normanchateau

Harper blew it within weeks of getting elected when he gave an unelected Quebecer first a Senate seat then a Cabinet position. Then he offered the ineffective David Emerson a Cabinet position for switching parties. Garth Turner described it as it was but that resulted in CPC turfing him. Raising personal income taxes on those who earned the least on July 1st was yet another Harper bungle as was his broken promise on income trusts. But apparently he'll keep his promise to re-visit same sex marriage.

2005 Population of Quebec= 7,598,100 2005 Population of Ontario=12,541,400 2005 Population of Canada=32,270,500 % of Population of Canada living in Ontario and Quebec=62.4% It appears that percentage-wise, the poll was reasonably proportionate of the actual population of Quebec and Ontario. Poor Harper is in a difficult situation. I just spoke to two Montreal friends who campaigned for Harper and the Conservatives during the last federal election. Both said that Dion was the only leadership candidate that would make them switch their vote from Conservative to Liberal. Both know Dion and view him as they view Harper, a man of integrity. But they view Dion as the likely beneficiary of the federalist vote in Quebec for standing up to the separatists who both despise and respect him. I'm sure the BQ and CPC will do their best to link Dion to the sponsorship scandal but it won't work this time. Unlike the stumbling Paul Martin who took the fall, Dion will fight back. Personally I hope Harper brings up the sponsorship scandal again. It worked for him last time so I'm sure he and his supporters will now attempt to link it to Dion. And Dion will deal with it as forcefully as he dealt with the separatists with his Clarity Bill.

Do you have evidence for this generalization? most Jews vote Democrat (because they are liberal) even though the Republicans are stronger supporters of Israel. If I follow your statement to its logical conclusion, you're saying that most Jews are more liberal than they are pro-Israel. Otherwise, they'd vote Republican. And there are numerous reasons, other than being pro- or antimilitary, why one might vote Republican versus Democrat. Sorry but I hardly view that as scientific evidence that "Most Jews are antimilitary except when it comes to Israel". To me evidence is numbers , percentages, statistics, etc.

There is a Christian lobby in North America with a pro-Israel agenda. Why single out Jews? Do you have evidence that more Jews than Christians are lobbyists for Israel? The quote below is from the following link: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4960.htm "During the past two or three decades, the conservative Evangelical movement has been the fastest growing sector within the American Christian churches. Estimates of the number of evangelicals range from 100-130 million, out of which 20-25 percent could be classified as fundamentalist ­ some 20-26 million Americans. Of the fundamentalists, most, but not all, are inclined to support the Christian Zionist position. A recent poll by the Pew Research Center noted that 58 percent of evangelicals believe in the Battle of Armageddon, an indicator that they would be predisposed to Christian Zionism. Today, Christian Zionists form the largest base of support for pro-Israeli interests in the US. Working since the late 1970s, the pro-Israel lobby has mobilized both economic and political support for Israel among fundamentalists." Given the relatively small number of Jews in North America, they are easily outnumbered by Christian Zionists. Furthermore, references to a " pro-Israel Jewish lobby" unfairly stereotypes Jews by implying that all Jews are Zionists. In fact, many devout Orthodox Jews are anti-Zionists, e.g., http://www.realnews247.com/spec_rpt_jews_against_zionism.htm

Do you have evidence for this generalization?

Good. Keep reading. Eventually you'll learn that a majority of Canadians do not support the mission.

1. Dion came in at 3rd/4th place entering this (depending on the poll you listened to) and was never expected to win. 2. Dion made previous agreements with Kennedy that they would back each other. 3. 6 of 8 candidates backed Rae - NOT Dion (because they knew #2). 4. Chretien/young Trudeau backed Dion/Kennedy 5. Only 4,600 people voted. 6. Rae spent over 2 million dollars on his campaign, Dion less than 'six figures' (or 'seven'.. can't remember.. wasn't paying attention during that moment.. someone clarify). 7. People on this very forum and everywhere you went were backing Iggy. Statements 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are true. Re statement 4, what evidence do you have that Chretien backed Dion/Kennedy? Statement 7 is misleading. People on this forum and everywhere also backed other leadership candidates. Statements 1-3 and 5-7 are also consistent with my point that Dion received surprisingly little establishment support. But to you, they apparently suggest a Liberal conspiracy... You'll believe what you want to believe.

I thought Chretien supported Bob Rae. It doesn't matter who Chretien supports, it matters who Dion is. Dion is the man who will get us out of Afghanistan. Chretien is the man who got us in. And I gather Kennedy supported Dion because he couldn't distinguish him from Chretien. I had wondered how long it would take before the new Liberal leader would be called names. Not very long apparently. Even Paul Martin had a few months before the name-calling began. In any event, calling Dion Chretien II is about as helpful and informative to this discussion board as me calling the PM Herr Harper.

Some Liberals support the mission and some oppose it. However, a majority of Canadians now oppose the mission, and most of them strongly oppose the mission. Here's the link: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Ipsos_Reid:_Po..._Afghan_mission As indicated in the link, Alberta is now the only province in Canada where a majority support the mission. Then again, isn't Alberta the only province in Canada to elect only CPC MPs?

I thought Chretien supported Bob Rae.

Not only did hundreds of mullahs demand the execution of the Afghan man who converted to Christianity, thousands of ordinary Afghan citizens marched in the streets to demand his execution. Here's one of many stories on this issue: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HC25Df02.html Here's more on the reaction of Afghan clerics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_...#Muslim_clerics Look CB, I know you support the mission and I don't but even you can't deny that the people of Afghanistan, even those who are anti-Taliban, have no problem with killing Muslims who convert to Christianity. There are thousands of Christian converts in Afghanistan who must keep their conversion a secret or face the death penalty. Canadian forces are far too valuable to sacrifice for the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

Really? Can you point me to even one poll which shows that Harper would get a majority if he ran against Dion? Kennedy? Rae? Ignatieff? Fact is, there's no such poll. The best Harper can hope for is another minority government and that means CPC will likely dump him after the next election.

Apparently the "Liberal establishment" does not include Liberal MPs. Ignatieff, Rae and Kennedy each had more Liberal MPs backing them prior to the first ballot than Dion. Ignatieff was backed by 39 MPs, Rae by 14 MPs, Kennedy by 13 MPs and Dion by only 11 MPs. Dion wasn't the first choice of Liberal Senators either. Prior to the first ballot, Ignatieff was backed by 10 Liberal Senators, Rae by 12 Liberal Senators, Kennedy by 6 Liberal Senators and Dion by 7 Liberal Senators. Actually Dion received surprisingly little "establishment" support. His supporters included a lot of outsiders who only recently joined the Liberals. For example, one of his supporters is Marc-Boris Saint-Maurice, former leader of the Marijuana Party of Canada. Another supporter is David Orchard. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of prominent Liberals who supported Dion prior to the first ballot. Senior Chretien aide Eddie Goldenberg, who backed Rae for the leadership, had some interesting observations to make about Dion: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061202/..._dion_newsmaker Yet it was Goldenberg who recruited Dion into the Liberal Party when Dion was still an academic. It's a fluke that Dion is now leader, largely a function of the anyone-but-Iggy movement coupled with Kennedy delivering his delegates to Dion. Large numbers of Liberals left the convention after the final ballot results were announced and did not remain to hear Dion's speech. Despite the lack of enthusiasm of many Liberal supporters for Dion, I think he'll do well once Canadians get to know him. It's in Harper's best interests to call an election sooner rather than later. The less people learn about Dion, the better Harper's chances.

Oh, please! Who is "society" anyway??? I gather you prefer anarchy.

So what exactly has Harper achieved that demonstrates an effective approach? Well there was an extension I believe....I think the current plan was to have it come into effect awhile ago (which it would have if Martin was in charge). They are currently still meeting to try to come up with solutions...e'll have to wait and see if anything comes from it. The difference is they are actually meeting....trying to do something....whining and crying about it would accomplish nothign for sure. Im hoping that the American security cards are sent out to all americans or the charge is very small. What matters for our economy is that yanks come up here I dont really care if Canadians dont go down there....doesnt inconvience me either cause I already have my passport which has been mandatory for flying into each others country for awhile (I dont drive anywhere ) In other words, in terms of results, Harper has been no more effective than his predecessors in dealing with the US. The US Congress did extend to 2009 the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative deadline for travel to and from Canada, Mexico, Central America, South America and the Caribbean because US authorities were unprepared for the earlier deadline. If you have evidence that this was Harper's doing, please present the evidence. I'm sure it will come as a huge surprise to the Mexican government as well as to the numerous US Congressmen who lobbied for an extension on the grounds that the earlier deadline would have a major negative impact on US border communities neighbouring Mexico and Canada.

How about society? Should society be free to make those determinations on behalf of others?

Yes, I agree. The author's definition of informed is indeed a fatal flaw. However, I believe an expanded definition of the terms "informed" and "educated" would yield similar conclusions. Alas, I have no direct evidence for that belief.

Well this would certainly take selfishness to new heights. The real selfishness exist in those who want a say in spending other people's hard-earned money. I take it you view greed as merely a hypothetical construct. And you seem to believe your generosity is a moral please even when you're being generous with the money earned by smarter people who work harder than you. I know this will shock you but I'm a moral relativist who still clings to the quaint notion that generosity trumps greed. I gather libertarians feel otherwise. But if you do have a problem with society being generous with other people's money, I'd be willing to make exemptions for those smarter than you. The exempted people could decide how the money will be spent.

Well this would certainly take selfishness to new heights. The real selfishness exist in those who want a say in spending other people's hard-earned money. I take it you view greed as merely a hypothetical construct.

That's one interpretation. The other interpretation is that he has remained PM merely because the Liberals have yet to select a leader. I anticipate an election in 2007. Harper has offended far too many groups. Getting re-elected will require more than support from so-cons and militarists.

Wavering is an understatement. Other than Canada, the US, Britain and the Netherlands, how many NATO countries are willing to put their forces into southern Afghanistan where they actually risk life and limb? And the percentage of the Dutch population supporting the mission is even lower than the percentage of Canadians supporting the mission.

You may have your reasons not to support the mission, and although we may disagree i respect your rights and opinions. So i ask you please do not use the deaths of my comrads to make your piont, as it dishonors they're commitment and sacrafice. Thank you. And I respect your rights and opinions as well and certainly have no desire to dishonour your comrades. I support our troops and am fully aware of what might have happened to the rights of Canadians were it not for the sacrifices and committments of Canadian forces who fought the Germans in World War II. Thank you for bringing to my attention that my comments would be misinterpreted as dishonouring your fallen comrades. To me, they were heroes.

Since you are based in NYC, you might be biased in terms of how you define "most successful". Is it defined by number of handgun deaths, number of Americans in jail for drug possession, number of foreign governments overthrown or largest national debt (now $US8.6 trillion) in the history of the world?

Well this would certainly take selfishness to new heights.

I was wrong in believing that that AoC is, at this moment, age 16 and apologize for the error. What I described in my posts will not become law until Bill C-22 is passed. Adelle Thanks for the clarification Adelle.