tml12

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't know if, in this day and age, if I would talk about the "age" of a politician. Regan was about Martin's age when he took over the U.S. Granted, Regan acted like he was in his 40s and was a lot more charming than Martin. I would have to investigate McKenna more before I could say that I would vote for him. People are forgetting about John Manley, Martin Cauchon, and others that were Chretien Liberals and cabinet ministers. I wouldn't rule them out, especially Manley. It will be tough for Martin to a majority unless he seems to be acting coherently. He isn't a natural politician...he really needs to shed that detached CEO look.

Since the USA already "participated" in a coup attempt, you can bet they're going to try to try again... maybe listening to Pat Robinson's advice and use a bullet ... They're known to do it.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That would be the most ridiculous thing ever. The U.S. will not take out Chavez. They failed in Cuba, they will almost certainly not try to alienate anyone in South America. The two countries U.S. intelligence are focusing most on now must be Iran and South Korea.

Leafless, You must also be brainless. Where in anything that I wrote did I say or insinuate that I have no control for world peace? I supported Bush, all I wrote was that he needs and the Americans around him need to understand that there is a huge deficit south of the border right now that, eventually will need to be taken care of. Again, I dare you to find one example of where I challenge world peace and I challenge the Iraq war. I am only challenging ECONOMIC FISCAL POLICY... tml

There is some truth to that.

(SORRY POST GOT CUT OFF) ...there in the name of Iraq or whatever... Yet, if you support Bush spending money like that, then you must not be in favour of tax cuts, etc. BECAUSE SOONER OF LATER AMERICANS WILL NEED TO PAY DOWN THE DEBT, right? There seems to be great contradiction of "having cake and eating it too..." here, right??? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think it is more of a case of Bush expanding domestic spending. It's not a conservative principle. The economy is doing well; the US took in $70 billion more tax revenues than they expected, but until Bush quits spending domestically like a Democrat, plus the cost of the war (although it want't cheap having them sit in the ME for 12 years straight "guarding" Saddam's Iraq), it will be difficult to reduce the debt. Bush signed that expensive Highway Bill, spent millions building a bridge in Alaska to link a few dozen people, bought New Orleans displaced new mobile homes, instead of a rent voucher for a few months free rent. Compassionate Conservatism. Pfft. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I am glad you see my point. Bush may call himself a conservative, but he doesn't behave like one. A true conservative calls for lower taxes and balanced budgets, criticizing their liberal opponents as being those who "tax and spend," putting the nation in debt and hurting the confidence of investors, who are usually not very liberal. Yet, Bush seems to be worse than a tax and spend liberal. At least liberals TAX, then SPEND. Bush is doing too much of the latter without enough of the former...something will have to give. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Republicans finally tried to get serious about cutting spending (I think they realized how angry their base was over the Harriet Miers debacle), but now some idiot RINO Republicans are complaining about the spending cuts. If they would quit spending so much domestically, the costs of the war wouldn't be so bad. After all, it wasn't cheap keeping 100,000 soldiers at Iraq's border for a dozen years. And one can accept some debt. Look at how many decades Canada has been in debt. If the Republicans don't start acting like a majority party, they might lose some seats in the 2006 mid-term election. You have to motivate your base. If you don't, they will either: 1) be lazy/unmotivated to bother and stand in line to vote, or 2) Protest non-vote..."I won't ever vote Democrat, but I'm not going to give my vote to the Republicans either". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bush has it in his power to motivate his base, I don't see him as a lame duck YET. Having said that, he is at a crucial point in his term. Right now, he seems about as inspired as an NHL coach who just lost the Stanley Cup. My prediction? Drum up support around the people around you and look happy and confident to the outside world. Otherwise, it could be a long second term...

The spending matters - the deficit/surplus question doesn't. I'm sure that Bush would argue that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance... And I suppose the true cost of this war is the lives of too many that will never be lived.Are Americans getting value when Bush makes a decision to spend money? I thought Clinton was a better president if only because he stood up to the steel lobby. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Clinton was more fiscally conservative, if only because of the GOP revolution in 1994. As Montgomery Burns put it at one point "compassionate conservativism pfft." In other words, true conservatives do not spend like Bush.

There is extensive debate on this matter under the thread "Greenspan Worried" http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3992 There are those (including Bush and Cheney) that believe deficit spending doesn't matter. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes I do remember that thread. It seems very HARD for me to believe that deficit spending doesn't matter. Also, I would take the word of Greenspan over Bush and Cheney...the man is a conservative economic genious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you implying that he really misses Trudeau???

Captured, killed, public torture and execution...it's up to you Montgomery...

Calling Martin a tyrant seems a bit harsh to me... Sure the man will do ANYTHING to stay in power, but sincerely it seems to me that he made a promise to call an election within 30 days of the Gomery Report II. Why not let him??? It just seems to me that the Conservatives are just demonstrating that they are just as power-hungry as the Liberals...does anyone REALLY speak for us, the people that live, work, go to school etc. in this country??? I say save our money and, for the record, let this government wear itself out. I, for one, say the later the election the better...and I probably will vote Conservative in the next election, if just to see another minority...

Projected revenues estimated BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. It's this kind of propaganda that get's normal blue collar folk to vote for conservative Governments. The economy is on a downfall, and bush is going to leave a democrat to clean up the mess. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There is probably a bit of truth in that...they are even saying that the Virginia election 2005 went Democrat for the mere fact that Bush campaigned there for the Republican the day before...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Shoop is probably right, if only for reason#1. I don't see Harper ever winning a solid majority, but if he wins a minority they'll probably keep him around for awhile. Is it just me, or have minority governments made this country's politics THAT much more interesting???

Conservative Party websiteNow, how will Martin respond? I suspect he'll dither and claim this means nothing and he intends to govern as he was elected to do and get on with the business of government... That implies that the government will fall on a non-confidence motion in December and we will have an election in early January, before Gomery II. Also, can the House pass a motion binding the government to call an election at a future date? What happens if the government doesn't abide by its commitment? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He probably will dither, but I suspect he will find some way to bring Layton back. No way the Liberals want to go to the polls before Gomery II where they can have an electorate-seducing pre-election budget.

Yes shoop, My poll was based on the CanWest/Montreal Gazette poll of ALL Quebecers, incluidng those who are not members of the PQ.

Boisclair is the first choice among a lot of PQ members because of his great ability to connect with the fresh, vibrant youth wing of the party. He is very popular among university and CEGEP-aged students. While this part of Quebec's population (the children of Bill 101) is likely to be more separatist and left-wing then other parts of Quebec's population, they see Boisclair as more sincere and down-to-earth then Madame Marois. Marois is basing here support on fringe left-wing candidates in the party. While left of Boisclair, she is not seen as very refreshing or inspiring. She also spent lots of $$$$ for a silent toilet in her Quebec City office a few years back. Only Richard Legendre comes in a solid third, and he will probably be out on the first ballot. Latest poll has Boisclair with 54%, Marois with 29%, Legendre with 6%. And that is after Boisclair LOST some support. My Prediction: Boisclair wins PQ race and will defeat Charest in the next election. Charest's inability to connect with anyone in Quebec will carry the day, Boisclair's cocaine issue, which might play a factor elsewhere, will not be as much of an issue if he can ride the wave of Charest's unpopularity.

Then the opposition passes a motion to ajourn parliment until Jan 3 and schedules a confidence vote for that date. The opposition can and will get what they want if they co-operate. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> OK but you really see the NDP cooperating with Conservative demands to bring down the Liberal minority government???

No 'hot air' about it. As I understand it, if a vote of 'non-confidence' is taken, there are only two courses of action that Martin can take. from... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_of_no_confidenceSo, Martin's time is limited. Unless, of course, Layton reneges, which would be shooting himself and his party in the foot in the worst way. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fleabag, That's the whole point...it is NOT a vote of no confidence...it's just a regular vote...and the Liberals can just say screw it if they want...

As long as I am living in this country, no such act will ever be passed. The patriot act is not to protect citizens from identity theft or to allow the military to more efficiently protect you. It is a monumental step in taking out civil liberties. Do you ever wonder why Bush talks in 4 word sentences? Or why the White House representative can't answer simple questions? Or why Donald Rumsfeld manages to go hours with the media without ever really revealing any information? It is because of the patriot act. By allowing the Government to withold information from the general public, we are allowing for lowered accountability, which leads to corruption. Dick Cheney's second hand man involved in CIA leaks? What does Bush have to say about it? A 30 second tib bit of nonsense on how Scooter Libby is a patriot. Bush tells the country they will be shifting the majority of the American spending budget towards the halting of weapons of mass destruction. Then we find out the motive was false. Who's held accountable? Obviously not Bush. Why? Because the patriot act allows him to sway away from the details. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What will you do if a similar is passed here?

In this free thinking, self serving country we live in, ignorance and stupidity abound and are actually up-lifted by many! When will these people realize the error of their ways? "Hyped up scandal"...... my favorite part of that speech!! too funny! Protection of our country is a waste of tax dollars??? OMFG... do you lock your door at night? I swear some people have drifted back to the 60's, with all of this free love & peace crap! War & terrorism are all around us, I for one prefer to be defended. Anyone who thinks we are safe is dead wrong! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Relax Leader, he is 18. I was probably an NDP voter at that age too.

Dictators and extremists, whether right ot left or democratically elected or not, are just plain bad and harmful to democracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, but the Conservatives may not be getting as much B.C. as they got last time, I also don't think they have a shot anywhere in Quebec and I believe they will struggle in Atlantic Canada and Ontario. Let's face it, with Martin and Harper we are looking at minority governments for the long haul.

There are Liberals in Calgary? Seriously though it is culturally unfair to compare Canada and California. And a strong national defense is important. As for the gun laws, certainly the laws in California are too loose but the gun registry is a billion-dollar failure. It hasn't really solved a lot of problems (as those in Toronto are figuring out). As for stronger prison sentence it is not a huge issue for me either way and usually doesn't sway my vote. In other words, it really depends on the issue.

Many of us have been doing just that since long before this incident came to light.... and for good reason... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I recall an article by a BBC reporter a few years ago in Kabul. This was before 911. He managed to bribe his way into a prison there. It was a small sort of prison, a large, ugly stone building. Deep in the basement was a room where they kept young boys anywhere from 8-15. They'd been there for years, some of them, jammed together, about 50 of them, into a tiny room. There was no light. They were filthy, and had reverted to feral beastial, though very frightened creatures. He talked about the unberable stench when the guards opened the door, how the scurrying, scrambling, half naked young boys tried to get as far from the door as possible, then crouched in the shadows staring at them in fear. Deaths by beating and disease were routine. This was one small example of the Taliban. And no one cared. This was what Khadr and his family were fighting to not only preserve but spread throughout the world. But the America haters never cared about them, and they don't care about all the other innocents jammed into horrible prisons throughout the world, from India to China to North Korea to Liberia. Instead their frenzied self-righteous attacks consistently go for the Americans, whos abuses, though they exist, are exceedingly mild in comparison. And in their hearts I'm quite sure many rejoice at every sign of setbacks for the Americans, at every sign the Taliban-like people they call "insurgents" take another step closer to success. I've even seen some of the idiots calling them freedom fighters, as if freedom was on their agenda. I mean, it's like calling the Nazis in pre-war Germany freedom fighters. Except, of course, that I'm probably being unkind to the Nazis. The barbarians are at the gates, and idiots are cheering them on, blithely ignorant that they themselves would wind up dead or in prisons if the barbarians ever suceeded. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You know I love how the media makes such a big dead about how he was "brainwashed" and how for that reason alone he should be let go (or spared and live a life like everyone else). Brainwashed or not, this "little kid" has performed some very adult crimes. In the states, if a 15 year-old U.S. citizen brings a gun to his school and kills a teacher (which recently happened down there) they are tried as an adult and go to jail...for a long time. You don't here people talking about how he was "brainwashed by horror movies" or something like that...and maybe he was just angry. THIS WAS IN A WAR ZONE REPRESENTING AL-QAIDA...HE IS A TERRORIST. Jail him for life and make him useful behind bars. He killed soldiers...there really is nothing more to say.

Montreal is the counterfeit capital of Canada. Not just DVDs here we are talking about fake Interac cards and credit cards, etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Of course this isn't great for the federal Liberals...but is anyone really surprised. As soon as 1995 I knew we would have two-tier health care by around 2010. The Liberals starting cutting healthcare in 1995 to balance the budget, they ignore enforcing rules in Quebec not to anger Quebec, they allow private healthcare to grow here in the meantime, and the Supreme Court rules private healthcare is consitutional. If anyone should be blamed for the healthcare failure, it is those like Chretien and Martin who initiated the decline by cutting the budget in 1995. Anyone who still really believes the Liberals care about healthcare need to pick up a history textbook.