tml12

Gerry, This guy is old news...really, is that how desperate the left has become? I love what I have been hearing from leftist posters the last few days, things like: "Mulrooney was corrupt, so this justifies Liberal corruption." "Remember when [insert name here] was Reform/Alliance critic in year [year...latest 2003] when he/she advocated extreme right-wing position." I think you need to stop worrying about the past and start realizing Prime Minister Harper has a new party in a new time period. Relax...the Earth has not fallen apart I swear to you...

At least when he came here he could have used a Cuban cigar... I don't much disagree with that either Bubber...

Those clips are the stupidest things I have ever seen in my entire life. If that is where my tax dollars go, I am behind Montgomery Burns 100%. I think we should able to see Canadian content if we want to. But that stuff is just childish. The bitching American one is probably the worst one, the ungrateful liberal scum that guy is, but the ball-waxing one is equally appalling. CBC needs to get its act together. It was not founded for such blatant partisan purposes.

Forced Resignation? Resignation last fall was involuntary? The slimeball managed to convince the arbitrator he didn't resign,but was forced out.Lying Liberal government told us different. George Adams with other people's money, what a great arbitration,all completed three days before the election. :angry: Thank goodness the Liberals are gone. I love when Dingwall made us pay for his "therapeutic massage" in Sweden because it was meant to help him "cope with the difficulty of his long flight." Really, though I disagree with their ideology, I respect people voting NDP. Voting Liberal? Where do Liberal voters draw the line?

I agree with the US congressman Murtha. He comes off as an honest straight-shooting old soldier to me. He says it's time for the US to get out because they've become the target...they're the reason the violence continues. He points out that the vast majority of the US enemy in Iraq are Iraqis and that a majority of Iraqis say attacks against US forces are legitimate. Yes, it would be nice if the US could leave it better than it was when they marched in. I hope the fact that Saddam is gone will be enough to fulfill that argument and save face and allow them to get the hell out before it gets any worse. BTW, reconstruction is all but over due to the lack of security. Contractors have fled the country. What reconstruction should Canada participate in? Training Iraqi forces? We're already doing that. If the US wants to help that nation now they'll leave. That would be foolish, considering anarchy would result...

Don't you mean, Canada is officially a bilingual country but not a bilingual country in practice? And why would Betsy care how many of the new Liberal MPs are bilingual? What difference does that make? They're backbenchers! People in this forum, I tell ya... My question stemmed from Mike Duffy about Belinda Stronach getting stumped by a journalist who asked a question in French. They were talking about the Liberal "new blood" that may vy for the role of opposition leader. The journalist's point was Belinda doesn't speak French. Apparently she impressed Clinton with her German though...

I thought there's a new requirement for civil servants to become bilingual. I thought so too. I'll say a prayer for the person that has to tell that or has told that to Argus, I'm sure there will be some riots in Ottawa shortly. Tell what to Argus?

I thought there's a new requirement for civil servants to become bilingual. I thought so too.

Quebec is the only province that doesn't have to offer bilingual service in many areas. If they want French only, then Alberta should be able to go English only. Or wherever your from outside of Quebec and New Brunswick. Agreed.

The government needs to be reworked and the provinces given more power, but Harper muat ensure that when he grants Quebec more power, he does not anger the West.

Giving Quebec more sovereignty is a wise political move for now, but not a wise political move for the future...it is also not a wise move for Quebec. If we look at Quebec today, regardless of whether we believe this province should have special status or distinct society status or not, it DOESN'T. If you give Quebec more autonomy, you will undoubetly here about it from other provinces, like Newfoundland or Alberta. You will also give the soft nationalist voice more authority, and they will undoubetly want more. Time to realize Canada cannot just be ripped into 10 different pieces. We can either function as a federation or as ten governments...the choice needs to be made now. "it DOESN"T" what? I don't understand this sentence. Harper isn't suggesting that Quebec get special status, or at least none that matters. For what he is suggesting , see my and shoops posts above. Nobody is ripping Canada into further chunks, but action must be taken to prevent the complete regionalization of the country, which is well and truly advanced. I disagree that it will give the soft nationalist voice any authority, in fact it will help serve to cut them off at the knees. Quebec DOESN'T have special status. It never did...Meech failed, as did Charlottetown. If Quebec is given more powers, it will undermine federation and erode Harper's western base...maybe increase support for seperation there. I understand why Harper needs to give Quebec more power, but he should not do so at the expense of the federation.

Neo-liberalism is the cornerstone of libertarianism. "Liberal" only has a left-wing connotation in the U.S.

That's true they are often republican (at least the white ones), but hey, they signed up to be in the U.S. Army. I didn't say they were bright. It would be interesting to know how many soldiers in Iraq still think the war is a good idea, but we're not allowed to know that. Add another slander to the pile. We don't know now how they feel, but we will in time. Those soldiers will return to civilian life and will be free to reminisce about their experiences in whichever way they choose. Will they be John Kerrys, or will they be Swift Vets? Time will tell. John Kerry is a sad man...not to mention the biggest flip-flopper there is. I am no fan of Bush, but Kerry? Kerry???

YankAbroad, I think you're right. If you go to a foreign country, especially one where there are wars or otherwise unsafe things going on and you are not in a gated resort community you need to register with the consulate and let friends and family know where you are. The RCMP has no jurisdiction overseas and the Canadian government is not known for protecting its citizens overseas, short of "Foreign Affairs will get back to you... " People need to be wary...everyone is looking out for themselves...

Exactly what is "delusional"? You think the war was neccessary? "As a moderate conservative" you believe the US went to war for oil. Therefore it was neccessary? And since we're in the business of name-calling, are you too stupid to recognize this post - although truthful - is a response to the Why isn't Canada helping to promote democracy? Why isn't Canada in Iraq?" Montgomery Burns post? What's your take on that? Do you think the US war was to "promote democracy" - as MBurns claims - or just for oil as you claim? You said something about "delusional"? Not sure I follow you. The democracy part was only part of it...democratize them and get their oil. And yeah, France and Germany want to play the double-standard. I say, the heck with them. Canada tried to do, but now the Conservatives are in power and Canada can and will play a larger role in the country.

Gerry, "What "anti-Americanism"?" Where in this country do you live? "All this BS about anti-Americanism smacks of American rightwingers accusing democrats of supporting terrorists." Anti-Americanism is prevalent in this country. If you haven't heard it then you haven't been listening for it. "What anti-Americanism are you talking about? Harper telling the US ambassador that he gets his mandate from the Canadian people, not the US ambassador?" No one accused Harper of being anti-American and that is not what we're talking about here. "There is a lie that is repeated over and over by people of a particular political bent in Canada that Canadians are "anti-American"." Canadian sovereignty is based on the fact that Canada isn't the U.S. Recently that has changed into a pandemic of anti-Americanism. "If a person opposes George Bush and his policies, they are not anti-American. A large majority of Americans don't approve of him at the moment, in fact." You're absolutely correct...I don't approve of him. "In fact, a person can INSULT George Bush and not be anti-American. Get off the divisive pot and start making sense." But insults against the U.S. are not only against Bush, they are stereotypes against the American people. Yeah, Bush is a redneck. There is nothing wrong with that...but he is. And he's a hawk. It is what it is. But Bush's home state is Texas, not a northern state. Too many Canadians say the average American is like Bush, how often have we heard the Americans are a bunch of gun-toting Bible-thumping rednecks who only care about themselves and are engrossed in their hedonistic cutthroat conservative consumerist society, while Canadians are "kind and gentle" looking out for their fellow citizen and living in a laid back society. It's bull and it always has been. People aren't ready to recognize it here though, and that was the point of August's post. He's dead-on and I stand by him.

I hope not. I mean Prime Minister Dryden? While Theo struggles in goal? As a Toronto MP? Suddenly Belinda is looing real good...

The Right typically thinks of natural resources as money when they are merely a symbol of...whoa, I'm too stoned to finish that one. I had a few too many drinks tonight too Bubber... I don't like the right's POV on the environment but I have to look at the question overall, right? Here is hoping for a moderate conservative future...

Just so you know, I edited my last post to clarify my question's intent. I do believe he knows the difference between the three. What you perceive as a nanny government; I perceive as a government that truly believes in equality by helping people in need. It's a matter of opinions where nobody can be proven right or wrong. It's either you believe in liberty then equality or equality then liberty. It's the level of individualism you adhere to. Look, I don't dislike nanny government. I don't think a government that champions social programs, etc. is bad, I just don't think it is realistic. Our public healthcare system sucks...let's face that fact. We can argue for the longest time whether or not it is the fault of bureacracy and government funding, etc. The fact is that universiality is not a good tool...it is not something that can survive in modern democracy. In an ideal world, I would be a socialist. But human nature works differently. We are all looking to get ahead of our fellow citizen. We don't care about each other. I am not talking for you, lost&outofcontrol, or myself, tml12. I am talking about our nation. We want what is best for us and at the expense of others. I don't think Layton understands the concept of a strong military. And he supports drug laws that are way too leniant... TML12: I don't think that that narrow view is true. I don't think that in a growing economy that we get what we want at the expense of others. I don't see where one has to be at the expense of the other to happen. I think that 'zero-sum' economy outlook is overly pessimistic. I don't think that one person has to take form another to get what they want. I think that people get back what they put into things. We are only guaranteed equal opportunity, not equal outcome. To achieve the end that is being spoke of, capitalism has to end altogether. And I am telling you that the wealthy will remain wealthy. Their wealth will not be the wealth that is redistributed, it will be ours. I don't have a lot but I am proud of what I do work hard to earn and I don't care that people will see it as selfish, but if people come wanting to take much more than is taken now, it'll only be taken from my cold, dead hands. Hicksey, I don't think that I have said anything different from what you have said. Granted, you say that we don't get what we want at the expense of others. That may or may not be true. I do agree that people shyould get what they put into things...that hard work should pay off...but I think most people agree that this is not always true. Sometimes you have to hinder the efforts of others...whether you want to or not...for your benefit. I don't like it Hicksey, but as I see the world today, everyone wants a dime and not everyone wants to put in the social capital to earn that dime. Charity begins at home and the minut we start telling ourselves otherwise...the minute we feel guilty about not giving that homeless guy 25 cents...that is the minute we become vulnerable. No stray cats...I will help out as many people as I can and I will work as hard as I can but at the end of the day my success will be based on doing whatever I have to do...

Just so you know, I edited my last post to clarify my question's intent. I do believe he knows the difference between the three. What you perceive as a nanny government; I perceive as a government that truly believes in equality by helping people in need. It's a matter of opinions where nobody can be proven right or wrong. It's either you believe in liberty then equality or equality then liberty. It's the level of individualism you adhere to. Look, I don't dislike nanny government. I don't think a government that champions social programs, etc. is bad, I just don't think it is realistic. Our public healthcare system sucks...let's face that fact. We can argue for the longest time whether or not it is the fault of bureacracy and government funding, etc. The fact is that universiality is not a good tool...it is not something that can survive in modern democracy. In an ideal world, I would be a socialist. But human nature works differently. We are all looking to get ahead of our fellow citizen. We don't care about each other. I am not talking for you, lost&outofcontrol, or myself, tml12. I am talking about our nation. We want what is best for us and at the expense of others. I don't think Layton understands the concept of a strong military. And he supports drug laws that are way too leniant...

And what "turth" is that, o wise one? Discovering an old thread hanging is like discovering a nail on a cabinet.In teh US, the word "liberal" has negative connotations and it's not a vote-getter. So, American liberals now call themselves "progressives". In Canada, the NDP used to call themselves "social democrats" or even "socialists" but those words are now politically impossible, and somehow old-fashioned - so the NDP is now known as "progressive". The word "progressive" has yet to be debased (but I suspect it will be). The Left believes that if the name or symbol changes, somehow the reality will change too. The Left believes propaganda (symbols) can change the world (reality). The Left's greatest confusion is in economics. The Left typically thinks of money as wealth when it is merely a symbol of wealth. I think August just nailed that one down...good post.

Giving Quebec more sovereignty is a wise political move for now, but not a wise political move for the future...it is also not a wise move for Quebec. If we look at Quebec today, regardless of whether we believe this province should have special status or distinct society status or not, it DOESN'T. If you give Quebec more autonomy, you will undoubetly here about it from other provinces, like Newfoundland or Alberta. You will also give the soft nationalist voice more authority, and they will undoubetly want more. Time to realize Canada cannot just be ripped into 10 different pieces. We can either function as a federation or as ten governments...the choice needs to be made now.

I agree we should not live in the past. I am a fan of neither Clinton nor Bush Jr. Bush Sr. was one of the greatest American presidents of all time...this was a man who combined brains with pragmatism, something neither the left nor far right has been able to do. If Bush Sr. had been in power further into the 1990s things would have been a lot better for the USA.

Thank you Sage...you are correct that that was my original point... Than you both missed my point. It's almost too easy to say it's typical. But did you translate Standing up for Canada as picking up a gun and fighting? I not talking about spilling blood. I'm talking about standing up for Canadian communities and Canadian citizens and not bowing to corporate interests. Hollus, I have come to not mind debating you because I think you are generally fair and, although we are dead to each other , I enjoy having a discussion with you. My interpretation of "Standing Up For Canada" does include a stronger military. But it must also include standing up for ordinary Canadians, that is, Canadians like myself who make under $50,000 dollars a year. The political landscape, at least in economic terms, has shifted far to the right in the last few years. I am not sure if any leader (left or right) can resist the temptations and the financial gain that will inevitably result from a strong partnership with corporate interests. A strong business community is necessary for a country's strength. I am not sure what your ideal PM would have to do. How would you want him/her to respond to Canada's ordinary communities? I am interested in your take...

Just to know, what economic policies of his do you think he dosen't understand or that he needs to reform. Fair question. Layton seems to believe "government solves all problems." He resembles a tax-and-spend liberal and I think inevitable he will cause a serious rise in the national debt. I'm no "Reagenomic." I don't believe government should be reduced to such a small level. A strong government is important. But there is a difference between a strong government, a nanny government, and an efficient government. I am not sure that Layton understands the difference between the three.