sharkman

Harper's been in power for less than a year and a half and he's already promised the government of Quebec 4.8 billion dollars through equalization. The Liberals were small change pikers by comparison. tsk, tsk. Over how many years? by avoiding simple things like this you diminish your posts. It's 2 years plus, and it is alot, but at least the Tories are doing it publicly, not with envelopes stuffed with cash. Edit: On top of it all, we don't really know how much the Libs gave away since they kept it off the books, but if the gun registry and Human Resources budgets are any indication, it's more than the Tories.

The problem was not mere wording. The ideas you expressed were the issue. Precisely! Yeah right. Norm is a big one issue person. He does indeed inject the gay agenda into many topics that have nothing to do with it. Last year he also pushed legalizing pot into many threads.

Yes it was. I'd definitely want to see what the statement: is based on. Furthermore, this 60 year old accusation makes Israel look pretty good.

Then again, without screwing British Columbia and Saskatchewan, how would Harper come up with bushels of money for Quebec? No wonder the Bloc supported the budget and continues to prop up the Conservatives. Was it Harper who coined the phrase The West Wants In? He sure delivered...to Quebec. The idea of screwing B.C. and Sask to get bushels of money is not so realistic. The two of them make up a small fraction of Ontario's annual revenue. And I don't think the Tories are anywhere near the largess dumped on Quebec by the previous Liberal governments.

What a grotesque appropriation of the Holocaust to defend the policies of modern Israel! The boycotts apply to Israel because of policies, not Jews because of race. The brownshirts didn't go after the Jews because of race then either. That only came later.

And suddenly the libs do.

If you'll take another look at what you quoted of me, I said they don't need to apologize to get votes, so no I am not implying that. I am implying that they don't need to apologize to get votes from immigrants.

Yes, and then Canada becomes even more of a dictatorship. Not so appealing.

Recently hard left wingers started a little boycott of Chapters, which is owned by Jews apparently, and now it seems the left fringe wants to start boycotting whole countries. Of this, an editorial on the weekend said it reminded him of the brown shirts in Germany in the Thirties who stood outside Jewish owned businesses and warned good blond Germans to stay away. A few short years later they were killing them. Have we come full circle in 70 years? The hate towards Israel and Jews seems to be growing, and I really can't see the logic of it. Neither can I see it receding soon with the scary attitudes modeled here on a Canadian forum where we are supposed to be so tolerant of everyone. Those who are appalled by this senseless hate, remember that all it takes for evil to suceed is for good men to do nothing. ( a quote by someone I can't remember, but it rings true.)

I don't think monkeys are dumb enough to make friendly with coconuts, they are much more likely to fling poo. Which is what some on this thread have tended to do rather than consider that they might not have any more proof of no God then that He exists. Fling away.

As far as various immigrants go, the majority of them are pro-family, religious types who tend to have a dim view of liberalizing marriage to include gays. They would thus possibly tend to migrate towards the Tory flag, so I don't think the Tories need to apologize to get votes. I agree that it was the right thing to do.

Better still, the Canadian government should mete out Biblical punishments for violating religious rules written during the Bronze Age and Iron Age. Leviticus 24:16 has just the right punishment for taking the Lord's name in vain. Exodus 31:15 suggests the identical punishment for working on the Sabbath. How about exactly the same penalty in Exodus 21:17 for cursing at one's father or mother? Let's forget about secular law and use the New Testament, the Old Testament and for Muslims, the Koran. After all, people were so much wiser in the Bronze Age before the era of science and reason. *Zing* What was that mate? Just another strawman running by... I wouldn't necessarily characterize the Bible as a strawman. Norman, without realizing it you have proven that neither the U.S. or Canada are Theocracies. If they were, the Old Testament punishments would be handed out for breaking biblical law. Like say in modern Islam theocracies where you get your hand cut off for stealing.

Hey, the left seems pretty okay with Iran pursuing nukes, they should be happier still with Canada doing it since we live next door to the Bushmeister. Saw your Bush remark, you're not American are you? I thought you were a Canuck.

Please indicate where I claimed you were championing Chretien. Why would you point that out when no one claimed you were?

I answered your question on how can we compare, and instead of at least acknowledging this, you simply move the goalposts. A typical liberal.

I agree, this judgement is the result of a petty judge bitter at the rich, and justice was not served.

We can compare by simply looking at Harper. Obviously it's not costing that much. Do you expect it's costing millions?

Is there a difference between the need for the head of the third party in the house of commons to be transparent and the need for the Head of Government to be transparent? If you are a Liberal PM, transparency is for the unwashed. Chretien was the master of not disclosing, this make up cost is silly in comparison.

You won't hear me defending Chretien on the helicopter deal. However, if you are championing Mulroney as defender of the Armed Forces, most experts will say he failed to deliver. Ask today's military who sold the heavy lift helicopters to the Dutch. I am not championing Mulroney, that is a strawman. Chretien does make him look good in this issue, however.

Woman today in Iran and other Islamic countries are treated as bad if not worse than Blacks had it in the U.S., and women might have it worse because they are treated the same in the whole country, not just the south. It sickens me to think that in today's world, people are treated like that for any reason whatsoever. It is the thing in Pandora's box let loose. When that honor killing occurred in India, (Pakistan?) some on the left here were going on about how we should respect the customs and culture of other countries and not force our Western values on the issue. Edit: Drea, you were leading the charge on the India thing, perhaps you should read the quote at the bottom of my posts.

I think the country is well aware of Harper's hypocrisy and lack of disclosure. They are aware of a decade of Liberal mismanagement and billions wasted. I'm afraid you'll be disappointed with the cost of Harper's make up although you'll put on a game face and whine about it when it's revealed. You need a life, friend.

Ah, a soothsayer, tell me who's going to win the Stanley cup next year while you're at it!

Even though the term is still very broadly defined, by that definition everyone is a terrorist to some degree. I guess you need to define your statement, I'm confused I'm not a terrorist. It wasn't my definition, it was Rue's. Rue said that terrorism is justifying savagery and violence. I disagreed and said everyone does that to some degree - whether it's justifying bad behaviour on the part of soldiers or George Bush, or whether it's justifying ramming planes into buildings or blowing up innocents. That is not what she said, compare your phrase, "terrorism is justifying savagery and violence" and hers, "To me a terrorist is someone who tries to justify savagery by saying it has justifiable reasons." And either definition is a long way from merely justifying bad behaviour.

Chretien did much worse with the purchase of helicopters to replace the Sea Kings. First he cancelled the contract signed under Mulroney, then was promply sued by the military manufacturer. Almost a decade went by, with Sea Kings dropping with alarming frequency. Then when Chretien finally was pressured into doing something about it, they manipulated the bidding process so that the favoured French design would win the bid. This was because the best copter out there would have been the one Mulroney had chosen, and Chretien was too proud or stubborn to realize it.

It was the Liberals who upped spending on the military, if Harper had cancelled this we'd have liberals complaining about it, and rightfully so. Chretien slashed military spending and closed bases starting in the early nineties, making our soldiers hitch rides to their destinations on American forces jets and by other means. They've also had to wear uniforms not correct for the regions they have been in, making them stick out nicely for snipers. So, context is everything, isn't it? And of course, the helicopters and other broken down machinery they've had to risk their lives operating have made spending on the military an overdue priority. This is one area where most on both sides of the aisle will agree. It will take some time to correct the various messes the previous Liberal governments have done, but increasing the military budget is a good start.