Leafless

It could be seen Paul Martin is using previous democratic president Bill Clinton in partisan politics to boost the Liberals pet Kyoto project to make Kyoto an election issue in order to sway votes. Just twenty-four hours earlier Paul Martin chastised the U.S. (Bush administration) of contradicting the world in it's refusal to sign the Kyoto protocol. Paul Martin addressed participants in the Montreal climate change conference " To the reticent nations including the U.S., I say there is a such thing as global conscience and now is the time to listen to it." Wow! Strong stuff for a Liberal party that has done basically nothing concerning Kyoto itself and what position is Canada in intially to bump orders around to a super-power like the U.S. Dumb call Mr. Martin and I for one am tired of you and your Liberal party threating our fairly stable relations with the U.S. that in turn could threaten the welfare of Canadians. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

normanchateau You wrote- " The clever people who are voting CPC or the dumb and ignorant people who are so blind to the truth that they've decided to vote NDP, BQ, liberal, or Green." Now, now, you don't have to drag the NDP, BQ, or Green into this. You know that one party that is especially attractive to the dumb and ignorant--Robbing Hood and his Liberal band of corrupt merry clapping seals.

BubberMiley You wrote- " no one wants to be associated with intolerent, intolerent self-righteous people who think God's on their side and they have moral authority." I think what you said is nothing more than lowest class Liberal propaganda associated with nothing more than to defeat the Conservatives at any cost. The Liberals are playing 'robbing hood' to appease followers of their 'just society', a society that has never been successful anywhere in the world with a multitude of tax payer funded social policies and programs and will eventualy prove be the downfall of Canada as a country. You wrote- " The Charlottetown Accord proved that people are way to disinterested to ever be able to provide an informed judgement. they just voted against it because they were mad about the GST." I don't think the GST had anything to do with the rejection of the Charlottown Accord and Mulroney did give Canadians the right to a referendum and was rejected because of constitutional concers.

Sparhawk You wrote- " This rehetoric is very similar to the "axis of evil speech" Bush gave a few years ago. both are transparent attempts to boost political support at home by creating conflict with outsiders." The "axis of evil" speech concentrated on the war against terrorism and cannot be compared to demands Isreal be wiped off the map. You wrote- " stop pretending the creation of Isarel was anything other than UN sanctioned theft." There was a war over this and Isarel won--did they not. Isarel has just has much right to a country as the Palestinians and the Palestinians never got over that fact. I find your post anti-American, and shows a disrespect for democracy and capitalism and really don't understand what your doing living in a country like Canada.

BubberMiley You wrote- " I think people like Leafless are hampering the efforts of the conservative party than anyone." I support Conservative initiatives to provide Canadians with democratic reform. Don't you? Or do you prefer Liberal republic type closed door politics. I also would like to see mini referendums similar to the U.S. concerning important questions at every federal election.

This is what happens when basic society is abandoned by government in favour of buisness and excessive social obligations rather than support traditional family aspirations. It is a sad situation but a sign of the times in a fast moving world that has no limits.

hiti You wrote- " Actually the Liberal party flip and flop to what Canadians want." Democratic concerns in the area of constituent representation by their MP is non- existent. Please provide evidence or a link that prove constituent concerns are are being addressed by their local MP's and hence the polls. Please tell me how and what method Canadian citizens approach the government with their legitimate concerns and how the federal government tells Canadian citizens in advance of any poll that indeed a legitimate poll will be held concerning a certain question with the question advertised and printed in advance to insure Canadians are aware of what the question is prior to any poll. I believe you have your facts reversed as it's the government that creates the issue's and hence the questionable tricky dicky polls. This could be considered undemocratic political manipulation of the Canadian population.

The problem is existing legislation concerning hand gun infractions is NOT BEING ENFORCED. It's supposed to be an automatic five years in prison for most hand gun offences. Why do judges not hand out the prescribed penality. What good will more laws do if you DO NOT enforce them. The Liberal are 'off the deep end' on this issue but then again what Liberal believes in incarceration or corporal punishment.

Normanchateau You wrote- " Most Canadians about the well being of the majority but also about the well being of the minority." No your wrong. What referendum ever indicated this as fact? We are dictated to by the Liberal party of Canada what Canadians want. This is supposedly confirmed with unreliable tricky dicky polls. There is also confusion what constitutes a true minority. Thousands of situations can classify someone as part of a minority. And this is the area we need strong leadership to identify the difference between say a (blind person part of a minority), (a group of homosexuals rebelling against the system part of a minority), (a physically hadicapped individuals, part of a minority), ( a group demanding the legalization of drugs, part of a minority). To make everyone equal in all areas is impossible and could threaten the safety of Canadians and quality of life itself. This is why the only political system that works is rule by the majority prompted by sound logical issue's by leaders of our politcal parties. I fully believe the system is broken and individuals desiring laws to fill their corrupt lifestyles or inability to accept Canada as a single country with loyalities to the country is hampering the efforts of political leaders like Stephen Harper.

DarkAngel_ Please go over the part where "but if there is to much solar interference"? What do you mean by solar interference and what is the height of the 'sky' concerning your explanation of global warming. I think if Canadians simply sit back and relax and if temperatures go according as planned we might all be experiencing Florida type weather sooner than you think. But in all seriousness it seems world population growth is at the root of certain current conditons and sorry to say I have no confidence in man made apparatus to control this situation in a reasonable way.

iamcanadian2 So, what's the point in all of this? Who else is going to apply for a career in politics outside of one who is the holder of uninportant university degrees, a degree or a couple of courses in political science or history, or lawyers who never really established themselves in private buisness. But I suppose it can pay in the long run for politicians like Jean Chretien who made it a full time occupation. Some individuals pursue a career in politics for nothing more than a perceived legacy. But I think you have something more on your mind.

Black Dog You wrote - " Well it's a good thing SSM doesn't change Christian beliefs: It's a civil institution." Homosexual lifestyle does have an impact on Christian beliefs (which is off topic under this topic). Civil institution has nothing to do with this point as it is focused on religious instiution of marriage NOT civil. You wrote- " Yeah , gay parents will make kids gay, just like straight parents so successful at making their kids straight." Yes, I think heterosexual parents are VERY successful at making their kids straight, considering only 1% of the population is gay. In fact they would probably be even more successful if it was not for people like Pierre Trudeau. You wrote- "Imposed on the majority." " Let me clear something up for you. SSM doesn't require someone of the same sex. There is no impositon involved." Nice try, but we are talking about homosexual perversed lifestyles imposed on hetrosexuals or the normal standard used as part of a major system as building blocks for the successful creation of Canadian society and also used by virtually every country in the world.

Hasan Ali Tokuqin After reading your questions I have come to the conclusion the Islam religion constitutes or resembles a cult void of individuality. It is easy to understand why Islam practiced by devout Muslims could easily become troublesome in a modern society. I don't understand why any government would allow anyone practicing this faith into a modern democratic capitilist country.

eureka You wrote- " The 'parents knows best plan' argument is rather pathetic and no more than a support for a cynical vote buting scheme." Oh, institutionalizing your children is NORMAL with nothing to nourish your child intelliect and imagination and learning capabilities than another lot of babbling children. Please give me a break! Most parents know the best child rearing is accomplished at home where the child receives full support of the parents.

BubberMiley You wrote- " Even if it were .0001%, that wouldn't justify letting people to mind their own buisness to continue to discriminate against them by not allowing SSM. This is a matter of how you view SSM and it's divisive nature to destroy existing beliefs associated with Christianity, morals and the teachings of two completely different lifestyles, one adhering to traditonal heterosexuals, the one all of society is based on. The other homosexuality bears no resemblence and conflicts with Christianity, morals and perverse sexual relationship that could include the raising of children affecting beliefs and teachings of children raised by heterosexuals. I don't believe there is any discrimination involved at all in this matter as this is not against the individual homosexual but about their conflicting lifestyle imposed on the majority.

I wonder how the federal Liberals and their Quebec Wing Liberals would feel about the U.S if they were Franco rather than Anglo. Would there still be this anti- U.S. animosity? Is it all about a 'spot light on Quebec thing' being dimished from a Liberal perpective?

It makes me cringe to think when I read " A Harper victory may prove to be the exception to the International rule- A rare foreign event that manges to put a smile on George W. Bush's face." Canada seen as a socialist foreign country catering to the likes of drugs and homosexuals is not exactly my cup of tea either. Canada has progressed under Liberal rule from a once proud country to that emulating a banana republic but still clinging to capitalism for it's survival mocking democractic concerns but guided in a totalitarian way. Hopefully the New Year will present Canadians with a return to what Canada was previously- A proud little country who knows it's best friends and neighbours are the good old U.S.A.

August You wrote- ' Infiltrate' ? " You'll be interested to know Jean Charest has he will not be involved in this general election and he has remained silent on who he will vote for-other than saying he will not vote for the Bloc." My post was pertaining to 'infiltration' by national federal parties not provincial in the sense that the federal Liberals are not really a national party themselves since a lot of Liberal issue's are directly influenced by it's Quebec Wing Liberals. In other words the Federal Liberals could be seen as a sort of hybrid national party and not a national party. I think the federal Liberals have got away playing the 'kitchen magician' of politics' long enough and like preivously mentioned have destroyed the fabric of federalism. Concerning Jean Charerst I think it does not say much for his attachment to federalism by not making a public proclamation as to what federal party he supports.

tml12 You wrote- " Do you think national representation is all it is cracked up to be." I think national representation as always been a part of federalism but with the case of Quebec national representation has been tilted to include as heavy emphasis on regional representation meaning Quebec nationalism. Obviously this conditon has created animosity in the rest of the country with Quebec seen as getting to much and pulling the strings. The Liberals have been the only successful federal national party to infiltrate Quebec politics but with a heavy price including providing a Liberal Quebec Wing and paving the way with federal offerings to such a degree in my opinion that it has destroyed the concept of Canadian nationalism. So I would say no, national representation is not what it is cracked up to be and the name of the game to some federal parties is 'votes at any cost' which I think has destroyed the federalistic fibre of Canada.

newbie You wrote- " If Harper gets in presuming a minority, what will he need to do to ensure longevity?" "And how might he overcome the image of sleeping with the enemy?" Iam not sure how 'sleeping with the enemy is relevent, since it was the Liberals that created the enemy. One way of ensuring longevity I suppose would be to use the Liberals winning formula, promises, promises , promises with few taken seriously.

Duke Hopefully a used, highmilage GM product.

Sorry- My reply was directed to UltimateSin.

Renegade You wrote- " I am confused, someone help a young Candian out and tell me what the Quebec Quo is?" You explained it better when suggesting what is the purpose of Quebec in federal politics concerning it's non- existent national federal parties when Quebec parties don't participate in national parties. This is a good question and a question that has left many Canadians scratching their heads over. As far as I am concerned Quebec political parties cater to Quebec nationalism and ignore the rest of Canada but expect other federal national parties to cater to it's politcal demands. The Liberals are the only national party to make headway into Quebec but only at the expense of allowing the existence of a Quebec Wing Liberal party, giving away significant federal powers to Quebec including generous funding of programs, the movement of significant parts of federal real estate and departments into Quebec, implementing a discriminatory over represented bilingual language policy within the federal government and promoting bilingual policies outside of federal jurisdiction into provinces excluding though Quebec itself. What does Quebec really want? I think it wants independent cultural indepedence funded by the rest of Canada-which I think it is close to now or a form of minority cultural control of Canada based on bilingual policies.

normanchateau You wrote- " Is it just a coincedence or does Harper seem to get some of his campaign platform from the U.S. Republicans." It seem the only reason Canada is being dragged down morally concerning SSM, marijuana, attack on Christian beliefs and other liberal amenities is because of Liberal immature policies. Thank goodness there is one political party in Canada that dictates sane politcal ideologies concerning the preservation of Canadian values. I would rather see an attachment to republican views than ideologies of a distant inconsequential liberal Netherlands.

normanchateau You wrote-" The law of the land trumps religious laws. And the law of the land is democratically detirmined by a parliamentry majority. " The Liberals for a long time have been advocating the separation of church and state but sure don't like to follow their own preferences or beliefs when it comes to SSM and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that effects all Canadians but was never implemented by way of national referendum. Federal representation of constituients concerns is supposed to be represented in parliament by their MP's which we all know is none existent and is why we badly need electoral reforms. Stephen Harper is representing Canadians who don't believe SSM is a Right and opposing the Liberals who bulldozed this legislation through above traditional Christian beliefs and without a referendum involving all Canadians. Polls cannot be trusted and simply cannot be used concerning the type of question involving questionable constitutional rights and rights concerning traditional Christian and moral rights along with the democratic right all Canadians to be part of the procedure invoving important constitutional issue's.