sharkman

So this is the worst thing Harper has ever said? I'm seeing that a lot from liberal supporters in general, but this knee jerk reaction happens every time he says something controversial. Liberal supporters were absolutely 'shocked' when Harper talked about Martin and child porn. But they are only words Harper is using, not actions like the Liberals have been doing, throwing millions at Quebec in some convoluted scheme to 'buy' its place in Canada, and now throwing billions at voters in the hope they don't smell the stench of Liberal corruption. But all Liberal supporters can seem to do is be shocked at the words of Harper. How can words be worse than that?

Of course, the election hasn't even been called yet, there's plenty of time for things to change. I tend to agree with the minority conservative gov. having a difficult time. They'd have to play footsies with the Liberals who would only look for the opportunity to stab them in the back. The Block would be more honest, but it would be a tough sell to the public that you're teaming up with the party that wants to rip Quebec out of Canada.

This topic has been a pet peeve of mine. For instance, as soon as Katrina hit, many in the media started THE END IS NEAR UNLESS WE EMBRACE ENVIRONMENTALISM rant, showing how we've had so many killer storms this year and it's PROOF THAT WE'RE KILLING MOTHER EARTH! As soon as some actually started looking into it they discovered that, lo and behold, back in the mid 1930s, there was also a year when there were as many category 5 storms. The late 60swere bad too. Which kind of blows the whole warming climate change thing out of the water. Since back in the 30s there wasn't 1/10th of the cars and industry on planet earth that there is today. It seems the oceans warm up and cool down based on cycles of 30 years or something. Anywhoo, there's a good novel that explores this topic. Michael Crichton did a lot of research and cites many studies in this work that shows some of the ugly side to the environmentalism. I know it's only a novel, but he really researches his topic well and it refers to studies which disagree with the tree huggers and these people get shunned and worse for disrespecting the religion of mother earth.

Yaro it's really hard to believe you. You state how Harper's mind is a head of lettuce, the CPC party 'shows huge holes' and has a hardcore minority that are (eek) social conservatives, and yet you were going to vote for them until you came here. It's a real stretch to say the least. Like all the others who hate the CPC you are willing to overlook 12 years of Liberal governing filled with corruption, waste, arrogence and international embarrasment, and freak out over what the Conservatives might do if they are in power. Your logic speaks for itself. I've read some of your posts, and you're kind of a one trick pony. This one is par for the course: You have this insulting sneer and talk down to whoever you decide to side swipe, pointing out all their faulty thinking and characterizing them with angry loner, paranoid fantasies, and not having anything of substance to offer. Why is it that you have to put other people down so much? Perhaps you have some self esteem issues? Other than put others and the CPC down you are the one who didn't offer anything in the way of substance. Why don't you lose the attitude and treat others with a little bit of respect.

Hey, listen, you can watch or read whatever floats your boat. All news networks carry video of terrorist bombings, but the terrorists hand Al-Jazeera the originals!

This has been very true in the past. But the danger with this strategy is human nature. People get desensitized to the scaremongering. So the Liberals must try harder to overcome this, and end up sounding rather shrill in the process. The more recent Ipsos Reid poll shows people are just not scared enough of the Conservatives. It will be interesting to see if the Liberal party responds with the same old tired 'scary' label.

IMO, what goes to the heart of this is the question of absolutes. We historically held that many behaviours and attitudes that were considered wrong, period. And most people policed their own actions. Now there are none, and there are never enough police. I had my car broken into twice in less than two years. An officer came the first time and suggested it wasn't worth having an aftermarket stereo. He said there was no point in trying to catch the criminal and get him before a judge, he'd get no punishment. This is because of situational ethics. The judge will reason that the criminal isn't fully responsible for his actions because he was raised in foster care or he's got fetal alcohol syndrome or he's addicted to drugs. So he's free to continue stealing and abusing himself indefinitely. Meanwhile, it cost me over $!000 to replace items not covered by insurance.

Yep, Brian is looking good. I watched part of the CBC airing of Peter Newman's tapes. They made a big deal about all the expletives and how it would show the 'raw' Brian. I actually came away having new respect for him. I hope he wins his lawsuit against Peter.

I've read some more results from the IPSOS-REID poll. 67% believe the recent Liberal spending binge is a cynical attempt to win votes. 62% say the Liberals do not deserve to be re-elected and it's time for a change. 53% say their impression of Paul Martin has worsened in recent weeks. I'd say the Liberals have something to be worried about, bigtime.

This is for you Moderateam. It's originally from the Wall Street Journal. The colonel doesn't claim the American anti-war movement defeated the U.S. army(I don't know how you could possibly draw that conclusion Eureka), but that it encouraged them in the face of defeats on the battlefield.

I guess you guys know better about whether anti war protests aided the enemy better than the north Vietnamese officer quoted above. What a crock, eh? Who does he think he is, just because he actually FOUGHT in the war he thinks he knows a thing or two. LOL

No, I'm afraid I can't give you a break today. What the North Vietamese or Iraqui terrorists 'need' is not the issue. That the anti-war movement is aiding them is plain to see, even a former officer admitted it. If you can't bring yourself to see it, it doesn't change the facts. Huh? Pulling Americans out of harm's way will cost lives?(Blackdog) Uh, yah, although the fact that it's Iraqi lives seems to lessen the concern. But you seemed to misunderstand the quote: CALLING FOR a troop withdrawl will delay victory and cost lives.(Since they'd then be there longer.) Here's Murtha himself: I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a “free” Iraq. My plan calls: To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_...051117iraq.html (/quote) Murtha himself called for an immediate withdrawl.

However, the evolutionists would never accept any alternative explanation that involved God no matter how much evidence was produced. Sparhawk, I've notice that when your comments appear on my page, they are often missing the initial few words. I don't know if anyone else has this odd occurance, but would you mind starting your comments on a new line instead of right after the person you are quoting? I'm hoping this will allow the missing link, ah...words(heh heh a little evolution humor!) to appear. And Jonah, I have a request for you as well. Please use periods. I couldn't follow your train of thought very well. Some of us have a more limited linear way of thinking and sentence structure helps us.

Blackdog, you claim the administration is laying the groundwork for a complete withdrawl as the democrats wish, then later in your comments admit you don't believe so, stating you estimate a force of 80,000 troops will remain. Again, the dems want a complete withdrawl(except when asked to vote on it!), and they're not going to get it. As to whether the dems protests are aiding the enemey, why don't we look to Veitnam for the answer, since the anti war movement loves to draw parallels between the two. Here's something I found on the subject: It is simply a fact that Democrats like Murtha are encouraging the Iraqi insurgents when they say the war is going badly and it's time to bring the troops home. Whether or not there is any merit to the idea, calling for a troop withdrawal — or "redeployment," as liberals pointlessly distinguish — will delay our inevitable victory and cost more American lives. Anti-war protests in the U.S. during the Vietnam War were a major source of moral support to the enemy. We know that not only from simple common sense, but from the statements of former North Vietnamese military leaders who evidently didn't get the memo telling them not to say so. In an Aug. 3, 1995, interview in The Wall Street Journal, Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, called the American peace movement "essential" to the North Vietnamese victory. "Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American anti-war movement," he said. "Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."

That was covered in the first post that started this thread.

At the end of the day, I think the fact that NK has signed on is good news. Some want to give Bush credit and some want to blame him for it, but it's still good news.

This reminds me of the time a few months ago when a couple of Palestinian officials said Bush told them that God told him to attack Iraq. Like he's gonna say that to a couple of Palestinians, never mind that it never happened. If they're gonna try to damage Bush in some way they could at least make up believable stories. None the less, Al-Jazeera has shown themselves to be very hateful towards Jews and Americans, and supportive of terrorism. Even in Canada I was told that the Al-Jazeera network isn't carried because of the concern that the hate speech contained therin would contravene our laws.

I'm afraid I have no factoids on Thanksgiving or Canada's version of it, just a dittohead's warm and hearty HAPPY THANKSGIVING! May the next 12 months give you much to be thankful for.

Yes, we are getting into topics that could consume much time and effort, for what purpose? I could spend a half hour refuting and so on to only have you do the same. If you can't see what I see, I'm fine with that.

True enough, I do remember how the media was pretty patriotic for a while after 9-11. However, after an unparalleled event in American history, when a band of fanatics killed thousands of civilians without the declaration of war, I can understand the response. And it only lasted a couple of years. By the time Bush landed on the carrier and declared the war over, the media was back being lefties. That's one thing, but the shocking way Dan Rather tried to jazz up some pretend documents for the express purpose of defeating Bush's re-election made up for the previous media behaviour. No media outlet would even declare Bush the winner the night of the election when he won I think it was Ohio by over 100,000 votes. Except for Fox, and they were right. Anyway, IMO 2 or 3 years of media behaviour out of say 15 years does not reverse the trend towards left of center reporting. That's one reason why Fox does so well. They are the only other option.

Thelonius, you sound like what Bush supposedly did in reverse. Take intel from the Russian gov. and jazz it down so it doesn't sound so alarming! If Russia, who doesn't particularly like the U.S. or want it to invade Iraq and damage its economic relationship with Iraq, if they volunteer info they have on Iraqi officials planning terrorist attacks on the U.S. and other places, it's worth looking into. And could anyone volunteer the news networks besides Fox that are protective or even friendly with Bush, republicans or the war effort in general? Sincerely, it would be nice to hear this slant once in a while.

I can't figure this out, he's a good guy in a lot of ways but then he does this. Being that it's a repeat performance, I wonder if he doesn't get along with Harper or something. Did he ever say bad things about Preston Manning when he led the Alliance?

Washington Post <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This article reveals Iraq was involved in exporting terrorism, something no one has commented on yet, and supports the Bush Administration positon. I keep hearing about media organizations that are protective of Bush. Besides Fox, who are these media people that run with the republicans, I'd like to know so I can watch them on TV instead of the ant-Bush anti-Republican anti-war effort crap that is on ALL the other major news networks. Ditto for Canadian networks, with special recognition for the CBC.

To the question of why Harper hasn't been more forthcoming on his budget plans, I offer you this: If the CPC openly trot out their plans they expose themselves to the risk that Martin will take one or more main components of said plan, bastardize it, and call it his own, all done simply to get elected. Which is a switch from the traditional approach of hysterically shrieking that it will be the ruin of Canada. Closer to the election the CPC may be more revealing. I agree with Kliege on many of his points. We are not a democracy. The PM gets elected, then can actually do whatever he feels like, with no repercussions. The thing is the majority have been level headed, with only a gradual slide into social engineering and socialism in general, instead of the immediate change that a communist government would bring. So we don't notice the change.