sharkman

What did Cadman mean on video when he said that no one offered to buy his vote when he was asked back on the day the vote took place? Why was the Cadman family completely silent on this issue for all these years? Why would Cadman's wife run for a party that tried to bribe her dying husband? I'm really curious, however, on the issue of what the Liberals paid and blackmailed to stay in power on that fateful day. Politics as usual, no less, no more. Just ask Belinda.

double post due to some weird board flooded error I received on my first attempt to post.

This would be soooo funny if it wasn't so sad. A democrat loses a couple of elections after reeling off a long string of wins, and it's not Hilary's fault, it's not Obama's fault. No siree, they had nothing to do with it, certainly not Hilary who's staff was circulating a picture of Obama in Muslim dress (since the 5 second attention span of the american voter couldn't put this together without a picture), and pointing out Obama's flip flopping on NAFTA. It was the conservatives fault. No, really. In the States, paranoid Obama groupies are also blaming conservative talk radio for suggesting to their audience to vote for Hilary since McCain has it in the bag already. Meanwhile, Hilary has finally shown she's willing to go after Obama's weak spot and pound away at it which has big wigs in the party upset that an actual knock down drag out election scrap may ensue (like every election between Reublicans and Dems in the last decade or more). Just remember, it's not Hilary's fault for passing around that picture or repeatedly bringing up Obama's flip flop. It's those nasty conservatives. Yeah, right.

So the big day is upon us with Texas and Ohio up for grabs. Apparently Clinton can thank Canada for a late surge in polling numbers, due to Obama back pedaling on NAFTA. The thing is, this is setting up for a voting irregularity conspiracy theorist's fantasy. The two are neck and neck in the polls and any outcome will be hotly contested, already both sides are claiming "voting problems" in Ohio. It will be interesting to see how bitter this gets, since they can't blame republicans over it. Not that it will stop them...

Many thanks to kuzadd and Buffy for running around in circles crying," The sky is falling, the sky is falling!" every time the government makes a decision. You couldn't pay enough for the hard work these and lefties across the nation are doing to desensitize Canadians to such fears. What an enjoying irony.

I still don't think it would matter in the Dem primaries.

Wearing a costume is a whole lot different than believing the particular faith you're dressing up for. Just ask those who freaked about Bush's born again status when they found he was running. If Obama is a Muslim, he shouldn't be hiding it since one's faith makes up a big part of who one is. To hide it is being dishonest to the voter. But politicians hide all manner of crap from their past, so I wouldn't be surprised to find out he was doing this. If true, it might not matter in the Dem primaries, but I don't think a Muslim would ever win the presidency in this present climate, and rightly so.

These types tend to jab, then move on. Don't confuse them with the facts.

Thanks for your patriotic efforts on the China front, but I'd rather live in a country that is free.

This is all just theory (btw I'm surprised to hear you defend God's possible choice of days vs daaaaaaaays on one hand, claim you're agnostic on the other, and keep agreeing with a noted atheist on the third hand. You have said there isn't evidence to prove or disprove God.), but since God told the author of Genesis to put down days, he might have meant for the reader to understand days, not millions of years. But that is just one theory. It sounds like you are taking Hitchens lead on the science part as well. Many do. I grew up believing in creation and God ( a highly abused child I was!) so perhaps I should leave it at that. You have your beliefs and I mine, and I don't think less of you for yours.

Perhaps I didn't spell out my thoughts. The response to Katrina was a massive failure, and not one to point to as an example that the present system was working just fine. I found that Canada sending a ship was a slap in the face of the citizens of NO. Because it took so long for the boat to get there and all of the supplies on board should have been flown down. It was obvious that changes to that system needed to be made. As for the oil pipeline concerns, they are also real. Terrorists would love to blow them up as well, and as I mentioned, the Canadian Forces are way too small to adequately protect oil in Canada on top of all of their other responsibilities. The remarks about openness have been going on with every single decision Harper has made, along with angry declarations that he doesn't have the mandate to do whatever it is he is doing at the moment, since he has a minority. The truth is, he can do anything that doesn't bring down his government, which in a minority situation, has been limiting him all along, but not enough for the leftwingers in Canada, who want nothing less than his resignation. So their constant refrain about openness tends to fall on deaf ears up here after over a year of it.

Somehow I'm assuming that Hitchens is not listening to all science, only the pro-evolution anti god kind. And he does indeed idolize his own brain, five minutes of listening to him reveals this. Hey listen to whomever floats your boat, but personally I would discount the opinions of a guy with obviously such a huge religious chip on his shoulder.

I can easliy think of a situation where massive help is needed which quickly overloads our limited military's ability to help or be effective. The problem on this thread is, with all of the knee jerking and Harper bashing, some are unable to think clearly. A massive earthquake hits one of our major cities, say Toronto. Tens of thousands are trapped waiting to be rescued, and our military is unable to reach a tenth of them. Millions more are homeless and need water, shelter, and food. We would need aid quickly to avoid even more casualties, and waiting for international help would take over a week. Having an agreement in place to increase response time would save many lives. The response of Katrina was, of course, a disaster. The lessons learned from that have been applied to emergency planning. If your brother or sister is trapped and American National Guardsmen are able to free them with military equipment, people won't care what nationalities the rescuers are.

Hey, nineteen sixty-seven one hundred, what the hell is the point of this thread you are making? There are people out there who deny just about everything, and the world ignores their stupidity.

I don't know if he has outmanaged them all or simply won over the voter with his charisma and a very good management team. It still surprises me, however, to see that Hillary has been beaten by him. She had the nomination in her pocket and I believe eased up on the campaign early on, giving Obama a foot hold. Pretty happy to see her losing, however! Last night Saturday Night Live was even stumping for her, defending her against none other than Limbaugh on their news sketch. But its obviously too little too late. The back room deal to stump for her was probably made early last week when things were looking better for her.

Sometimes the most flattering response is when none is made at all. At any rate, I found your post just now and that Rabbi is right on. The problem with Hitchens is he is arrogant enough to think his brain can solve the mystery of all religions. Some may be refuted by man since they are only invented by man after all. But one who idolizes his own brain will not be able to tell the difference.

Yeah, he's written some fine songs and his definition of freedom is pretty right on.

Huh? You think a non-existent entity drove Hitler to murder 6 milion Jews? And you claim some folk are too funny. As usual, Drea, your single minded anti-Christian rants do not allow you to see the real picture. Hitler was a whacko who believed blond Germans with blue eyes were superior to the rest of the world and Jews were a disease that needed to be destroyed. He believed Jesus was not Jewish, but a super German dude. All of this is beside the point. Atheism is just another attempt at controlling people with a system of belief. If you can prove there is no God, then the faith component is gone, but until then, you worship at a shrine just like the religious you seem to detest so much.

Speaking of signature lines, I don't quite follow what meaning you are trying to convey. Since you are generally a liberal, I don't see you as being a fan of someone like Merle. Is the line used as humour?

I found a little more on Hitler in wikipedia regarding religion, here's a sample: It's pretty plain the guy was a quack who just used religion as a tool to manipulate the people.

That quote about Hitler does not either prove he was a Catholic OR a Christian. Believing that God wants you to be against Jews (aka God's people) only proves one is not hearing from God on the matter. Further, if you still believe your quote has merit, Mein Kampf was written many years before Hitler came to power, and can not be taken as an accurate picture of his beliefs at the time he was closing churches and killing Jews.

Wow, that's heady stuff, suggesting the actual screening of immigrants. Maybe one day Canada will start turning away criminals and other illegals!

Drea, two of the most harmful atheists of the 20th century were Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. I won't respond to your illogical comparisons between atheism and religion except to say, if it makes you feel good to believe that there is no entity watching over you then fine, just don't expect others to believe your unprovable claims. And keep it out of my schools and my government.

The religion of atheism has abused millions of children worldwide in the 20th century alone. I pray that one day it will be thrown on the trash heap of history, freeing people to believe what they choose to without having atheism forced on them by cruel dictatorships.

Some are saying that McCain will not get many votes from the right wing of the Rep party if he wins the nod and runs for president. This may be true, but will be offset by disenchanted small d democrat voters, who he will attract as a moderate. Hillary's been trying to portray the stance of a moderate, but she still walks and quacks like a duck... The question in my mind is, will McCain end up paying for the 'sins' of the Republican party of the last several years with Bush at the helm? Or will he be able to convince the voter he's an outsider in that regard. Here's one occasion where his reputation as a maverick may help him. Either way, this race continues to be very interesting.