tml12

This "Bush said God told him to do it" story is as phony as John Kerry. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the US shoots and paralyzes one of these Canadian terror supporters, will the Canadian taxpayer, again, be forced to pay for this terrorist's medical bills and therapy for the rest of his life? Let Osama pay his bills. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Iraq is a warzone where people are taking positions that they believe in. To answer your question, should Canadian taxpayers have to pay for a Canadian citizen who fights against the U.S., the answer is simple: whether or not we support them if they are Canadian citizens and the government will not revoke their citizenship...do we have much choice?

Having read about Robinson's past I have reservations. I mean, I believe in second chances but do we need any more corruption in the House???

(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???

I was reading something the other day from someone who supports Bush and he said, "Bush is a good president because he doesn't raise taxes and he wants to bring democracy to the Middle East at any price" or something like that... My theory is this: If you support Bush's tax cuts, then you cannot support him spending $200 million there and $500 billion

I wish he did but I wouldn't be so sure... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> True enough. His supporters seem to get off on the idea that he is beyond accountability. Its like they think that is a good thing. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is true. I don't like the man and I never have. He is a ruthless man who, through Rove, will crush his opponents and twist the facts to ensure people will support him. He says he is a common guy for the common people, but he has always had carte blanche and never has had to worry about finding or keeping a job or making ends meet... It is simply a bad situation down there...

No, the problem is that there are as yet no parties that can gain greater support than a party that is alledgedly "utterly corrupt." What does that tell you? Perhaps there is something wrong with Harper or his party, in the minds of the elctorate? Sorry. Canadians just don't see the NCC as a desirable government for Canada, even given the alternatives. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thank you Trudeau, this is what I have been trying to convey.

Generally I am in agreement with you, although I still think the Conservatives would have done better under a different leader.

Generally BD, I agree but I am not so sure about bin laden. After all, he was responsible for 9-11, right? The others we are defintely on the same page about (although try explaining that to Americans).

I wish he did but I wouldn't be so sure...

There are 10 times as many liquor stores in Calgary today as there were before privatization. Didn't any of these 1,866 government slugs qualify to work in any of them? Oh well .... somebody did. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Before privatizing the LCBO Ontarians should privatize The Beer Store. I mean, you can't buy beer IN THE FOOD STORE??? And I thought Quebec was socialist...the other day a friend of mine saw Grand Marnier in the food store (I still can't believe that...but beer and wine yes!!!)

Did he ever? In his first term, he appointed industry flunkies to key environmental posts, pulled regulations on everything from mining on public lands to how private-sector developers preserve wetlands when developing commercial and residential projects. The administration has routinely ignored or distorted scientific findings to advance its industry-first agenda. And so on. Canada is obviously not much better on many fronts. Many people of all stripes here seem to believe that Paul Martin's Liberals are somehow ahead of their American counterparts. That's not the case. The Liberals are just smaller versions of the Washington business elite, only with the veneer of progressive values, which makes their appalling performance on the enviornment and other issues almost harder to stomach. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I meant to say stop caring about the economy. But your points are certainly well received.

Martin also said he would step down if he was implicated at all by the Gomery Commission. Now we hear that Gomery can't implicate people...

Pollution Watch is an activist group, so let the spin begin. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, if you're looking for spin, how about this. I noticed that Pollution Watch took their Canadian measurements from Environment Canada. I also noticed that in the article you cited, no mention was made of where they got their American statistics. From the US government??? The EPA??? Well, either way we have to consider that the EPA's report last year was strongly, shall we say, "edited" before it was allowed to be released for public consumption. The EPA, upon presenting their annual report, was told eaxcatly HOW the White House wanted them to re-word their report on air emmisions and possible contributions to global warming. (Can't find the link to that particular bit right now, but there's plenty of others) This is not the first time the Bush Admin has "muzzled" the EPA. Here are a few examples..... The first details muzzling of EPA reports of possible danger from 9/11 fallout.... http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/environment.html The second ( http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/pubs...ease_FINAL3.doc ) has a few statements, quoted below, which show more of the same...... And more of the same..... http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200409/bush_record.asp So, in a nutshell, you have cited an organization whose mandate is to reduce pollution, IN CANADA, as a source. Therefore, they would have an interest in showing Canada in an unfavorable light. That organization used materials provided by Environment Canada, which has NOT been reported to have been "muzzled" by the Canadian government. That same organization did NOT reveal its sources for the supposed improvements in the USA. IF those sources were the US government, or even the EPA, then the source must be held as suspect because of the nature of the manipulation of the EPA's findings and reports in recent years. Well, you did say you wanted spin <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The excuse of the U.S. to not help the environment is that it will hurt their economy. No compromise and certainly no thinking ahead. Funny how, in his second term, Bush suddenly stops caring about the environment...

G & M R-C <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Coderre won't actually follow through and sue. He can't, its way to risky for him the Liberals. If he did, the BQ defended themselves on the premise that the flyer is true, the Liberals would be very damaged by the publicity, even if the flyer proves false (which it wouldn't I'd wager). It's good to see that Quebecers also believe that Martin had his hand in the piggybank. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Agreed. I don't think legally or in the next election the Bloc has to really worry about the Liberals.

The same comments can be found here, along with the heretofore unrevealed dozen or so averted terrorist attacks...... http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html ....interesting how we never heard of these averted attacks before. I would think that Bush would want to publicize them to help maintain support for his war. GW has also said..... http://www.irregulartimes.com/godspeaksthroughme.html .....while addressing a small crowd of Amish people in July. With all the wars started over religion, this is starting to worry me. After all, didn't God also speak to Mohammed??? And look what came of that!!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A friend of mine attended a dinner in Washington DC several years ago where Condoleeza Rice and George W Bush were the guest speakers. The next time we spoke he said, "no doubt about it...they believe God speaks to them." So to answer your question: yes it appears that God speaks to George W. Bush and Ms. Rice and it also appears that Bush is on a mandate from God.

Hmm, let's use your arbitrary 40% safe majority level as a starting point. In the last FIFTY years only two Conservative leaders have ever polled over forty percent in the only poll that counts .... election day. Diefenbaker. Once in FIVE elections as leader and Mulroney both times. Harper is building slowly. He saw the mistakes of Stockwell Day in trying to swing for the fences. Slow and steady wins the race. As long as the election is about Liberal corruption and arrogance people will drown out the pathetic 'scary, scary, scary' cries. Your unsophisticated analysis of the situation is telling of a deeper bias. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Shoop, I think we agree generally on many issues so I will be frank: yes I don't like Harper. I never have and although I may shut my eyes and vote for him I really think the Conservative Party needs a less polarizing leader. Many of my Conservative friends (and I am sure you would agree) refute my argument saying that we don't need Liberal lite in the Party. I agree but I think there are people out there who would be better for the Conservative Party. I do disagree that my analysis is unsophisticated. But if mine is, then certainly your argument that the Conservatives should simply keep hammering away at government corruption is telling. Do you suggest that Mulrooney was not corrupt and that only the Liberals are? Furthermore, are you insinuating that only by hammering away at current Liberal corruption will the Conservatives win? If so, you back up my "unsophisticated analysis" by saying that if the Tories win it will be because Canadians are voting against Liberal corruption and not for Harper.

Helps to show your complete lack of understanding of the U.S.-Israeli relationship and of conservative Christianity in the U.S. Chrisitians in the U.S. are far, far, far from united in their support of Israel. Falwell and his kooky ilk are some of the many, many examples of opposition to Israel. http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/990122/falwell.shtml The Jewish community is very active in U.S. politics and understand the way the system works. AIPAC is the biggest, and most well-organized, example of Jewish Americans working the political system effectively. www.theisrelproject.org is another. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You are certainly correct Shoop that the Christian Right in the States is not supportive of Israel. Yet, Bush supports Israel because both share common interests now. That, of course, could change. Israelis support Bush, yet most American Jews hate him. Why? Because U.S.-based Jews tend to be more left-leaning on domestic policy...something which Bush isn't.

The Conservative Party has officially announed it will not bring any pro-life legislation to the House so, effectively, they seem to be supporting the status quo on abortion. Unless, of course, you think Harper has a hidden agenda...

I know, I know...you've heard it all before that Harper can't be PM, he has a hidden agenda, etc. But the facts speak for themselves. Keep two things in mind: Since 2004, when the sponsorship scandal became public: 1) The Liberals have never polled above 40% in safe majority waters. 2) They have, however, almost always been ahead of the Conservatives. This means that whether or not Harper is a right-wing Bush ass-kisser or whatever the Liberals want to call him, the people don't like him. His feel-good summer tour did nothing. In fact, the Liberals had almost a fifteen-point lead at the end of the summer. All while Canadians are tired of scandal and want chance. I am a Canadian who feels the same way, yet Harper hasn't proven himself a credible alternative. I know he wants to be PM and that he will cut my taxes but other than that, what? To his defence, Harper is a policy guy, not a politician. But at this point, Canadians don't care. And the fact is, if the Conservatives can't hold a lead for more than a week in a two-year period during one of the biggest scadals in Canadian history then we have to look at the leader. Has Harper worn out his welcome yet or what?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/Business/ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> North America needs leadership and she needs it badly.

Just a mirror image of Canada. The Liberals would salivate if the CPC moved back to the right. Now all the Liberals and NDs can do is cry about a hidden agenda. Thankfully the CPC were centrist in the eyes of enough Canadians to deny Martin a majority. The Democrats have to be centrists to have a shot at winning. The last true 'liberal' to run for the Dems was McGovern in 1972. A crushing defeat of a decent, decent man. Of course the veep pick didn't help... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I disagree Shoop. I think Jimmy Carter was left of centre and probably one of the few US Presidents to really align the U.S. with a Trudeau Made-in-Canada agenda. He supported big government policies and was, like Trudeau, going to make the U.S. go metric. How did he get in, you ask, since the U.S. is pro-free market. Simple...Ford was associated with Watergate and Carter played the innocent guy from Georgia. Of course, Reagan came in and talked about how government was the problem and how Carter liked high taxes and the Americans through him out.

http://members.shaw.ca/consciencecanada/co...0406lumley.html And some of Harper's many quotes from http://www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca/d...article378.html "Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack o­n our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society…It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff." (BC Report Newsmagazine, January 11, 1999) “These proposals [government programs] included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of “child poverty” and for more business subsidies in the name of “cultural identity”. In both cases I was sought out as a rare public figure to oppose such projects.” (The Bulldog, National Citizens Coalition, February 1997) "Universality has been severely reduced: it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy…These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party…” (Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994) "It is to take the bricks and begin building another home – a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta." “Whether Canada ends up as o­ne national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion" "There is a dependence in the region [Atlantic Canada] that breeds a culture of defeatism," (CBC News, May 30, 2002) I do find Stephen Harper scary in that I believe he is hiding what his true objectives are. He has spent most of his time demeaning the other parties, to the point where anger has become his trademark. And FTA lawyer, it was a rant if I've ever read one. "What will it take for voters like you to actually NOT vote Liberal?" You sound almost desperate. But to answer that question, I'm willing to let Gomery produce its report and decide. I'm certainly not going to let partisan rhetoric and rants influence me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Harper does not favour big government and this drives him, at least in part, to make many of those comments. Now whether, as PM, he would feel that way about the country breaking up is certainly grounds for further discussion...

Dr. Suzuki is to Scientist as Dr. Phil is to Psychiatrist. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Dr. Suzuki IS a world-renowned scientist but in this case I am leaning toward siding with Sparhawk. Suzuki often uses cris-crosses numbers to make a point (i.e. substituting parts per trillion with parts per million as he did a few years back) Perhaps Environment Minister Stephane Dion summed it up best when he said "Canada vs. Mexico...whose water would you rather drink???"

You have made an interesting point? Would a Harper government lack legitamacy in Quebec because his party doesn't have any seats here? It seems to me (and I am not defending the Liberals) that the Bloc could use this as a way to say Quebec is not represented in Canada.