normanchateau

No, he doesn't need everyone's votes but he does need more votes than the Leader of the Opposition. With the right leader, the Conservatives can defeat Ignatieff. Fortunately, they're saddled with Harper.

Perhaps Ignatieff is motivated by the fact that more than 90% of Canadians support some aspects of C15: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/canad...eal_with_gangs/ In any event, whether Ignatieff supported or opposed C15, he'd be condemned by Harper supporters who find it less challenging to attack Ignatieff than to provide intelligent reasons for still supporting Harper.

Sounds like somewhere along the way, Harper and Flanagan had an irreversible falling out. This is bad news for Harper. Flanagan is a brilliant strategist. If he was able to propel a socially conservative, big spender into government while convincing Canadians that Harper's a fiscal conservative and social moderate, the man's a genius. If Flanagan could convince Canadians that Harper has the same values as most Canadians, he could do this with anyone.

Too bad that Ignatieff has chosen the high road by rejecting the idea of engaging in Harper-style negative advertising. Canadians need to be reminded about Harper's social conservatism and intolerance.

Ignatieff is right not to press for an election right now. Sure, an election will finally and decisively rid Canada of the incompetent and vile Stephen Harper but a Liberal majority is not yet within grasp. A summer election will most likely produce a Liberal minority government and will give the Conservatives a chance to replace Harper with a Conservative leader who actually stands a chance of defeating Ignatieff.

"VANCOUVER - On a weekend when Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is reviewing the Tories' economic update to decide if it's worth supporting, a Nanos poll suggests Stephen Harper is in trouble. Without prompting respondents, the poll asked Canadians to identify the Conservative government's main strengths and weaknesses. Asked to define a strength, only 36% could do so. Stephen Harper himself was the most often cited Conservative strength (5%). But 45% weren't sure, and 19% said the Conservatives have no strengths at all. Asked to define the Conservatives' main weakness, 65% named one (Harper at 11.6% was the top pick), 33% weren't sure, and only 3% said the government had no weaknesses. Over all, the Nanos poll found that 36% of Canadians could define Conservative strengths, while 65% could define Conservative weaknesses. " http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Federal-Po.../HarperTrouble/ "Perhaps most worrying for the Conservatives is that the main areas identified as weaknesses are those they have campaigned on in the past as strengths-- namely, Mr. Harper himself, transparency in government and their ability to get things done. Mr. Harper has become a lightning rod for discontent with the government, with more than twice as many people saying he is a weakness as those identifying him as a strength." http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/st...html?id=1692947

This does not look good for Conservative MP Deepak Obhrai, parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs. I wonder if Harper still has confidence that Obhrai can adequately perform his duties. http://www.edmontonsun.com/comment/editori...798236-sun.html "Sri Lanka is a sovereign nation. It had the right to bar Liberal MP Bob Rae and Conservative MP Deepak Obhrai, parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs, from entering the country. Canada, after all, recently barred British MP George Galloway for the same reason Sri Lanka says it did Rae -- security concerns. Which just goes to show countries can act within their rights and still be wrong."

Given your suggestion that I might benefit from the acquisition of literary skills, let's see if I am capable of summarizing your points thus far rather than merely caricaturing them, which would have been less challenging: (1) Israel is guilty of "racism" by your definition of the word racism. (2) Your definition of racism contradicts English language dictionaries because, to quote you, "...it's simply too bad that your decades old dictionary wouldn't reflect that simple fact." (3) While the UN does not officially define the term racism, it supports your definition of the word racism. Have I accurately summarized your points?

No argument with your first point about why many Albertans will continue to vote for Harper no matter what he does. However, what's your evidence that Edmonton-Strathcona voted NDP merely because "it's a protest vote by people who don't pay taxes"? People who don't pay taxes tend not to have much income. Sure, there are wealthier ridings by income in Edmonton than Edmonton-Strathcona but there are also poorer ridings. Households in Edmonton Centre, Edmonton East and Edmonton-Mill Woods-Beaumont each have lower incomes than those in Edmonton-Strathcona. While it's true in many regions of Canada that low income ridings pull in NDP votes, this doesn't appear to explain the outcome in Edmonton. In Edmonton-Mill Woods-Beaumont in 2008, the CPC MP took 60% of the vote and the NDP came third with 15%. In Edmonton Centre, the CPC MP took 49% of the vote and the NDP came third with 15%. In Edmonton East, the CPC MP took 51% of the vote and the NDP came second with 32%. Given that the Liberals got less than 10% of the vote in Edmonton-Strathcona, a more likely explanation is that Liberals in that riding voted NDP strategically to defeat Rahim Jaffer. Who can forget the clown-like behaviour of Jaffer: http://www.robertfulford.com/RahimJaffer.html I had the delightful pleasure of listening to Jaffer's assistant impersonating him and Jaffer denying it on Vancouver radio a few years ago. Hilarious. Rahim Jaffer was as much a credit to CPC as Gurmant Grewal. Let's hope they're both candidates in the next election. Harper needs someone to groom as his successor.

You raise a very interesting point. THC, the main psychoactive active ingredient in marijuana, acts on a brain cannabinoid receptor known as the CB1 receptor. Pharmaceutical companies have manufactured quite a few different drugs which act on the CB1 receptor. Pharmaceutical companies are permitted to sell those drugs both in Europe and North America. They're perfectly legal.

In your haste to justify claims of "racism" against Israel, you are apparently even willing to change the definition of the word racism to suit your purposes. How about sexism? Does that also equal racism? Does homophobia equal racism? Are Protestants in Northern Ireland who discriminate against Catholics guilty of racism? There are numerous forms of discrimination. If you're going to change the dictionary definition of racism, why be so exclusionary?

May 3, 2009 9:12 p.m. Pacific Time Seattle "In a few weeks, Marc Emery faces an extradition hearing in Canada that could end up sending him to Seattle. He faces drug charges in U.S. District Court over his former Vancouver business that sold marijuana seeds. The charges could send him to prison for 10 years to life. Emery is quite willing to fight the extradition through every court in Canada. And if he ends up being sent to Seattle, making a spectacle of his trial. But he may have an easier way out. His two codefendants settled with prosecutors on April 24 in a sweet deal for them. They, too, faced at least 10 years in prison, but prosecutors have agreed to recommend no prison time. "If they gave me the same deal, I'd be hard-pressed not to take it," Emery, 51, said in an interview in Cannabis Culture, an online magazine he edits in Vancouver. US federal prosecutors aren't commenting on a possible plea deal for Emery. They did have one in place a year ago, but it fell apart after the Canadian government rejected it. An extradition hearing is scheduled for June 1 through 5 in Canada. If it takes place -- others have been scheduled, then postponed -- Emery plans to fight and take his battle through the Canadian appeals process. Time is on his side. The Conservative Party rules Canada as a minority, unpopular government. National elections and a change in government could take place this year." http://www.seattlepi.com/local/405766_pot04.html I wonder how many Canadians know that the US was willing to let Emery plead a deal but the Harper government vetoed it. Odd that Harper would want Emery jailed in the US given that Canada does not prosecute Canadians for selling marijuana seeds even though the US does. Harper seems intent on wanting to punish Emery. I'm no fan of Emery but you'd think Harper would have more important issues on his agenda than vetoing a US prosecution plea deal with a seed seller. Could it have something to do with the fact that Harper's Evangelical Christian and Missionary Alliance Church leaders are strongly opposed to the use of marijuana? How are the best interests of Canada served by having Harper veto a plea deal between US prosecutors and a Vancouver seed seller? Hundreds of marijuana seed sellers continue to do business in Vancouver and neither Vancouver police nor the RCMP have any interest in prosecuting them. Why would Harper want the US to do to Emery what Canadian law enforcement is unwilling to do to Emery?

I acknowledge your point. The political will does not appear to exist among many Canadian politicians with the exception of Jean Chretien and Keith Martin. Joe Clark, when he was leader of the Progressive Conservatives in 2001, also indicating that he favoured decriminalization. Of course he and Harper aren't on speaking terms these days. Add Brian Mulroney to the mix and Stephen Harper isn't on speaking terms with any former Conservative leader. Contrast that with Ignatieff who had all the former living Liberal leaders and Prime Ministers speaking at the convention this weekend.

This is the first time I can remember that the Conservatives weren't in first place on a Mapleleafweb poll. I doubt that Harper supporters on this board have switched their allegiance to the Liberals. More likely they're too depressed to vote and are praying for the return of Dion to the Liberal leadership.

As you know, Chretien introduced decriminalization legislation. Unfortunately he was deposed by the more conservative Paul Martin before the legislation was approved. Ignatieff indicated in 2005 that he favoured decriminalization but he's not about to push it now when the economy is of higher priority to most Canadians, even those who want it legalized or decriminalized. Harper of course is ideologically opposed as are the puritanical leaders of his Evangelical church so there's no chance of it happening under his watch.

For the Liberals, triggering an election will be harder than winning it: http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/fea...b3-b69f9b8f2d38

May 2, 2009 Liberal Convention: A resolution asserting Northern sovereignty, including an expansion of Canada’s military presence, was also approved.

And of course the politicians of the 1970's had a crystal ball telling them that this would happen when they ignored the LeDain Report. THC concentration has doubled since the 1970's. Despite that, marijuana use has declined in countries where marijuana possession is not a crime, e.g., Portugal.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=13957

Does anyone remember Gerald LeDain? He created more stir in this country in his time than most would ever do. He was a Supreme Court of Canada justice and the author of what became known popularly as the LeDain Commission Report on the non-medical use of drugs in Canada. The report was published in 1972. In simple terms, it stated there was no evidence that the moderate use of moderate amounts of marijuana harmed anyone's health, was addictive, led to crime or to the use of more potent drugs. On the other hand, apart from the obvious and significant financial cost, the prohibition of the use of marijuana entailed extraordinary means of enforcement that has the potential of leading to corruption and brutality. It suggested that enforcement costs might be better spent elsewhere. It urged the feds to repeal possession laws and let people grow their own supply for personal use. And guess what came of the report.... Nothing. http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/opi.../article/654295

Changing our priorities with respect to marijuana requires at a minimum, a change in government. Even then, there's no guarantee of success. Without a change in government, we are doomed to following Bush era drug policies. Mexico had the courage to change their policies last week. Canada won't do it with the current government.

Good reason to use pepper spray: http://www.greenleft.org.au/1998/341/19917

Defence Minister Peter MacKay is pressuring the Pakistan government to address security issues at the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, urging them to stop the flow of weapons and terrorists between the two regions. "This issue of free travel between the two countries, the crossing that allows for the transport of weapons, and the highly motivated terrorists that are coming into (Afghanistan) and killing Canadian soldiers, international soldiers and Afghan citizens, that's the concentrated effort that we all have to address," said MacKay. Afghanistan was at one time, the "incubator for terrorism," a role that has since been taken over by Pakistan, MacKay said. http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World/2009...250376-sun.html It is sounding more and more like MacKay is preparing Canadians for military action in Pakistan. Goodbye Afghanistan, hello Pakistan.

He'd no more do that than withdraw his lawsuit against the Liberals for claiming that he knew about the Cadman bribe.

You're right, that does make no sense. What makes more sense is for Conservatives to dump Harper and replace him with someone who will act like a Conservative. And maybe Conservatives should look outside the box and not pick yet another professional politician who cannot jettison his baggage. One of the wisest Liberal moves in the past five months was to dump Dion. CPC needs to find a new leader. Who seriously believes today that Harper will win another federal election?