tml12

The surprise came in Virginia where the Republican was leading all along until Bush campaign for him, then he lost by a wide margin (apparently in 2001 the Democrats were popular all along).

I read about this in the local papers here. Apparently no one can beat your NDP government there, eh???

This is a matter of interpretation. First, no policy by any party is "wilfully" going to destroy the country. No... just dismantle our public health-care system, under-fund education, restrict and reduce UI benefits, practice tight-money policies which benefit only the wealthy.... That's not destroying the country... It's making it better for the really wealthy.... Possibly, depending on how it is done. But it is only your supposition that they intend to do any of those things. I, for one, don't believe they have that intention. And much of the funding for social programs, like health care, subsidized housing, etc... comes from the federal government and is doled out by the provincial government.... So when the federal government cuts transfers to the province, it has to cut something.... and social programs seem to be the easy target... And yet the Liberals slashed transfer payments for health, education, and social welfare. And the country was not destroyed. So are you suggesting the Liberals tried to destroy the country? And if so why should we vote for them? You are asking for the re-election of a government which has already done the things you only fear the Tories might do. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Martin government is running a fear campaign accusing the Tories of something they themsevles did to balance the 1995 budget...

$30 billion/year or about 15% of all federal government revenue.I think Wells was being sarcastic. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I read this piece as being just a tad "tounge in cheek" as well. FTA <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why would someone read this tongue in cheek...it is NOT like the Liberals have EVER promised to remove the GST before???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Once you are that partisan, Shoop, you rarely come back and see reality.

Argus, he was born in Canada, and that makes him a Canadian citizen. Being a racist doesn't help your argument. I think the difference between our thinking here is that I have standards. You have none. Your interpretation of what it means to be Canadian is as heartful and emotional as that of a Bay street account or lawyer. As long as they have the documentation, they're Canadian to you. Heck, they might not speak the language, might have spent little or no time here, might hate everything this country stands for and pray for Allah to destroy us all, but to you, as long as the paperwork is in place they're every bit as Canadian as everyone else. I wonder why, if being Canadian means so very, very little to you, you even care about what happens to this country. This boy was born to foreigners, Arab Muslims, fanatical Muslims. He was raised to worship at the alter of jihad, and spent much of his time growing up overseas in Muslim nations. If he has any attachment to Canada at all it's, like his family, to our welfare and other social programs. You will not catch him watching hockey, much less playing it. You won't catch him making passes at girls or going canoeing out in the bush. He has no more in common with kids growing up in Canada than a kid growing up in Cairo or Tehran. Wars involve nations. When nations make peace, the prisoners are released to those other nations. But this was not a war between nations. This boy was not a citizen of Afghanistan. There is nowhere to release him to except here. And most of us don't want him here. Do you really have no idea just how brutal, how vicious the Taliban were? What they did to anyone and everyone who wasn't as dedicated and zealous as they were? This is what he and his family were fighting for. You embrace very strange bedfellows in your hatred of the Americans. Sometimes I think you would rather see Canada as a Muslim nation under Sharia law rather than in a closer relationship with the US. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Argus is dead on correct. When this little terrorist through that bomb he might as well have thrown it at Canadian soldiers. Is our relationship with the U.S. so bad we are actually trying to defend him? I am so sick and tired of hearing of excuses. This guy is a prisoner of war and deserves to be treated as such. Humanitarians can cry all they want...when you are involved in a war it's a whole different game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I hope we can actually see some positive campaining this time but there are a lot of people in the east who just seem to be like "anybody but the conservatives" which is really sad.

Under Bush's Republicans, the U.S. has become a lot more secretive and a lot more paranoid. Maybe for the better and maybe for the worst. What I can tell you overall is no way the U.S. is going to be any less protectionist when it comes to terrorism under Bush.

Maybe so, but that seems to be unrelated to the population of the community. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're right. But we must remember, with all these ideologies, it is who is running the show and, more importantly, how they interpret the ideology that counts. I think, if you look at the Liberal Party, Martin and Turner have more original views of liberalism then Chretien, and to a greater extent, Trudeau.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Shoop is right. We think we have three left-wing parties and a right-wing one. But that is an oversimplification of the political spectrum. As long as the issue is not gay marriage, abortion, or the gun registry, in other words, as long as we are talking about provincial independence and economic conservatism, then the Bloc and the Conservatives will work together fine.

yes, Sweden does not have a birth rate issue, and capitalism finds a way to feed population growth <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ok so capitalism will find a way to feed an increased population, but does that really point to a better standard of living for the existing population? As long as a community has sufficient population to justify the infrastructure required to sustain it, why does it matter if it goes down? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It depends how regulated the capitalism is and, most important I would argue in any situation, who is running the show.

I've never been one to qualify my support of human rights. There's no "ifs", "ands" or "buts" about it. Given tortures ineffectiveness as a means of generating reliable information, I don't see any circumstances in which it would be acceptable, especially by a country to which individual rights and personal liberty are suppossed to be paramount. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That may be true. But human rights is not something we can just have conversations about without fully specifying what we are talking about. To some, the death penalty is an example of a violation of someone's human rights. To others, when you commit violent crimes or treason then you give up your rights...torture could even factor in there. I personally do not think torture is the right way to reason or even get information about people who have been arrested. But apparently others do not agree with taht.

Not talking from personal opinion here, but don't think that we don't have a geographical divide in this country.

I have always thought that the best way to have more respect for your opinion is to listen to the opposing viewpoint.

Pretty much a given that it is true. http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/libra...109-rferl01.htm It looks as though the US intel is going to investigate the story as a 'leak' and not a falsehood. Further, if there was any hope of keeping it secret, there would be denials such as 'baseless accusations' and 'entirely without proof', etc. Another bit of the story... http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world...tan/saltpit.htm Now, if the chimneys of Auschwitz or Bergen-Belsen once again begin to smoke, and the US says "We need to dispose of the bodies of the enemy", will you still say "So what? I wasn't meant to know."?? Ends do not justify means, unless it is the most dire of circumstances, and even then some form of judgement will be passed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fleabag, It was inappropriate of me to insinuate that we should not know. Yet, I standby my comment that, where the CIA and U.S. national security are concerned, there is a lot that we don't know...we might as well assume anything is possible...and maybe the CIA has a right to keep it from us. After all, if the CIA is interrogating and finding valuable pieces of information from these people to keep us safe, I don't know. Of course I support human rights but in this age of terrorism, I believe a strong central government with the will and the ability to fight terrorism is paramount. That may be a very conservative statement, but it also one that I believe we all, of th left, right, up, and down, must examine.

We all know Martin endorsed that war...I wonder why??? Then the Liberals run on the anti-war platform. I don't personally own a car, as someone in their 20s without a "real" job yet I think I'll just take the Metro. But I do have sympathy for those who drive. However, I don't think the government does...after all, MPs just got their travel allowance raised, eh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thank you Shoop. I do not consider myself a very partisan voter, and none of the parties match me on every issue. While I know where I am on the political compass (such as the one August put up awhile back), I do not know which Canadian party that translats to. A friend of mine suggested I take this test (http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=canpoliparties) the only one online (I think) that grades you according to our political parties. And what are my results? Something like Martin=98 and Harper=96 with Layton and Duceppe down far below that. That must mean I am somewhere near the two of them. Of course, I would also need to know the criteria by which the makers of that test grade the party leaders by. At this point, I cannot say who I will officially endorse in the next election. Perhaps I'll vote for a minor party.

If the Tories gain two more seats in Alberta, they will have every seat there (I am, of course, looking forward to Landslide Annie's running again!!!)

Scott, You have absolutely impecable logic...why aren't you the Prime Minister?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think Shoop, while a much stronger Conservative voter than I, makes a point. It is very hard for me to hear someone say the current Liberal Party is the protector of this country's social programs and healthcare. It may have been the Liberal Party that introduced many of them, but it was also the Liberal Party who balanced the budget and has recorded many consecutive underestimated surpluses since then by cutting various programs and reducing corporate taxes. Just because the Conservatives may be willing to take it a step further, that suddenly makes the Liberals the protectors of all of our programs? Paul Martin and the Liberal elite are well taken care of, as are the Conservatives. While I certainly do not endorse the NDP, I will say that if any party's voter has any right to say there party will stop cutting programs, it is the NDP voter.

Stop buying gas=stop driving cars. Unfortunately these people still believe the end justifies the means.

Must be a real drag. Try getting an answering machine and screening calls. Put a sign on the door; "No Visitors After 9pm", and then don't answer when they knock. Sounds like the woman has serious problems with her beliefs. Gee, ya think? I can see that woman and her ilk even now; "Oh-oh, the Minister is now a member of a union. I better not call him/her." Yeah, like the CAW is going to go to people's houses and tell them that the Minister does not accept calls between the hours of 5:30pm and 8:30am. Spiritual problems be damned, don't call during off-hours. Just another case of (A) a union wanting more people contributing to their coffers, and (B ) some people misguidedly thinking that a union is the solution to all their problems. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Everything I am reading here makes me very sad... :angry:

1) We already have two tier heathcare. A lawyer I know in Vancouver has complete converage for healthcare in US hospitals if necessary as part of his company benefit package. People who claim that there is no two tier health care are just fooling themselves.2) Most industrialized countries other than the US get better health outcomes per dollar spent than Canada and they all have a significant private sector. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You are correct. I mean so many of us use a bunch of private heathcare practices, including Paul Martin, here in Montreal. Of course, if they are in Quebec these places will be *tolerated* (i.e. they don't exist) and if they are elsewhere then *the government is getting to them* (i.e. nothing will be happening anytime soon.

40 Million Americans (about 15%) have ABSOLUTELY NO HEALTH CARE. Medical expenses is the #1 cause of bankrupcy in the USA - And a large percentage of them had (inadequate) insurance. The wonders of private health care..... If this is where Harper will lead us, then who would want him..... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> More scary, scary stuff... Witch hunts... Harper, the demon... Harper and the Conservatives are not suggesting that we adopt an American-style medical system. The choice is not between "Canadian health care" and "American health care". Harper is suggesting that we let provinces reform the Canadian system. The choice is between "health care we've got now" and "something better". Only the NDP, in fantasyland as always, presents the choice as "perfect health-care for all" or "health-care only for the rich". An entirely public health care system - without private sector involvement - is ideological, and pointless. It doesn't exist now, and if imposed, it would be a disaster. ---- And err, do you have links to support your statistical claims? I believe they are English-Canadian urban legends, but I'll stand corrected if you have evidence. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> August is correct. We can keep lying to ourselves that our current system works or we can work to change it. Of course left-wing socialists will try to say that anything but complete state-run socialist health care is the best but the proof is otherwise. Look at other countries with two-tier health care. Are they really that bad???