tml12

And what if the alternative is Iran gaining nuclear weapons? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Iran's comments are simply a lot of BS. Iran knows if they touched Israel they'd be glowing green for the next thousand years.

That was pretty funny. I don't think she was drunk, but she clearly was making good use of whatever she had in her. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> OT: I would have preferred seeing Martin drunk at a state dinner though.

That was pretty funny. I don't think she was drunk, but she clearly was making good use of whatever she had in her.

hehehe..dude..have you been to Alberta lately? Seperation has become part of our daily dialogue.. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey, When your Alberta Alliance Party gets double-digit number of seats I'll believe it. The PQ has around 44 seats here and can conceivably form the next government...but if any other province is seriously inferring separation I'll take Alberta...

CBCWhy did these people have to relocate? Why do we now hear about this place? Why are they dependant on a government announcement? Canadians are rich but some Canadians live in the Third World. Why? This disaster is entirely of government making. Native Indians are unfortunately now dependant on government bureaucrats for their livelihood. In the future, many older Canadians will depend on bureaucrats for their livelihood too. As our population grows older, we will hear more such disasters. Welcome to the 21st Century. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Of course. This was an incident two years in the making. It's all about where the money and votes are and where they aren't. Is that fair to these people? No, but that is the sad fact of our political system.

Quebec's Charest government has been pushing asymmetrical federalism more than any other Quebec premier (and, as far as I read, more than any premier in terms of looking at sovereignty vs. asymmetrical federalism). Of course, Martin would want to give credence to asymmetrical federalism in Quebec more than any other province because Quebec is the only province that seriously threatens confederation at this time. Does it work? That is a question that has yet to be answered. I think we need to see more of it in action before we can pass judgment.

I think a lot of people feel the way you do. And as long as the Conservative Party is governed by somewhat with the right-wing moral policy past that Mr. Harper has. The fact is, the Liberals don't have anything on Harper that he himself hasn't provided them with.

I hope he gets in. Wouldn't it be a mammoth slap in the faces of Harper's Conservatives who threw him out like a worn out shoe ...... let alone if he won? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> yes (oh my)

Hello August, My results are as follows: Economic Left/Right: -1.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.18 Which puts me, a communitarian, in authoritarian left (moderately though) where I thought I was. tml

More good new for the Conservatives... http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...tem/itemID/9517

Even for 427 troops whose deaths were not related to combat operations? "The U.S. military death toll in Iraq officially reached two thousand on Tuesday, with the announcement of the death of a soldier who was injured last week. The figure includes 427 troops whose deaths were not directly related to combat operations. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'll excempt Bush for those soldiers who bought their own ticket over there. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I really think that if the left wants to blame someone they should blame (formerly) one of their own...Tony Blair. If anyone had the power to stop Bush it was Blair...but he didn't. And don't tell me the US would have gone in alone...Bush is not that stupid.

hahaha... but seriously rumsfeld is more right wing than i thought!!!

For sure (I mean, thank goodness...)

Eureka, You're right that the US system is polarize between left and right wing. But what about our Supreme Court? It may not be polarized left or right. But after 12 years of Liberl rule it certainly has to have a Liberal slant...

I'll throw your quote right back to you and ask for the key facts on the other questions I have asked Eureka a number of times but he hasn't answered. Your heartfelt rendition of "The Wonderful Life of Bob" was ended by the very people that voted for him, when they voted him out. The Unions. There was so much hatred for the man, that unions turned their backs on him and the NDP because of his inability to manage the province. This was an era that showed the Unions what would happen if they got the government they wanted. They quickly decided it wasn't to their liking. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So say I agree that the Liberals need some time in the opposition, as many Canadians do. The next question is: what are the alternatives? Bloc? Only in Quebec. NDP? Too left-wing and it is not logical they will form the next government. Tories? Harper has a far right-wing past that is anti-healthcare unlike Canadian mainstream opinion. Now, why do you think Canadians support the Liberals (HINT: it has nothing to do with Gomery...)

Yes prosoldier, that is the point. Sadly, Harper seems to be too much of an opportunist and not enough of a true defender of whatever it takes to bring conservatism to power. Those who argue Harper is turning the corner or just "coming around" simply continue to prove my point...if he's just coming around now than he's the problem.

Actually, the US has said that they were going to maintain bases in Iraq 'in perpetuity'.http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0930/p17s02-cogn.html <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thank you...I figured I was right.

Maybe you should give a good argument against it, then, rather than just dismissing it. Fleabag is right, of course, the Bush girls would be walking targets, and their "noble sacrifice" would be all but assured. I don't wish them harm, despite what you might think from my posts, but I also don't see their lives as more valuable than my nephew, or any of the other barely adults who are sent over there. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "Technically" their lives aren't more important than the average American BUT regardless of "that" there is no way they could be allowed to fight in Iraq because, whether you like it or not, they would be the target... Can you imagine kidnappers capturing them and saying..."troops out or your daughters lives???" Bush would never allow for his family to be put in such a position and I don't blame him.

In your estimate, how many more years will the US have troops in Iraq? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In your estimate, now many more years will the US have troops in Bosnia? Clinton said one year. 1996 seems so long ago. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You are quick witted Mr. Burns but I am not a huge fan of Clinton either. Winning the peace means keeping a majority of Iraqis on your side all the time. However, the Iraqis would rather not have Saadam or the Americans in their country. BTW I never hear the Bosnians complain about US troops in their country...but my estimate to my own question is that the US will have a prescence in Iraq for at least 50-75 more years.

Yes but the PM could well appoint judges here who are Liberal (in Martin's case) and not just to the SCC but to Senate and corporations, etc. with hardly any affirmation process.

Doubt it. Interesting to note that in the two provinces that have NDP governments -Saskatchewan and Manitoba - do not have proprep initiatives underway. Also interesting that a search of NDP official websites shows that these 2 NDP governed are the only two NDP p[rovincial and federal official party sites that DO NOT have proprep as policy. In both provinces, both NDP governments would likely lose their majorities if proprep were implemented. One can only come to one conclusion: they are unprincipled, power hungry swine. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Kind of like every other majority government, eh? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, no. The BC government is actively looking into other forms of governance, it is not NDP, and they are a majority.. Other governments don't have the charade of pretending to support proportional representation except where it isn't convenient to them. Only the NDP have that 'honour'. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> BC is setting the precedent for democratic reform in Canada. They have fixed election dates, etc. One could argue, however, that the BC Liberals are looking for ways to take support away from the Vancouver area which I believe to be were most of the provincial NDP voters are.

I think you mean 'existing socialist world' (at least in Canada). Socialism is merely having taxes for the common good in a free market economy. Marxism, or 100% taxation, is the extreme end, and 0 taxes, or pure capitalism, is at the other. 'Socialism' is any form of taxation from 1-99%. (As long as that taxation is meant for 'government', or common needs) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think what August means, and what I often think, is that the NDP puts forward idealistic solutions that aren't always workable in the real world. For instance, in the example of the underfunded pensions, what if funding up those pensions put the company into bankruptcy? Sounds good, but companies have gone under because of pension fund obligations. That doesn't mean companies shouldn't skirt their obligations, but to make it blanket illegal will have secondary and tertiary effects that probably haven't occurred to the drafters of the policy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think that is what he meant and it certainly was what I meant.

US College BoardOf course, you can always find individual exceptions. For example, most professional sports players and most Hollywood stars have never been to college (and many dropped out of high school) yet they earn high salaries. And Argus always seems to get taxi drivers with PhDs. I think the better question is the following: does more education lead to higher salaries or do people with better skills go to school longer and then earn higher salaries? In effect, is the education system simply a complex (and costly) filtering mechanism to identify people with better natural skills? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I would argue that no, more years of schooling is not equal with a better paying job but is only equatable with a title (i.e. Ph D, etc.) If you go to law school, you will be in school for less years than if you go to grad school and if you get a good job as a lawyer then you are earning higher salary...

That's true but I think Argus's point was that they overturned legislation which was passed by a democratically elected Parliament and they themselves are not elected. Certainly we need the SCC but alternatives could be, for example, a U.S.-style judicial appointment process.

A classic example of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In your estimate, how many more years will the US have troops in Iraq? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> From what the military advisors say and other anylists, they figure at this rate at least 5 more years.... And this is looking more like a quagmire. Japan was not a quagmire after WWII, they surendered and then the reform began. Same with Germany. You hade sizable forces on each side of the coin during WWII, that is why they called it WWII, for a good deal of the worlds contries were fighting one side or the other. In Iraq, you have the US, Britian and the so called Coalition of the Willing but cannot contribute anything (military or money) to the invasion of Iraq. It is a quagmire. Spain pulled out, as well with a few other contries that only had a couple hundred (or less) troops helping out. I do hope Iraq will be free and I hope this will all be worth it, but I am kind of a pessimist, for when you are crawling through the tunnel, and you see the light, but it is faint, then the tunnel collapses in front of you. Could be a long time before any see that light at the end of the tunnel. Mission Accomplished : On board an aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego (I think) He was not in the gulf when that stunt was pulled. There would not have been enough security in the Gulf to ensure that political stunt would go according to plan. Let's say they DO get a working government in the next year. One that is recognized by the international community. Then what. Could it all fall apart after the troops withdraw? Who will take care of their security? The Iraqi forces are just not ready nor properly equipped to handle the job once the US leaves. Unless the US sells them alot of weapons to maintain the order... wait a minute. Could be part of the plan, invade, FSU (fuck shit up) train, withdraw and leave, then you have a perfect staging ground for the invasion of Iran, Syria, Isreal ect. I did not have faith in their words when they went in. 'It will be all over in 2 years maximum." now the rhetoric is ... " could be 10+ years." This in itself is admitting to the quagmire. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The fact of the matter is you can't win a war if you don't win the peace. In this war, there was no plan to win the peace. The Bush administration anticipated that Iraqis would be 100% supportive of removing Saddam and welcoming the Americans. The fact is, it is very difficult to democratically win the peace in a country that is as religiously diverse as Iraq. Right now, the Sunnis are unhappy. Soon, someone else will be unhappy. How you explain things democratically here? This is a war that was a logisitcal failure on all ends.