you out west... And if you get a government job, surely you'll hook me up...after all, out relationship is non-partisan all the way, right?

Nah, being pro-Iraq was one of the few smart things Martin ever was. But oh well, he can deny one of his few moments of brilliance in the last few years. The fact that he was so convinced of this nuclear weapons smuggling and didn't push Chretien harder is ridiculous. The man was never a leader. For sure, I was kidding if you saw my quotes... Martin is very good when he has something to work for. At the top, he doesn't know how he wants to lead...

Oh I see how this works...you are quoted in the time zone you live in. That is very clever...apparently I am computer illiterate...

You're either lying, or mistaken. Are you truely not aware that the oft-repeated quote used to support that is so out of context that calling it support for the war is absolutely a lie? The CBC doesn't say that. Try to focus on the truth geoffrey. Iraq is a bloody disaster. There is no security. The professionals are fleeing the country. No reconstruction can move forward. Your claim that just becuse Saddam was opressive he needed to be removed is too narrow to take seriously I'll be interested to see you come back on the Paul Martin claim. It will give a great deal of insight into you. Well gerry, since you and your left buddies like to pull the hidden agenda card, I'll show you my suspicions of Martin's hidden agenda... except that people in the party actually comfirm this... here some stuff on Martin and the war from his own Liberal buddies: “When the Liberal government had to make a decision on Iraq, Mr. Martin did not speak. Those of us on the inside knew that he had been working very hard to get Prime Minister Chrétien to join the Americans in the war.” – Former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps (Worth Fighting For, 2004, pp. 211) “I think we made the wrong decision in not supporting them, and we’re obviously encountering the fallout from that in terms of various aspects of Canadian-American relations, which is not healthy.” - Former Liberal Defense Minister under Paul Martin, David Pratt, (Hansard, March 29, 2003) And in his one words, he admits that Saddam was a huge threat to western security. So if he didn't support the war believing his own words, then he's just incompetant or a complete liar: "The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Hussein had, we don't know where they are. That means terrorists have access to all of that." - Paul Martin (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/05/11/pf-455210.html) Geoffrey, Your use of facts in challenging the Liberals is the wrong move...they will accuse you of quoting out of context...

I still don't understand why no one took into consideration the fact that the man had no credentials whatsover to be head of the Mint and take almost $600,000 in money before he leaves...this is a disgraceful blot on the history of Liberal corruption in Ottawa... :angry: By the way, this is really random, but is your time zone two hours behind mine Shoop??? Because I notice your quote of my post is two hours before the time I wrote it...

I still don't understand why no one took into consideration the fact that the man had no credentials whatsover to be head of the Mint and take almost $600,000 in money before he leaves...this is a disgraceful blot on the history of Liberal corruption in Ottawa... :angry:

Uh-oh...we're in trouble now Shoop!!!