Biblio Bibuli

Gee! I dunno. He left his home and native land to work for a Neo Conservative party in the United States, one that has repeatedly criticised the sitting government of Canada. I would put together some Frum quotes but it might make me ill to read them and I don't have the time to clean the vomit off my keyboard. David must have heard you, and in trying to shed that "Neo Conservative" label you have given him, he is now defending Paul Martin and his Liberals saying that the ONLY reason Martin didn't succeed during his term was because he was being continuously tripped up by Layton and Duceppe. He is the ONLY columnist who defends the Liberals in my papers today. Look: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/is...44-66ece1318973 If that's what you call a "hidden agenda" then, yes, I agree ...... David Frum's agenda is to never be anybody's poodle. And Bush knows it, THAT'S why he fired him!

I lied. Had it not been for Geoffrey's " " you would have had me sucked in, hook line and sinker. THANKS GEOFFREY!!

It is obvious to me that you have decided that you cannot win and thus you're now just hoping not to lose by giving me this new proposition. Nice try, Stanislav, but I'm not THAT stupid. However ..... since our first bet WAS "just for interest" (no money or beer involved) I'm more than willing to cancel it and make a new one, one where we put our money or beers where our mouths are. So how about it? You choose a new number and I choose mine and whoever gets closer wins a case of beer (24 and up!). Go ahead, Stan!

HALLELUJAH !!!

-You're on! Done!

Except when Pierre Trudeau did that, he did it because everybody was pleading with him to stay. So he did, all the time thinking .... "Ok you mother f****** (fuddle duddles) but that's it, after that I'm out of here. Last chance for you peons to be led by me." Martin is pleading for just one more term for the Gipper ( PM Sr)..

I bet you that the originator who put out the original post on St Nicholas Day, and the people responsible for keeping this topic alive all throughout last year would now LOVE for someone to hijack it. You see, with the ridiculously low predictions of how many seats CPCers would garnish ....... like for example ... Slavik's 102 ... Colby's 105 ... tml12's 106 ... Van. King's 110 ... August1991's 113 .... I doubt they are holding their heads high today. I wouldn't like to be in their situation. ESPECIALLY if someone kept bring it up, over and over and over again. THAT'S why I tried to change the topic! But have it your way! They probably had it coming anyway. I'm not going to raise your 162 right now because, looking around, my 160 is still in the money.

I also support coercive interrogations in certain circumstances. As I believe everyone does, if they're not being totally dishonest with themselves. Some nutbar has the answer to where your beloved 6 year old daughter is hidden ... and you wouldn't twist his finger a touch? Or maybe pry his eyeball from his socket? The reality is that most of us are capable of violence under certain circumstances & a good government must have that capability too if it's country is to survive against those with no such scruples. And racially biased? I'm sorry but only idiots believe that we're not all just a touch tribal. Scratch any living breathing human being & you'll find a bias. Our task as civilized people is to try & not let it color all our of feelings about the "other tribes", as Bin Laden or the Palestinians do. Ignatieff is just an honest & thoughtful person. A rarity in politics, as it is in life. Please elucidate on your belief that he is a hypocrite ... in light of the fact that he usually opines in such an unPC manner ... I just can't fathom how you could square that one.

I was mistaken. You're the first one I've seen on here so it took me a sec to realize you're just another troll screaming "look at me!" Why don't you go on back to the breast cancer survivors support forum and tell them they're all gonna die. You know that always makes you feel real powerful. done with you. When you don't have anything intelligent to say an idiotic insult always feels good, right? I guess that's the "Canadian way". Off with you. I'm looking for discourse .

I will! But not until you tell me what David Frum's hidden agenda is! (Actually you may want to consider immigrating shortly ... the times they are a changing here ... you may want to look into Cuba or North Korea or some other socialist idyll.)

Gee! I dunno. I would put together some Frum quotes but it might make me ill to read them .... So I'm just getting a Carolyn Parrish "EEK" out of you? Well that's a really great rebuttal. Get over it ... the Yanks are smarter, stronger & richer than us. Frum sees the strengths in America. We can only hope that Harper will try & emulate them so we can walk a little taller in their shadows.

You know, I'm getting little annoyed here. Yesterday it was Geoffrey telling me that Michael Ignatieff is a hypocrite, today you're telling me that David Frum has a hidden agenda .......... both of these accusations without providing any proof or explanation. So, what is David Frum's hidden agenda?

And Stephen is right! How do I know that he is right? Because Frum said the same thing, and David Frum is ALWAYS right. Frum said: "The surest way to empower the Bloc -- and to strengthen Quebec separatism -- is to return the people responsible for Adscam back to power. The only thing uglier than the Adscam scandal has been the excuse the Liberals have used to justify it. "Sorry for breaking the law, but it was an emergency. We had to take that money and pass it around to our friends as part of our strategy to prevent another referendum after 1995." In other words, Adscam was not just about graft and theft. It was about an attempt to pervert Quebec's political process. And many Quebecers will be watching the election results on January 23 to see: Does English-speaking Canada share their outrage? Or are they alone? A Liberal defeat would be a unifying moment for Canada, a moment that brings together Canadians from every region and every province to uphold norms of integrity and decency in Canadian politics. Another Liberal victory, however, will put Canada back on the path to a third Quebec referendum and other grave threats to national unity. The blunt fact is that Quebec elects separatists as a protest against Liberal over-centralization. The sequence of events tells the story. 1974: Liberal majority. 1976: PQ elected in Quebec. 1984: Conservative majority. 1985: PQ defeated. 1993: Liberal majority. 1994: PQ returned to power. The next Quebec election will probably occur in about a year's time. Nothing -- nothing -- would strengthen the separatist cause more than the re-election of the Martin government. If Martin still holds power when Quebecers next vote provincially, the separatists will be free to run against Liberal corruption, Liberal perversion of democracy, and the Liberal refusal to answer such basic questions as: "Who received the improper Adscam funds?" But if the Liberals have been defeated by English-speaking and French-speaking voters acting together, the separatists will face a much tougher problem. They will face in Ottawa a new, dynamic and honest government, fully committed to investigating and punishing wrongdoing. Electing a Conservative government would deprive Quebec separatists of their best issue. Electing a Liberal government would wrap the issue up for them and tie a bow on it." Look here if you don't believe me: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/is...73-565870dc65b9

In some other thread you're talking about how important it is to be compassionate to those less privleged than yourself, how important it is to be charitable to people who need help, how important it is to identify freeloaders so that the money is not being wasted ...... yet you say you dislike the man that, at least on paper, looks the most like someone who would think exactly along your lines. I predict that after one term of Harper's Conservatives, Michael Ignatieff will barnstorm this country .... so I would start warming up to him if I were you. He is the greatest!! And he will win in Etobicoke, I guarantee that!

Just a couple of days ago you were picking only 3 from Quebec. And when I dared you to predict 5, you LAUGHED at me, saying ..... "Go for it, I'll stay conservative ". Is picking 6 considered a conservative prediction today? btw - Bet you my 160 will be closer than your 146.

Correction: I was wrong. It wasn't 9 replies, it was only 8 replies. NOW it's 9! Buenas Noches!

The last time I looked at your predictions you gave the CPC 3 seats in Quebec. Are you ready to bump it up? Most people say they'll get a handful there, whatever that means. Five fingers on my hand .... so I say 5!

You know, had I known that this topic would only generate 9 replies I wouldn't have bothered cranking it out in the first place. The upcoming election is the talk of the town, I know. But this topic has EVERYTHING to do with the upcoming election ... CAN'T YOU SEE THAT? Just today, on page A9 of The Province, Liberal Senator Larry Campbell is jumping up and down complaining that Stephen Harper has not been challenged over his suggestion that a Conservative government would not use taxpayers' money to fund drug use. The Liberals' reasons for offering the notorious druggies extra drugs and the notorious alcoholics extra booze could very well be to trim down the unwanted population, no? But if you don't care, neither do I! Hasta la vista Red Wine is Jesus thread! ... :angry:

Once the Conservatives release their election platform ("shortly" said Stephen when asked "when?" ) everyone and their dog will know that a CPC majority is a given.

I would be calm and cool too if all I had to do was say "I didn't know you were going to ask me that question" everytime I didn't have a good answer. Why is he being treated with kid gloves?

Only two weeks to go, of course the hidden agenda will come out. Harper's pretty good at hiding this agenda don't you think? Only been doing it for 3 years. So Belinda and Brison... what is it? How come we don't know what it is? If you look at these quotes in context, of which the Liberals never offer, you find that they are far more moderate then you'd ever know. But people like you that fall into the hidden agenda trap obviously have no motivation for the truth, especially when you support a party that is the target of criminal investigations. Theft, fraud and misleading the public are not Canadian values. You make a claim that Martin is keeping the country together... it is the sponsorship scandal that has divided Quebeckers. The Liberals, yet again, have created an environment favourable to separtists, just to have the ability to wrap themselves in the flag and come to the rescue. Go Captain Canada. Too bad most Canadians no longer believe these lies. Saying that Harper is in support of these things is a complete lie. This is coming from the man (Martin) that would use the notwithstanding clause to defend rights, and himself voted against same-sex marriage. If Harper is some right-wing crazy, then Martin is a hypocritical right-wing crazy. I insist neither is true. I may be speaking out of turn here but I believe one of the things Belinda said was there was a great deal of secrecy within the Leaders Circle and no other opinions were allowed and were not shared. It may have just been a bad dream I had though.... In modern Democracies no man with a despotic streak will reveal his evil side beyond to his closest circle of closest evil friends. It's only AFTER he gets a majority mandate that he lets loose. With a Conservative majority sewn up, all I can say is ....... God help us, everyone!

I was going to wait until after the tonight's French debate, but 160 is such a nice round number somebody would probbly snap it up by then. So, I've decided. 160 it is!

My take on the debate last night: Hugh Segal's take on the debate in the National Post today: Martin-Father knows best Layton-Too earnest Harper-Consistently sober. Hughie, Hughie, Hughie! Are you lurking around here & stealing my material?

I was little surprised when Stephen Harper said yesterday that the Americans don't have anything like our "notwithstanding clause". Isn't their presidential "veto" sort of the same thing?

After watching tonight's debate I'm tempted to one up Geoffrey. I'll think about it.