normanchateau

He could have brought on an intelligent woman who was not being investigated by her own government for inappropriately firing a top law enforcement official who refused to fire a police officer who had divorced her sister. Mccain's poor judgment has helped Obama far more than anything Obama himself has done.

How does this irrelevant stuff relate, even remotely to my questions? I'll post my questions again: Where did I claim or suggest that white people have a monopoly on racism or anti-semitism? I made no assumptions about your skin colour. What made you conclude that I assumed you were a white person?

Jews are like whites??? Are you saying that Jews are not like whites?

Where did I claim or suggest that white people have a monopoly on racism or anti-semitism? I made no assumptions about your skin colour. What made you conclude that I assumed you were a white person? You are merely deflecting attention away from your other inaccurate claims. Predictable but not very effective strategy.

Our banks have no control over the negatively accelerating price of oil and the devastation it will create for government revenues. House prices are tumbling across Canada and the number of Canadians with mortages greater than house values will increase as prices accelerate their drop in 2009. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/...-recession.html It matters not how strong our banks are as homeowners walk away from home debts which exceed home values. The question is no longer will we escape the recession but rather will this depression exceed that of 1929.

I agree that Harper has worked hard to have the connections which allowed him to put the unqualified Reid into the Ministry of the Environment. But McCain has worked hard to cultivate a reputation for integrity and Palin's actions will hurt rather than help his campaign.

Their outlook was not based on the current, negatively accelerating world price of oil. Based on current oil prices which have dropped by more than 58% since July, 2008, the oil sands projects are now no longer viable. Canada avoid the recession? We can only wish.

CPC has been good at finding jobs for failed candidates. When Darrel Reid failed to win a CPC seat in the 2006 election, Harper made him chief of staff to the Minister of the Environment. Darrel Reid's qualifications: http://dawn.thot.net/harperstiestousa/Darrel_Reid.htm

That was Harper's position as well until he decided that he wanted to call another election. All of a sudden, Harper now claims Canada will leave in 2011 whether the Taliban are winning or losing. Conservatives would be outraged if a Liberal PM were to announce that he'd cut and run from the enemy and even tell the enemy the date. I wonder why Harper flipflopped. Honourable principles or slimy pandering for Quebec votes?

Not according to Mr. Canada. According to Mr. Canada, if you are Christian and your ancestors were Jews, then your child is a Jew. Remarkably, Mr. Canada's definition and criteria resemble those of the NSDAP.

They're currently a Vancouver municipal rather than federal party and their platform is work less. The Work Less Party: http://www.worklessparty.org/

Given that you buy the idea that someone born to a convert should be labelled in perpetuity with the preconvert religion, let me ask another question. Supposing you're a Christian who converted to Judaism. You then had a child who you raised to be Jewish. Should your child now be labelled a Christian?

Harper avoided a majority despite facing the weakest leader in Liberal history. CPC needs a new leader, one who is a fiscal conservative but not a social conservative. If they had one, we would now have a Conservative majority. Whetheer he tries or not, there is no way he can remake himself into a social liberal. There will be a Liberal majority in 2010 providing: (1) The Liberals have a leader who's a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. (2) Harper remains the CPC leader.

Pandering has been the hallmark of this government since their election in 2006. This is why government spending is now up an astonishing 29% and 48 billion dollars since Harper was elected.

I prefer posting facts as well. What did I say about Karl Marx that was not true? Why did you refuse to answer my questions about how you define Jewishness? Is it because you buy Hitler's definition?

In that case. I'm not sure that he deserves to be called an economist. Merely having a degree in economics does not make you an economist. Let's consider psychology for example. Individuals could have a degree or two in psychology but they could not call themselves psychologists unless they went through a series of tests and became registered psychologists. There are some professions, e.g., medicine, where a degree, i.e., MD degree, does indeed mean you can call yourself a physician. But as far as I know, a mere BA or MA in economics is not sufficient for someone to be called an economist. The top jobs in economics require a PhD in economics. I suspect Harper was either not good enough to be accepted into a PhD program or else had no interest in becoming an economist given that his goal was to be a politician, not an economist.

Whether or not Karl Marx was a Jew depends on whether you accept Hitler's definition of Jewishness. Apparently you do. The parents of Karl Marx were indeed Jews who converted to Lutheranism before Karl Marx was born or even conceived. In other words, his parents were Christian at the time of his birth. Karl Marx was an atheist though Hitler labelled him a Jew on the grounds that his parents once were. Hitler defined as Jews those whose grandparents were Jews even though their parents were not. Do you accept that definition as well? Given that you buy the idea that someone born to a convert should be labelled in perpetuity with the preconvert religion, let me ask another question. Supposing you're a Christian who converted to Judaism. You then had a child who you raised to be Jewish. Should your child now be labelled a Christian? Have you noticed that not many people on this board have come forward to defend your statements as not being anti-semitic?

Does anyone, Harper supporter or opponent, know if Harper was ever actually employed or hired as an economist?

Harper is incapable of controlling even spending on the arts. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=726631 The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, for example, will receive $1.1 billion from Harper this year, an increase of $133 million or 13.5 per cent compared to the last year under the Liberals. • The Department of Canadian Heritage will spend $1.4 billion this year, up $273 million or 24.4 per cent compared to 2006. • The Canada Council for the Arts will spend $181 million this year, up $30.3 million or 20.2 per cent. • The National Arts Centre Corporation will spend nearly $50 million this year, up $18.3 million or nearly 60 per cent compared to the Liberals. • The National Gallery of Canada will spend $53.3 million, up $8.8 million or nearly 20 per cent. Conservatives attack Martin for spending while they spend far more than Martin ever did and call themselves fiscal conservatives.

You're partly right. Most of Harper's spending was to ONE province. Guess which one? http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2007/03/b...ote-buying.html In retrospect, I wonder if Harper supporters still think this was a good investment. As I recall, when Harper decided to give Quebec another 4 billion dollars per year more than it was already receiving , Harper supporters thought this was a "brilliant" strategy. So did Charest who shovelled it out to Quebecers in the form of tax cuts. And Quebec will be getting that 4 billion more in 2009, 2010, 2011, ad nauseam. And when Canada goes into deficit, Harper will of course blame it on the global recession and not his multibillion dollar vote buying strategy.

More and more, Harper is acting like a socialist rather than a "conservative". Those of us who are complaining about his huge increases in spending are fiscal conservatives. Harper is a social conservative and his outrageous increases in spending are what "conservatives" expect of socialists.

All politicians have to spend money to get votes. However, Harper has increased spending by more than any PM in the history of Canada. It's now up 29% relative to when he took office. When Harper spends more money than the Prime Minister he replaced, Harper supporters twist themselves into pretzels to rationalize his increased spending as evidence that Harper is a fiscal conservative.

Unlike Harper, Campbell is a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Too bad that there's no federal party leader who fits that description or at the very least, is perceived as such by most Canadians. Apparently Campbell will give us another kick at the can in 2009 but I worry that he'll rig it so that (1) it will require far more than 50% approval and (2) will be rephrased in a way that won't receive sufficient approval from voters. I think he was sincere when he first created a commission to look into proportional representation. He was probably motivated by the fact that Glen Clark got more seats than Campbell in an earlier election even though Campbell got a greater percentage of the vote. Now that he's in power, he understands fully that with proportional representation, he'd win more seats than the opposition but would not win a majority. The NDP and Greens would hold more than 50% of the seats. I'm sure the BC NDP has the same reservations. They'll not win a majority of the seats with proportional representation but could win a majority again with the current system. I certainly want to see proportional representation and voted for it in 2005.

I'm surprised that you'd be bothered by his pastor's condemnation of Israel given your own anti-semitic comment on another thread where you linked Jews with communism: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....5&start=315 And on yet another thread, you seriously suggested that the only reason why Obama was ahead in the polls was because he was black. Some would interpret such a comment as racist. But of course you are consistently an opponent of racism and anti-semitism and want to save the US from being saddled with a racist, anti-semite, right?

Here's what can be proven: In the first three budgets, program spending under the Harper's Conservatives is up $46.8 billion or about 29 per cent. In other words, Harper is spending far more of our hard earned dollars than Martin did. In addition, by cutting the GST, Harper has reduced government revenues. The combination of spending more while cutting revenues is an incredibly stupid act going into a global recession and it's a stupid and short-sighted act even if there were no global recession. It makes no economic sense and it's certainly not what you'd expect of either a fiscal conservative or an economist. Harper should have taken lessons from Liberal Premier Gordon Campbell. He made huge cuts to personal income tax rates such that BC now has the lowest personal income tax rates in Canada. But when he made his largest tax cuts, he simultaneously made large cuts in program spending. Campbell is a tight-fisted financial conservative who has no need to run deficit budgets. Harper, who can't control his spending, will soon be running budget deficits.