tml12

The Clarity Act is meaningless to the extent that Bouchard interpreted it the way the separatists saw it and Chretien interpreted it the way the federalists saw it. Seems to me the Clarity Act was absolutely effective in defining future sovereignty debates. Yeah, right...

Eureka also claimed that this was a factor, and I agree, but do not think it was the main factor. No, it would have no bearing, but might bring down a lot of audits on our head. RevCan does taxes their way, no matter what you say. (as told to me by my former employer worked for RevCan for almost 20 years.) No way. Not that much. As I said, I could see 50% over, maybe even 100%. Maybe even double that, or at a stretch, triple. Definitely not 750 x the cost. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I am so tired of Liberal underestimating. I mean they underestimate the cost of their programs, such as the gun registry, and then they claim they have no extra money for anything because the surplus isn't as big as it will be (because it has been underestimated...) Not that I don't think Martin and many Liberals are well-intentioned overall, but I mean I don't think they seem caring to common people who don't have the financial ability to overestimate...

I agree with you that Harper favours provincial rights... BUT, when Harper has to favour one province over the other do you see him favouring an Eastern province over a Western one???

You make good points...but, if Harper were to become PM even in a majority government circumstance I still see him favouring the West over Quebec. After all, his MPs would not be Quebecers. While he might try and address Quebec's status, I don't see him bending over to Quebec like successive Liberal governments. Just my opinion...

It's called common sense. Most of us have it. We know very well that environmental controls in the likes of Mexico and Turkey are virtually unknown. Without getting into the actual study, but just going by what's available on the story cited, it appears we take a major hit for overusing water. Right. that makes sense. We're bad because we use much more water than places like Mexico and Turkey. Not because we dirty it more, but because we use it more. Uhm, because we're heavily industrialised? Because water is plentiful here and thus cheap? We're penalized for this? Sorry. That doesn't cut it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Generally, I agree with that.

G & MI think the real news here is the strength of the BQ and the weak position of the Liberals in Quebec. It is a small sample but the evidence is there. The Liberals are down from their support in Quebec in the last federal election. In all likelihood, Boisclair will become PQ leader and then become PM of Quebec and then will hold a referendum. The sponsorship scandal has caused a shift in support for sovereignty. ---- Also, the additional Liberal support across Canada seems to be coming from the NDP. The next federal election will be a referendum on Harper in English Canada, with the NDP and the Liberals competing for the No votes. I suspect that Harper's 58%/60% unfavourables are hard. These people don't like Harper. They will vote for any party other than the Conservatives. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The day Harper won the leadership vote I knew that it was the greatest thing that ever happened to the LPC. I really think CPC with Belinda could have defeated Liberals in June 2004.

Keep in mind eureka that you are referring to a leader who was a Quebec MP from the old PC Party. Do you really see PM Harper satisfying Quebec with his reform-dominated past???

The public obscenities by Parrish could not have been 'prevented' by any leader. She is a loose cannon and will thankfully be gone from politics soon. In terms of Martin and Bush, any bad blood is a result of Martin's vacillating and an unwillingness to make hard decisions. The bad blood between Trudeau and Reagan has ideological undertones which made it impossible for them to reconcile. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ideological differences are understood and don't usually involve cross border bickering. What makes this current situation unique is that you have a truly polarizing and not very charismatic leader like Bush and a CEO-businessman Martin who isn't extremely political. For all their faults and ideological differences, Trudeau and Reagan were seasoned politicians who understood the name of the game and didn't rely on cross-border spin doctors for their own political advantage

At least according to Transparency International: http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?...3b-aeef94d5eefd Although they mentioned that we weren't getting much cleaner...

The European Left and the North American Left were not the same before and are certainly not the same now.The NDP's new support now derives from voters in favour of same-sex marriage, and choice in personal lifestyle. In the US, these voters are Democrats. Whether in the US or Canada, they are typically urban voters in favour of the freedom to choose. And let's not forget labour.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Like the BC NDP support for the labour of striking teachers?Let me be clear. The NDP has chosen to seek the votes of young, urban, social libertarians. These are people who want to be free to choose and want respect for their choices. People who vote for Bev Desjarlais are different. And striking teachers are different again. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> People who vote for Bev Desjarlais represent a more socially conservative, communitarian wing of the NDP no doubt about it...but, I still think NDP tries to appeal to all kinds of left of centre voters and not libertarians who would never accept the NDP's fiscal policies!!!

A lot of what you are saying is with 20/20 hindsight. 1) In terms of charisma, Mulroney pre-1984 was no Mulroney, at least in the minds of the chattering classes of the time. 2) If the CPC can stay on message they could take a handful of seats in Quebec. 3) Oh I forgot the U.S. didn't have an aggressive President in 1984. Oh wait, Reagan was President at the time... 4) Yes and no. They fared much better than expected going into 2004. It won't be easy but they have a realistic shot at holding all their seats in BC. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Canada-U.S. relations were much better in 1984 than now (unless I am crazy...I am only in my 20s) and Reagan was much less polarizing than Bush. And do you really think that Harper has a chance to win more than two seats in Quebec??? (I am not challenging you because I am seriously considering voting Conservative)...I am just considering the facts...

I must agree, we must tread lightly. One of the dangers of defining 'quality of life' (or passing judgement) for others is seeing things like eugenics rearing it's ugly head again. However, different cultures have different ways with dealing with death. Not so long ago, eskimos would place, (assumably willingly) grandma or grandpa on an ice floe when they reached a certain level of 'enfeeblement'. They thought that this method of 'leaving the land of the living' was very dignified. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you are not legally insane and have a life-threatening illness you should be allowed to die with respect. Period. Case closed.

I seem to remember a few different positions on abortion during the last election campaign... First they had strong principles - against... (until they saw the public's reaction) then "wouldn't stop a private member's bill" (until they saw the public's reaction) then "will let it stand where it is".... It would appear that the Harper Reform/Alliance/Conservative party's principles are "get elected at all costs, then implement what we think is best"... Hardly principled on their hot-button abortion issue .... and consequently, it would appear... totally untrustworthy... Jack Layton He appears to be the one candidate who takes the side of the majority of Canadians... not just Corp. Canada.... (Chances are remote for a win, but controlling a minority... that would be wonderful... If you'll remember, that's how we got health care, unemployment insurance, old-age pensions.... ) Most Canadians think these are good things, even if you don't.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Harper wants to be PM. If it isn't obvious now that he'll sell Peter MacKay for it, it never will be...

So you insult me for using a name given to Martin by one of the most presitgious magazines in the world? Hmmm, good old Liberal fair play at work. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We discussed the issue here. Miss Trudeau is right, Shoop is wrong.---- As to Desjarlais, Layton did not want her running as an NDP candidate and I'm sure he put whatever effort he could into ensuring she lost the nomination. Yet, she may well be re-elected as an independant. Underneath this question is a dilemma about the NDP's "new" persona. Is the NDP a social libertarian party in favour of urban progressive ideals protecting the rights of individuals to be what they are? Or is the NDP a party promoting the views of working class people? This is an old debate that has been essentially decided. The NDP is an urban party of social libertarians. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> August, Define "social libertarians." Do you mean libertarian socialism? If so, how can you explain the NDP's big government policies? I think the NDP is a socially democratic party in the roots of the French Socialists and the UK'S Old Labour...

You make an interesting point. Do you realize that we cannot even discuss issues of language in this country any more? It seems politically we are polarized between Liberal-dominated east and Conservative-dominated west? Former U.S. president Lincoln said "a house divided cannot stand." Who dares say we are not a house divided, and who, better yet, proposes a solution to our dilemma???

Shades of the 1984 election here. Harper can go after Martin for not doing his job as Finance Minister. When Martin replies "I had no choice" it will work as well for him as it did for John Turner. Poor, poor Mr. Dithers.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Shoop, I am not attacking your point here but you seem to assume, I dare say, hope that what happens in 2006 will be the same as what happened in 1984. Keep in mind the following: 1) Considering charisma, Harper is no Mulrooney. 2) The Conservatives will likely not take one seat in Quebec. 3) Canada, in general, is more prone to vote Liberal with an aggressive American president. 4) Conservatives have their work cut out for them in B.C. unlike last election. I am a swing Liberal-Conservative voter who generally votes Liberal...but all I am saying is that we need to consider the differences here. Stephen Harper may claim Martin had the option, but Canadians will not consider that chance as the only issue in the next election...

August, The link is: http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?...d8-7db699655108 In this day and age, any independent country (ESPECIALLY one that borders an imperialist world superpower) needs an army. Anyone who thinks otherwise would be a left-wing idealist...

Your Type is ESFJ Extroverted Sensing Feeling Judging Strength of the preferences % 89 1 75 78 ESFJ type description by D.Keirsey ESFJ type description by J. Butt Qualitative analysis of your type formula You are: very expressed extrovert slightly expressed sensing personality distinctively expressed feeling personality very expressed judging personality

I assume we are talking about the David Frum who wrote speeches for Bush???

I agree that those who were diagnosed with cancer prior to package warnings and government admissions deserve to be reimbursed. However, that is really the extent to which I would push it.

I think you misunderstand. Greenspan knows it, Bush ignores it. Bush, as did Reagan, are using deficit spending as an 'overdraft', and have left out the accomanying stopgaps, such as raising interest rates for the budget deficit (at the risk of strangling the economy), and slashing imports for the trade deficit (Huge trade deficits should cause a devaluation of the dollar, also include interest rate hikes as a remedy for this). The US has done neither because they continue to float along on huge foreign investment. A quote... from...http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Dick_Cheney...t_+_Economy.htm <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Which makes you wonder what would happen if, little by little, countries stopped investing in the U.S.

I don't believe that is accurate. Seems to me it's the right who are the angry ones. I ask only why?? They have both houses, have their guy in office, control talk radio - what the hell more do you guys want. I think a round of prozak is in order -- and soon. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The main problem with O'Reilly is his hypocrisy and his arrogance. I happen to agree with a lot of what he says. However, his hatred of those who disagree with him and his unwillingness to debate and compromise make his lose his credibility of being "a common guy with an independent opinion." He also is quick to criticize, but never compliment, Canada.

Controversial a decision as it as, I am going to agree with you. I am a very casual smoker, only lighting up occasionally in the bar. We limit smoking to those who are 18 (or 19 in some jurisdictions). However, by the time an adult reaches that age, they are mature enough to make this decision. Health Canada makes the effects of smoking very clear on our packs of cigarettes. I don't understand why the tobacco companies should be held responsible for our decisions in THIS day and age.

It is the arrogance of our elected officials forgetting that they represent us that really angers me.

Don't know if anyone has really overlooked it, just seems pretty irrelevant at this point. They only way Dither's age comes into play is IF the Liberals win a majority. If the Liberals win a minority he gets booted. Any sort of CPC win and Martin gets booted. If the Liberals do win a majority Martin definitely resigns before the next election, it's just really unlikely to happen. Harper is only around for a while if the CPC wins. They lose and two strikes he is outta there. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Completely agreed.