sharkman

This is where I got the idea that you support the will of a majority on issues. It was like 3 posts ago. Please, I'm hoping you don't get into another convoluted redefinition explanation like you did with 'bible thumper'. (I refer to a follower of any religion when I say bible thumper, even if they don't actually believe in the bible, they may follow the Koran or some other book but if they thump it then...)

Hey Shoop, apparently we are the same guy since we agree on conservative issue, disagree with Norman and never post at the same time. Lookin' good buddy!

My point is you are anti-CPC on almost everything, not just social issues.

Yes, I feel that Martins strategy has been quite silly as well. I think your memory is a little selective regarding Mulroney, but we are talking about Harper and BUSH not Reagan. There are consequences to actions, Norman and our governments actions have been decidedly anti-american for many years now.

What in the world does 'socially intolerant' mean to you? Because I don't think you mean anti-social, which is actually what it means. The CPC may be to the right of the other parties but notice how they poll above all the parties save one by 4 points( which is within the margin of error) Oh, so now you think that a policy needs to only be supported by a majority of Canadians to be right? Perhaps we should take another look at gay marriage. You are all over the map. You're like a socialistic green conservative!

The big reason why the lumber thing dragged on was that the Canadian gov has been stand offish to the Americans on a host of issues. It got so ridiculous that our ships were not 'needed' to patrol the Persian Gulf since Chretien's policy was if our navy captured any terrrorists from Iraq they would be released. Who needs friends like that. In our present non-friendship, solving Canadian concerns is not a big priority to the U.S.. But if Harper gets in, I think he could have a dialogue with Bush where Martin's only strategy is to brag in our media how he stood up to the Americans, done no doubt to appeal to the anti-american vote.

Uh, it seems a little history lesson is in order. It can be said with certainty that most people in Canada and therefore most politicians are waaaayyy more tolerant now they were, say, 50 years ago. That the CPC party and Harper is to the right of the Liberals on social issues only makes them intolerant to some lefties.

I can't find any links thus far, but I remember seeing in the news yesterday that there was already some public funds going to private health. Has anyone else heard this?

I wouldn't lose any sleep about Canada joining up to help in Iraq. Our ragtag military is stretched with all their present involvements in Afghanistan. Plus, they don't need us, the U.S. will be drawing down their numbers before too long.

What's this Norman? I remember you saying you only oppose Harper because of social conservativism, or did you forget. I like your logic, though. Since Harper says nothing to absolutely rule it out, it also must mean that he's agreeable to letting enthusiastic aliens operate on patients when needed. And Martin must be in complete agreement since he never ruled the alien scheme out either. Here's a reminder of what you said on social conservatism a few days ago Norman: I'm not a socialist and CPC supporters are mistaken if they think that every Harper opponent is a socialist. What I oppose is social conservatism, not fiscal conservatism. I'd have no problem voting for a Progressive Conservative or any other party that was not full of social conservatives.

firstly, I've only seen it on the CTV, I said the CBC has not refered to them with activism. That you found it on the CTV site shows their still at it. Secondly, perhaps not you, but if there had been some gay slight, many would be outraged. Try to imagine the G&M having in any article whatsoever a slight on gays. It'll never happen, and rightly so. However, I'm not as outraged as you suppose, I do tend to worry a bone like a dog sometimes, though. I still contend that the CTV and G&M or any other source would never be so careless with a gay story.

Look at it this way. The U.S. border staff have a holster with a nasty lookin' gun. The Canadian border staff actually have a holster for a nasty lookin' stamp.

Well, you find nothing wrong with a national paper making fun of Christians and then find nothing wrong with a newscast that is the only one found to have reported the hostages as christian activists(which is in itself telling, since no other reference has been made to their 'activism'). It's a mindset that doesn't see anything wrong with belittling or marginalizing a certain minority in Canada. Although, maybe I'm wrong. Tell me, what comments made by a newscast on christians would you find offensive?

(From the CPT website) They are also Christians. Hence: "Christian activists". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But they are not activists. They take no sides and only try to help. If they were missionaries you would get no argument from me. No other News organization I have heard thus far has called them that, so even the CBC might disagree with you. Even a later report on CTV did not stoop to such reporting. But your mindset is common among some who do not understand Christianity except from afar.

The only way the U.S. can protect their borders from us is to build a fence and guard it. Then we'll be moaning at the effects on Canadian commerce. It'll stop the terrorists we let into Canada from slipping into the U.S. though.

The main problem with the Liberal daycare strategy is couples who feel so strongly that their children should be raised in their formative years by the actual parents get nothing. They already would be foregoing an entire income, but the Liberals feel only the parents who stay working and send their kids to daycare should get anything from them. Further, if the parents want to have their children looked after by another family member, they could only get cash for it if the family member opens a day care and it meets with the gov's requirements. Talk about big Brother wanting to institutionalize children away from their families. The conservative plan, as was stated, lets the parents choose. The Liberals do not.

Personally, I think they will re-elect Hedy, a nut bar who actually thought that they were burning crosses in Prince George. Svend is damaged goods, even to them.

So it sounds like a change in leadership might do it it the new leader didn't want to touch any social issues.

Yeah, how dare they refer to members of a group called Christian Peacemaker Teams as Chirstians.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Apparently you missed my point. Calling them Christians if they are is okay with me. Calling them activists when they are clearly not shows anti Christian bias.

The problem with Martin making the tough decisions for me is, he's a consensus builder, and you need someone who is decisive at times. For all his faults, Chretien could do that.

This is a toughy for me. Hedy Fry needs to lose her seat, but unfortunately she's being challenged by Svend Robinson, another moonbat. I want both of them to be shut out, but that is unlikey. For shame.

In Ontario, the Liberals have a sizable lead, and I'm curious as to the political climate there. The Liberal party has had many controversies over the years and the Gomery Inquiry has revealed one which may tip the scales for Quebec to seperate, and yet if the vote was held today, the Liberals would take Ontario again. Those of you in Ontario who support the Liberals, what is it about the Liberal party that you support it so faithfully? Or is it memories of Harris that cause you to shun the CPC? Is Harper seen as a scary politician? I am conservative, so I hope you can make allowances for my bias, but I am baffled.

But unfortunately in the Gay minority, if you oppose gay marriage you are automatically a homophobe, a bigot and a zealot. This kneejerk attitude has no basis in reality.

Hmm, something tells me we are soon going to have an announcement on a pesky troller named scarascara being banned.

Two things. What couple makes the exact same amount. Also $10 an hour is pretty low to be realistic isn't it? Second, it's only early in the campaign, there will be more announcements. But I have to agree, single parents don't get any help out of this.