tml12

Why do we have to meet Kyoto? It's just another red book promise, this time, made to the world. All this fear over Harper, being 'American', causing stress. Oh my, we've been governed by con artists (an 'elaborate kick-back scheme' definately sounds like con artists) and petty thieves for years. I really have no fear of someone that doesn't deserve to go to jail. Canada does not have to meet Kyoto. Canada will never meet Kyoto...why? Because Chretien signed it without doing anything and the Liberals won't touch Alberta's oil because Alberta will go insane.

(From the link you provided)

Drea, While you have toned down your rhetoric I must point out some flaws in your argument. I hear Arabs complaining all the time that it is not "safe" for them in the States. That is not true. While there may be more anti-Arab sentiment than 20 years ago, America is still a place where Arabs can go and live peacefully with others. I have met many Arabs who are perfectly happy with their life in the States. It is not as black and white as you might think.

What was your point of asking the question? To imply that the US tariffs were justified by a bogus ruling by the WTO? I asked the question to prove a point. This issue isn't as 'black and white' as you make it seem, all I hear from you is "The US is a big meanie to us the nice and fair Canadians". This is a cloudy issue with both sides feeling they are being screwed (and are probably are at certain points). Funny how the U.N. and world organizations are always right when the US is being chastised but its a "bogus ruling" when it doesn't go your way. The UN is an important, although to be fair I must add, extremely corrupt and incompetent organization. UN leaders see their primary position as attacking the U.S. and providing anti-U.S. coalitions. While I do not like John Bolton, I have no doubt he will tell the UN off when they need to be told off. The UN needs serious reform from the inside right up to Annan himself.

We may never agree on this issue BlackDog and that is fine. We see "sovereignty" differently and that is OK. I don't think our participating has anything to do with being the subordinate of the U.S. We are a big, capitalistic nation with a materialistic culture no less than the American nation is. We are a target for the terrorists too. Yes missile defence has flaws, but we need to coordinate our defence and security departments.

You must remember, JMH, that the Liberals have brainwashed us into thinking we need them. It will be a change, I hope, for the better. We need a fresh face and new policy initiatives in Ottawa. However, the Liberals have been in power so long that there will have to be an adjustment for sure. Overall, I think voting Conservative is the right choice in this election.

Martin is no "socialist CEO." This is a man who advocated a right-wing ecconomic policy through the 90s that was in line with mainstream U.S. Republican conservative ideology. He also gave the provinces a LOT more autonomy. Why is Martin so right-wing? Funny how the electorate has such a short memory... :angry:

Que. Liberal candidate Flip-flops And on and on it goes..... "When the ship starts sinking, the survivers will bail out." The Liberal ship is sinking. BTW Maybe some conservative Liberals will cross the floor...

Why? Because Congress's power, as the legislative body, is to check Bush's power. This government has no such authority on Bush...we are talking about missile defence here. If we tell Bush we want a seat at the table, I think he will give it to us.

LOL...forget his "extreme right wing" agenda or, as River_God used to say, his "neo-Fascist double think." There is a NEW reason not to vote Conservative...Harper is inexperienced!!! Onward and upward...

Are we competing over whether we think your party or our party will make the biggest deficits?

Nobody told me about the Kimmy-hats!!! Where's mine? I want one, and please send the bill to Ottawa, c/o Smilin'-Jack "If one gets a hat, we all get hats" Layton. Can mine be blue? I want one as well. I assume they only come in blue? Send one to Eureka with condolences size XXXXL.

Shoop has it 100% correct...less contentious behaviour from Canada+a willingness to work with the U.S. (which hopefully will be defined after the next election as a new Conservative government)=the best result. Again Bubber, the Congress comparison has no merit here.

Yes I do. If you establish an agreement, a working relationship with someone, they would do that. Comparing Congress with Ottawa is something that I wouldn't do because Bush's issues with Congress have nothing to do with our participation inmissile defence.

The NDP are not Marxist. I gathered by Shoop's broad statement that he meant never as in never perpetually. My apologies to you and to Shoop, if he meant only this election. I can't comment because I'm not sure what you mean by "investors investing in government" and I don't want to mistake what you are trying to say? Can you explain a bit more? The NDP opposed corporate tax cuts, don't discuss how their deficit (which would come from their leftist policies) would hurt the confidence of investors (what I meant) and don't seem very much concerned with the interests of Bay St. BTW I never said the NDP was "Marxist" so much as I was trying to say they share many values that Marxists do.

Read the following: 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c. (FROM: "THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO" SOURCE: http://www.marxists.org) Many, especially numbers 2, 5, 6, 7, and 10 (half) sound like things your NDP voter would advocate. Harper's policies, especially his advocay for small government, are not consistent with neo-conservatism. For the record, I never said Harper wasn't a neocon, in fact he probably is a moderate one. Of course, this is only bad if you're an NDP voter.

1) I was talking about "Marxism" not the political party. 2) The NDP will not form the government in THIS election...I didn't say in future elections. 3) Based on his comment, I would say Shoop's statement is factual, because the NDP has not talked about investors investing in government or anything that would make me think they understand this or think it is important.

It's funny, many Conservatives have accused the Liberals of been arrogant, yet your statement borders on arrogance itself. I'd say the statement is pure fact...the NDP has no economic platform, don't understand what Bay St. is there for, and merely serve to make the left feel they have a voice in a world that cannot and will never make Marxism any more realistic than it was fifty or 250 years ago.

This is another aspect of the hypocritical US position. They pressure Canada to allow the export raw logs even though they prohibit the export of raw logs cut from US gov't land. I back Canada on softwood but I fault the Liberals. They politicized the event to what (at the time) was to their advantage but as Harper correctly pointed out, the situation will take longer to be resolved because the Liberal government politicized the event instead of calling the Americans right away. Harper will get this resolved ASAP.

Can you tell me what possible beneift ther eis to having that information? We already know two things about this program: 1) it doesn't work and (2) it's designed to counter a threat that doesn't exisit. What else is there? I can't say "seat at the table" because you'll get mad at me again but, you know what, that is what it comes down to.

That I don't believe.

Canada needs missile defence because we need to ensure that we know what the Americans are doing.

I'm guessing not you. Honey, I probably make more dough (and therefore pay more taxes) than you LOL. So yes, it's ME who is paying this traitor's salary. The point is that Harper thinks we are all on welfare, that Canada is a "nanny state". LOL then he wants to give everybody a hundred bucks for screwing and producing offspring! As far as I'm concerned Harper owes the Canadian public an apology for slamming his country, period. Our boys (and girls) are dying in Afghanistan.... Harper would have them dying in Iraq... Harper is associated with the religious right... GWB (his hero) is an evangelical Christian. Their (evangelical's) attitude (I said attitude, not actions!) are pretty much exactly the same as the Islamic fundamentalist. And this man wants to run our country! Drea, Do you have a degree in Canadian Liberalism, because your arguments sound just so much like our Liberal politicians. Harper may respect conservative values but I would not say he is Bush's hero. For that manner, I would not say he is anything but a respectable man trying to make Canada strong again. On that note, what do you mean when you say Harper is an evangelical fundamentalist? And I personally believe the Liberals owe Canadians an apology for making our military weak and for selling out our defence to the Americans. Canadian sovereignty? What's that?

I have been near there and it is pretty separatist (although I think the provincial Liberals hold the seat there). There is a school around there where anglophones can go for French Language instruction. Anyway, not to get off topic canada.com said that the Bloc won the riding by 11,000 votes in the last election so it will be tough for the CPC to make big gains.

-k And I hope with the serious money he wins in that lawsuit, he gives to charity. BTW: Who is so stupid to do that with their home phone? Go to a payphone...