normanchateau

As a matter of fact, police in parts of Australia already employ either saliva, blood or urine tests to measure for levels of marijuana in drivers of vehicles. Here's an example of one simple oral fluid test which measures not only marijuana but also opiates, amphetamine, ecstasy and cocaine: http://www.drugtesting.com.au

Of course Harper never voted to kill gays. Has anyone said he did? Harper did, however, vote against Bill C-250 and one of the provisions of that bill was that the murder of gays and lesbians, merely because of their sexual orientation, was a hate crime. The criminal code was amended, i.e., 318(4), to add killing on the basis of sexual orientation as a hate crime. Previously ethnicity, race and religion were covered but not sexual orientation. I'm sorry that you view me pointing this out as "an extremist statement." but that does not negate how Harper voted.

Well done, southerncomfort. It's good to practice cleverly attacking the old Liberal leaders in order to get in shape for the forthcoming attack on the new one. I especially like the part about Harper being credible. He's as credible as Darrel Reid.

It's the whole combination of factors that makes the Afghanistan mission problematic. If we consider corruption alone...sure that's tolerable. Drug smugglers in government...sure that's tolerable. Islamic fundamentalists...sure they're tolerable. Put it all together, southerncomfort, and it's not so tolerable. Why would we want to support an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy, which like Iran, is ruled by mullahs? Suppose Iran, an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy also ruled by mullahs (but perhaps without the same degree of drug smugglers and warlords and corrupt officials) were threatened by an extreme, Taliban-like group. Should Canadians go over there and rescue Iran? If your answer is an unequivocal yes, then perhaps I can begin to see why you think we should be in Afghanistan. My answer to that question would be no.

It's blah blah to you but some of us don't want our sons and daughters sacrificing their lives to protect a corrupt, fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. Some of us want to more than just bitch and whine too. And you can shut your cakehole about my son and daughter. Both have been raised to think, and to judge for themselves, and to recognize a big stinking pile of empty rhetoric when they see one. Your response merely reinforces the fact that the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is a corrupt, fundamentalist Islamic theocracy.

You still have not listed any countries free from coruption, And nor do i see Canada on that list, so why do you have such high standards for Afgan when in fact our country is not living up to them... I don't recall saying I'd list countries free of corruption. Do you seriously believe that Afghanistan is less corrupt than most countries? In any event, their degree of corruption combined with their fundamental beliefs and their theocratic government are enough for me not to want my offspring sacrificing their lives.

It's blah blah to you but some of us don't want our sons and daughters sacrificing their lives to protect a corrupt, fundamentalist Islamic theocracy.

I wondered how long it would be before the 'gay bashing' thing would raise its head, but I'm not aware of any 'gay bashing' legislation. If he is referring to Bill C-250 there was legitimate reason for voting against it Yes, I am referring to Bill C-250. Bill C-250 resulted in the amendment of the criminal code, i.e., 318 (4), such that killing people because of their sexual orientation is now a hate crime. Prior to that amendment, race, religion and ethnic origin were covered but sexual orientation was not. You are correct that the term "gay bashing" does not appear in Bill C-250. However, most would agree that killing people because of their sexual orientation is an example of gay bashing. In any event, this is but one example of Mr. Harper's extreme social conservative views. One could have mentioned, for example, his views on marijuana possession and why he believes that posession of even the smallest quantity should result in a permanent criminal record. This attitude on a drug most Canadians have little problem with is, of course, consistent with Bush's zero tolerance policy on marijuana possession.

Yes, it is not a democracy as we know it. That's because it's a theocracy, and a theocracy is not a democracy. Even the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan acknowledges this which is why in March, a man was sentenced to death for converting to Christianity. And journalists in Afghanistan have been convicted of the crime of blasphemy. So despite the fact that Afghanistan claims to abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Koran takes precedence over those and all other rights.

If this is your only reason for not supporting this mission, you need another excuse....We in the west need to come to grip with the idea that our form of government is not the best form, what may work for us will not work for everyone... I'm not sure that I need another excuse. I can't support the idea of Canadians, no matter how well intentioned, giving up their lives to prop up a bribe-supported, Islamic fundamentalist theocracy whose government is filled with corrupt officials, drug smugglers, warlords and mullahs.

Yeah, Emerson convinced the Liberals to turn it down but for some reason Harper thought it was a good idea. Today, thanks to Harper, the softwood lumber industry pays a 15% export tax yet even the US only imposed a duty of 10.8%. Another brilliant economic move on Harper's part.

No, they are not a democracy. Their constitution appears online at the website of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Despite what Bush and Harper say, a theocracy is not a democracy.

Most likely reason is sheer laziness. Certainly the predictable attacks continue on the former Liberal government. There are constant references to adscam, sponsorship, paul martin, corruption, who knew what or should have, etc., ad nauseam. But Dion, for example, is a far more difficult target to attack and would require research, reading, thinking, etc. Once a new leader is chosen, that research, reading and thinking will happen and that leader will be attacked by Conservatives just as Paul Martin was.

Guys who want to retake Afganistan and run it in their theocratic way As opposed to the current, corrupt Karzai-lead Islamic fundamentalist conservative government who want to run it in their own theocratic way.

Many Canadians are under the mistaken impression that because there is voting in Afghanistan, that country is a democracy. In fact the Koran over-rides all legislation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. It is a theocracy. That is why, whether Karzai liked it or not, his government sentenced to death a man who converted to Christianity. Both the Bush and Harper administrations have falsely, either intentionally or because of lack of basic knowledge, characterized the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan as a democracy. The following link from the October, 2005, NY Times deals briefly with this issue: http://anewerworld.org/?p=40

It is also up to the government to explain why they want to prop up the corrupt Karzai government which is riddled with drug smugglers and warlords. The government might also explain why Canadians should be dying to protect an Islamic fundamentalist conservative theocracy which sentences to death those who convert to Christianity.

Sure, and black is white, and white is black. For some reason, Mr. Harper felt compelled to vote against adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation even though the Liberals, NDP and BQ voted for it. Yet Mr. Harper favours the inclusion of religion in hate crimes legislation so he has no problem with hate crimes legislation per se. But he opposes it when it specifically pertains to gays and lesbians. Some might view that as evidence of hard-line conservatism but perhaps they're wrong. Maybe he just voted that way because he's a religious extremist and not because he's a conservative. Or maybe he voted that way because he's a homophobe and not because he's a conservative. For some reason Mr. Harper felt compelled to make Darrel Reid Chief of Staff to Rona Ambrose. Ambrose is neither a social conservative nor a religious extremist. Darrel Reid is. He also ran and lost as a Conservative candidate in January, 2006. He formerly headed Canada's Focus on the Family. He compared Canada to Nazi Germany when the Liberals, BQ and NDP voted to add sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation. What does Focus on the Family have to do with the environment? In 2005, Focus on the Family issued a statement saying that global warming is an "environmental theory yet to be adequately established." So perhaps it's just a coincidence that Mr. Harper appointed someone who thinks like him to be Chief of Staff to Rona Ambrose. So is Mr. Harper a hard-line conservative? To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on how you define "hard-line".

Did you even read the first post in this thread or the link in that thread? The point is that last month the US Court of International Trade ruled that Canadian lumber was not subsidized and ordered all of the illegal duties returned to Canada. Assuming you are a Canadian, why would a Canadian take the side of the US lumber lobby rather than the side of a US court? Do you think the US court is incompetent for siding with Canadian lumber producers rather than the US lumber lobby>?

What I see is a sense of frustration and impotence on the part of Harper supporters. Until the Liberals pick a new leader, the Harper folks have no one to attack. Once the Liberals have picked a leader, we will once again see the leader attacked in every thread just as Paul Martin was. How quickly they forget.

It is the Harper Conservatives who chose to extend the mission. The NDP, BQ and most Liberals opposed this extension. And based on the newest poll, it now appears that most Canadians do not support it either.

Don't hold your breath Newbie. Those names and dates will never materialize. Harper supporters figure because the corruption mantra got them elected last time, it will work next time. Unfortunately for them, they now have to deal with Harper's mismanagement of economic issues and inexplicably bizarre behaviour since he became Prime Minister. How on earth will they rationalize, for example, Harper appointing religious extremist and homophobe Darrel Reid to the Environment Ministry? Poor Rona Ambrose. She's neither a so-con nor a religious extremist yet Harper saddled her with Darrel Reid.

I'm not sure what the prophecies were or who made them but surely even an incompetent like Harper is smart enough not to do anything too outrageous or socon-like when he has only a tenuous, minority government and is now behind the Liberals in every province except Alberta. That would guarantee he'd never achieve a majority though his financial incompetence, increasing income taxes and betrayal of the lumber companies achieves the same outcome.

So hold on, what your saying is that not a single Liberal MP had any idea about what was going on during Adscam. So then your arguing that the Liberal's are not corrupt simply incompetent??? I never said that no former MP had any idea of what was going on. Read the quote above. It was in reference to current Liberal MPs. There were corrupt MPs in the Mulroney government but I see no reason whatsoever to link that to Harper or current Conservative MPs. Do you?

I assume this same logic applies to the Liberals and discussion of any acts of the previous government. Right?

That is the key. Some people will simply oppose the deal because it was struck by Harper. And others will oppose the deal simply because they understand economics, work for Canadian softwood lumber companies or invest in Canadian softwood lumber companies. To find out what some owners of softwood lumber companies think, see the following: http://thetyee.ca/News/2006/10/13/Softwood/