tml12

The left-wing Toronto Star can publish all the anti-Harper propaganda they want it does not change from the fact that he is the best choice to govern Canada. That has got to be the strangest and most disrespectful column I have ever read. I guess it was supposed to be sarcasm, but it didn't really work. It wasn't funny, coherent or well-written. Obviously Harper is focusing on the environment now. It has become the key issue. Didn't the Star chastise Harper for getting political advice from Canada's Greenest Prime Minister, i.e. Brian Mulroney. Couldn't it be that he accepted Mulroney's advice on the issue and has started to act on it? Man I swear if it weren't for Chantal Hébert I would never read that p.o.s. paper. Here's Hébert's rational analysis of Harper's environmental move from today's Star. Ricki Bobbi, The Star and the CBC and the Toronto Liberal elite have been undermining Harper since he was elected PM. Their grip on power has been stymied with the CPC election victory. The problem for us is, they have a lot of power and control the media. I have a feeling it will be a tough campaign next time around and I hope Harper squeaks out a majority victory.

Well said...we seem to be so concerned today with "accepting" things. I call BS. We should arrest these individuals and send them to detox. If that does not work, ARREST THEM. The left is absolutely maddening with their "nouveau" techniques. Every time you shoot out, all the brain cells killed, all the wasted potential. And now the left says, "well now, they just can't get AIDS." I am also a city kid and have seen a lot of bad stuff go on. Lots of kids think it's cool and if we allow safe injection sites, well then it's OK...OK to destroy your body with drugs but not OK to get AIDS. There's personal responsibility involved in not getting AIDS and not taking drugs. How about we fight both instead of sacrificing one at the expense of the other?

The left-wing Toronto Star can publish all the anti-Harper propaganda they want it does not change from the fact that he is the best choice to govern Canada.

Rick Mercer has visited the base three times. http://www.thestar.com/artsentertainment/article/174660 Anymore citations or do you also disbelieve that there is an actual Tim Horton's in Kandahar? You gave the impression Mercer, unlike the MPs, was allowed off-base.

Theory nothing, they represent the people of Canada as their representatives in Parliament. It's their job. Everyone else representing Canada in Afghanistan is taking that risk, why should they be different? I think the guy is doing a good job but that he is wrong on this one. We may have to agree to disagree. The individuals there representing Canada are either military people or civilians who have been trained to be there. Visiting government individuals may not have the proper training to deal with that atmosphere.

Hastings Street, which connect downtown Vancouver to Burnaby before becoming highway seven and going all the way to the suburbs, first runs through Vancouver East Side. What you see there now is still not pretty, but at least you no longer see drug-addicts shooting up in the streets. Hundreds of overdoses have also been diverted by having these safe-injection sites. For you the bottom-line may be all that's involved, and that's merely another factor to consider. But for many others, myself included, there are other aspects of the program which you just can't put a monetary value on. There is no such thing as a "safe" injection. I remember New York 20 years ago and I don't think they cleaned up that city with this leftist concept of "safe injection cites." I just think they threw these people in jail and kept them there and increased the police presence. I don't think my tax dollars should go toward somebody else's addiction. Using drugs is simply wrong.

How is it that every other NATO country is able to send its committees numerous times to numerous places? If it is so dangerous why was Tim Horton's allowed on base before a committee? Why was Rick Mercer allowed on base? They wouldn't let the committee go until it became apparent that every country such as the Netherlands, Britain, Germany and the U.S. had sent committees to do their work and report back to their elected bodies. Canada stood alone saying it was too dangerous. Citations?

He has cited national security as a reason for not properly tendering contracts. He is about to pull Boeing work out of Winnipeg to send it to Quebec. Sounds like the same old right wing to me. How is any of that right-wing to you?

I do have a bit of a problem with this one. A committee representing Parliament should be able to go where it chooses as long as they and the public are made to understand that the military might not be able to take responsibility for their safety in some situations. If something happened to one of those MPs it would look really bad for the government and the military. While in theory you might be correct, I've got to go with O'Connor on that one.

Dear Catchme, "1. He was a military equipment lobbyist end of story." That was a long time ago. He has the support of Parliament and our military. As such, I agree...end of story. "2. He is trying to re-write history of why we are in Afganistan." He is not trying to re-write why we are there. His was not the government that put our troops there. Additionally, his recent reason is yet another reason why we should be over there. "3. We are seeing no bids contracts being given out." Not sure what you mean here. "4. He is misportraying Canada's long military history in peace keeping." That is a Liberal myth. Canada does NOT have a long peacekeeping history. In fact, Canada has a military history similar to that of the U.S., fighting in World War I, World War II, and Korea. "5. He now will NOT let Canadian MP's see what is going on in Afghanistan, while he lets though he knows friendly to him go wherever they want?" In my opinion, a skilled debater should learn how to type slowly and speak proper English. If you are talking about why he wouldn't let the MPs leave the base, it was because he wanted the military to be able to ensure their safety. "6. He is treating the Canadian military like his own personal militia supporting Oil." The Canadian military likes him...your quote is deceiving, making it sould like he is running some kind of totalitarian dictatorship. Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about. "7. He changed Canada's mission parameters there" Canada's military positions were assigned by NATO, were they not? Clearly, your overall attack on O'Connor is partisan and does not all stem from the reality of the situation.

Nothing in that e-mail could be more offensive to Canada's Aboriginal community than the treatment of Aboriginals when the Liberals were in power. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads= Plus the Liberals weren't exactly known for their careful e-mails either. Calling Olivia Chow a "dog" and Scott Brison's insider trusts game comes to mind.

I agree...I think O'Connor has proven himself to be a MND who actually cares about our armed forces. If it's good for the Canadian military, it's good for Canada (regardless of what Layton and his leftist loonies might think).

I don't believe the first part. If the NDP want to run against the Liberals, which would be very smart, then they have to show themselves as a credible governing alternative. The best way to show they could govern credibly would be to work with the Government. They don't have to do it for long, but just on a few occassions. Absolutely agreed on the second part. In 2004 the NDP ran against the Conservatives. Results = 19 seats. In 2006 the NDP ran against the Liberals. (Lend us yoiur vote???) Results = 29 seats. Why wouldn't they run against the Liberals? If the NDP runs against the Liberals, it benefits the Conservatives but it gives the NDP more seats. If the NDP wants to be a serious contender to ever form the government in Canada, they need to run against the Liberals because if they don't establish themselves as the clear voice of left-wing Canadians, the left of centre vote will go to the Liberals (even though the Liberals today are probably centre-right, they campaign like Trudeau and govern from the right). Campaigning against the Conservatives is pointless because as a Conservative I would never consider voting NDP.

Income Trusts :angry: But you have diverged because JDobbin has pretty much proven that the Liberals didn't take us into Iraq while in government, and Stephen Harper would have. This discussion has strayed off Afghanistan, or at least Canadian Military, or OConnor and his historical revision of Canadian Participation in Afghanistan. And I think that I have proved that, given where they were in their term, it was quite easy for the Liberals to have made that decision.

That's kind of my point, remiel. I'm sure the US has told Day what it is but the information has been provided in such a way that it can't be used - certainly not publicly.Moreover, the information probably means that Arar is "borderline" and the US has opted for one side and Canada for another. At this point, Day (and the Tories) don't want to take on this issue and put it in the press again so they're just going to live with it. The bottom line is the U.S. is not telling Canada they should do one thing or another with the individual in question, they sre simply saying he can't enter the U.S. As far as I'm concerned, case closed. The U.S. can do what they want. This is not an issue that should concern Canada anymore.

Guess again. The US owes its independence partly to French aid during the war of Independence. The statue of Liberty was a congratulations gift from France as well. The US model of democracy, with the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch, are taken from the French philosopher Montesquieu. Well yeah, I know that (I've written academic papers on it) and it's a good thing you do too but that does not mean they like each other now. It started with Iraq, true. But you did say "historically." Anyway, details, details.... That is true...I did not mean to come across as harsh. The Americans and the French, in reality, have helped each other out. I'll give you that one...

Guess again. The US owes its independence partly to French aid during the war of Independence. The statue of Liberty was a congratulations gift from France as well. The US model of democracy, with the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch, are taken from the French philosopher Montesquieu. Well yeah, I know that (I've written academic papers on it) and it's a good thing you do too but that does not mean they like each other now.

Who would have thought it? Alberta voted against a party that supports business. Perhaps social conservatism trumps even business. I think what he meant was that they support the eastern establishment. Welcome back normanchateau, I missed you and your Liberal-friendly posts...

This 2003 poll indicated 78% of Quebecers like Americans. http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/apr03/parkin.pdf In recent history, though, attitudes have changed. Note this article: http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/37/14/anti-american/

I agree that it should be but I do not think that there is any requirement other than being nominated by the PM in Canada or being nominated by the President and confirmed by Congress in the U.S.

I completely agree with that analysis Geoffrey...I think you've hit the nail on the head with that.

I don't even think you can make that claim with any validity. Lucien Bouchard's children are all American. Quebecers vacation in the U.S. and generally have more favourable views of the U.S. that other parts of Canada. Quebecers don't care who Lucien Bouchard's children are and do you have polls to prove that Quebecers have a favourable view of the U.S.? Quebecers are more likely than in any other province to be anti-American.

That's correct...post edited.

What some Liberal organizers say and what the party overall does are two different things. Most in the party supported Martin's decision. Of course they did...it was the morally correct and politically smart thing to do.

I doubt that very much too. You've really got to be kidding. I've talked to Liberal organizers in Quebec and they've told me that Martin went too far and that the party needs to bring back some of its old organizers.