tml12

You can imagine it if you wish... If she is more interested in her own skin than representing the party whose banner got her elected, then maybe she should run as an independent. If you're going to teach at a Catholic school, you better not be saying "Catholicism is wrong"... or you'll lose your job... I think what the NDP is saying is that the party's representatives better represent the party on key issues. It's pretty simple. It is you who is falsely projecting the NDP party position.... The term "scumbags" came from you ... that terminology must come from ...well, a homophobe party... Further, your point that her constituents "appear to not support gay marriage"... is it based on some kind of fact or did it come out of your bag of "Conservative facts"... Has a poll been taken, or should we just wait for the next election..... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> When your the Liberals or the Conservatives (or even, at this point) the Bloc you can afford a free vote. In other words, when your party has 19 members there must be party discipline on EVERY issue...

A classic example of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In your estimate, how many more years will the US have troops in Iraq?

I don't see how anyone could disagree with these two provisions in the NDP platform. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There seems to be a lot of optimism and, even a bit of idealism, in this platform. I am not sure I can flat-out disagree with any of these goals while on paper...BUT implicating them isn't a different story. When I was a teenager I, like many others, used to be very, very left-wing and I would argue that I did not understand how conservatives could disagree with the goals of left-wing ideas unless they were self-centred bastards. Yet, in my 20s I began to see that many left-wing ideas are just that, ideas. They cannot be implicated without serious consequences for the economy, the market, and the budget. Thus, I believe centre-left is OK as long as you're willing to straddle the centre...otherwise stay on the university campus...you still have a lot to learn.

It takes two to tangle. If all Harper can do in an election campaign is rant about corruption and grossly exaggerated the extent of the sponsorship scandal then he deserves any dirt the Liberals hurl at him.The country needs an election about the issues and the future not endless re runs of past wrong doings. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree with most of your argument...elections should be run on issues and not on who did this and that. However, those Liberals involved in the scandal need to be implicated. It seems obvious that Chretien turned a blind eye but I am not so sure Martin did. I am not sure we will ever truly know all of what Martin knew but as for Chretien, I am sure he is more to blame than Martin.

The problem with suggestions like this is that the words 'conspiracy theory' squash any impartial investigation. Further, the words 'military industrial complex' imply the same thing, but if one looks at who is connected to whom, there is only two choices, conspiracy or coincidence. Let's look at Halliburton, for example. Pure coincidence that they got the rebuilding (and supply) contracts for both the destruction and rebuilding of Iraq? By coincidence, I mean that a former director of the company was also the NSC advisor, and is now the vice-president. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Blair just bought Bush's jargon that's all. Though he probably is more at fault then Bush if for the soul reason that he had the most power to stop him.

I never said canadian ? i said canadian nationalist and ironically, the most extremist canadian nationalist are quebeckers but thei aren't many. Well, the 3 party in quebec are fighting for canadian nationalist to let quebeckers live, it doesnt mean that quebeckers are all united but provincial party are at a point all fighting for something simillar. There are many way to leave quebeckers alone. They have 3 different approach, one wants to instaure asymetrical federalism or a meech style accord, one want to instaure an autonomous state (china/hong-kong style), one want to build a new country. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There are many federalist views on how to keep confederation together: Liberals would argue through a strong central government, Conservatives prefer the "community of communities" approach championed by Joe Clark. Then we have the separatist views on the issue: the "sovereignty-association" approach championed by Levesque and the flat out independence championed by Parizeau.

Care to name one? Or is this another of those statements that is implicitly obvious even though the Klein government may very well be the most socialist in the country? Please enlighten me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> HUH???

(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.

Who said it's what you know, not who you know?

If CSIS becomes aware of Canadians who have participated in the Iraq insurgency, I would hope that they'd be extradited to Iraq to stand trial there. -k <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Agreed.

Hold on I'll call Mr. Gagliano... He tells me he doesn't know either...

Let's see: for most of the the last 40 years the Prime Minister of Canada and a signficant portion of the federal cabinet have been from Quebec. Yet you have the nerve to say 'Canadians are trying to control Quequers'.You should stop talking as if Quebequers are unified on this issue. The debate between seperation and confederation has split Quebec society in two for generations and is still going on today. If Quebequer's were anything close to unified on this issue you would see quite a different attitude from the rest of the country. When you need an excuse to justify anything just say you are doing it for liberty and justice. Works for Bush in Iraq and works for Quebec seperatists. However, the facts are different. Quebec is part of Canada today therefore it is reasonable to expect Quebec to co-operate with the rest of the country. Breaking up the country would cause HUGE economic and social disruptions and therefore needs considerable more justification than trivial arguements over federal/provincial powers. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes but then Sparhawk if any separatist thought about it there would be fewer of them. Just like Quebec will have billions of dollars in surplus after the referendum (and after around oh I dunno thousands of anglos leave???) It's no wonder idealism factors in here...

This is quite simply wrong. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree that an unelected Supreme Court should not come overall the decision of an elected Parliament. Yet, we can complain all we want about how things work in Ottawa and get nowhere. What are the other options? And, perhaps more importantly, are they feasible?

Agreed. Class sizes at our universities are out of control...higher tuition will mean smaller classes and better professors, enhancing the learning environment of our children. I always liked Bouchard...I thought he was fair and examined both sides of a situation, although I haven't always agreed with all his comments. BTW Charest has got to find some of that irony funny though...

Instead of looking at seat counts, look at distribution of support. The regional differences are not nearly as large as they appear. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Then we HAVE a democratic deficit. Certainly, regional support isn't nearly as black and white as our first-past-the-post system suggests. As I am sure you know, the Liberals and the NDP received nearly 40% of the vote in the last Alberta provincial election, yet won 40 less seats than the PCP which won 47% of the vote. Will proportional representation be the first step in reducing provincial alienation?

Can you leave again for a little while? I have no problems with debate, but seriously... "...it was [sic] strickly about oil." And the foolish Bush administration gave the owners all rights to that oil. And no Republicans "on the ground taking bullets"? 80% of the military is Republican! I think we can add Cgarrett to the ilk of Michael Moore and George Galloway. We know whose side Cgarrett is on. Just another example of the left's hatred for freedom... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You make good arguments Burns BUT answer this: 1) Do you believe Americans, champions of free market and low taxes for fewer government services, will be happy for this war in five years when they will be paying much higher taxes for it? See I just think their human nature is like "hey Iraq we'd love to help you even though you may not want it...but, WHAT, I am PAYING WHAT IN TAXES TO HELP YOU??? See, I just don't see that flying in five years time...

Thank you for proving my point. You know, all it would take is Grade 6 logic and not university-level ECON 200 to explain that but, then again...

There doesn't seem to be a party now that speaks for Canada, just look: BLOC speaks for Quebec and some of Montreal. LIBERALS speak for most of the East. TORIES speak for most of the West. NDP speaks for small left-wing minority. Do we have a national party???

OK then. Bush is not "on a mission from God." But, using logic, if we agree that: a) Bush speaks to God AND That Bush believes he is on a mission (or, as he has put it, crusade), THEREFORE c) Bush speaks to God and believes he is on a mission. Where has he gotten the idea for this mission???

I think you're correct. People will always want more...no one can ever have everything they want. The Liberals are corrupt, the Conservatives were corrupt, and, you know what, if the NDP and Bloc were in power they'd be corrupt after awhile too. We cannot change the actions of individuals in government unless we change their culture of entitlement. And, as long as we refer to elected officials as honourable indivuduals while they cheat, lie, and steal our money I don't see anything changing. Is it everyone? No...but it is enough of them. This shouldn't turn us away from politicians (as it does with too many people) but it should make us work harder to hold them more accountable...

HAHAHA!!!!!!

NDP members rejected Layton Legalization of marijuana stance, therefore Layton should be rejected by the party according to Err. Yes? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ah but Layton is the party leader and that was not a policy that was being voted on in the House. When you are a Party with 19 members in Parliament you vote with the party or else...

This is the problem with Canadian democracy... Our standard of living is so high that we don't even notice a few billion dollars disappearing here and there...and since we don't notice it, we conclude that we have little corruption... And since we have so little corruption, and our standard of living is so high, we conclude that it's really not possible to have less corruption than we do, so whatever corruption we do have is okay and doesn't enrage us. The perfect rationalization of apathy. Thank you Canadian government for being kind enough to steal so little of my money. FTA Lawyer <{POST_SNAPBACK}> FTA Lawyer, Someone mentioned to me at work the other day: "It is a small price to pay to vote Liberal to save this country from becoming more like the U.S." Yes, corruption means different things sto different people. Especially in Canada when the U.S. is involved...

Pure hearsay that has no basis in fact - the fund raising activities of the parties and the polticians has been kept seperate since the 1940s. If you want to make the assertion that Martin was personally involved in all fund raising then you need to offer more proof than the facile assertion that 'he is a senior Liberal so he had to be involved'. Such statements are nothing more than partisan rhetoric and should not be taken seriously. These contributions were perfectly legitiment corporate contributions at the time. The only thing that made them improper is the fact that people making the contributions claimed that they were deliberate kickbacks connected to contracts received from the federal gov't. The testimony at Gomery about these 'kickbacks' came mainly of ad executives trying to save their own skins which means they had a motive to exaggerate the connection between their donations and the contracts.In short, Martin may have know about the contributions but still be unaware that there was such a direct connection between the contracts and the contributions. I am sorry, the only real problem in Canada democracy stems from the self-absorbed Quebec voter who insists on voting for an obstructist party like the BQ. If Quebequers have a problem with the Liberals there is an alternative national party with a leader that speaks excellent French and wishes to reduce the role of the federal government in Canada - something that should appeal to Quebequers sensitivities. Unfortunately, speaking French isn't not good enough for Quebequers, you have to be a pure lain Quebequois before Quebquers will consider voting for you. Such is the state of democracy in Canada. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Many Quebecers will not vote for a party that is conservative in origin simply because Quebec is politically more left than anywhere in North America.

This "Bush said God told him to do it" story is as phony as John Kerry. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Do you deny that Bush talks to God and that he believes he is on a mission from God? Do you deny that, because I am not sure Bush would...