normanchateau

Because the Palestinians, as a people, are murderous savages who love killing Jews. Israel being a Jewish state, well, I can see where they'd have a problem with that. Sorry Palestinians are not murderous savages who love killing Jews. That is an unfair generalization. I might use that to describe Hamas or Hezbollah but I think its unfair to blanket an entire people What other people would celebrate at blowing up a pizza parlor full of teenagers? Given that the democratically elected government of Iran provides weapons to Hezbollah with which Hezbollah has targetted and killed Israeli civilians, perhaps some Iranians might satisfy this criterion.

Because the Palestinians, as a people, are murderous savages who love killing Jews. Israel being a Jewish state, well, I can see where they'd have a problem with that. Sorry Palestinians are not murderous savages who love killing Jews. That is an unfair generalization. I might use that to describe Hamas or Hezbollah but I think its unfair to blanket an entire people Hamas was elected by the majority of Palestinians, was it not? Hamas was not elected by a majority of Palestinians. Hamas received between 44% and 45% of the vote, Fatah received 42% and smaller parties accounted for the remainder of the popular vote. You might want to read the following link: http://www.fairvote.org/media/pep/Palestine.pdf

Well he did promise to be Harper's worst nightmare...

Really? What choices of his did/do you not agree with?

Yes, and whoever wins this race will have a far tougher time getting there than Stephen Harper did in winning his leadership race. He merely had to defeat the unimpressive Belinda Stronach and Tony Clement. In that competition, Harper actually looked credible for a moment. People temporarily forgot his opposition to gay marriage and temporarily forgot that he voted against including gay bashing in hate crimes legislation. But Harper's past will come back to haunt him in the next election no matter how shrewdly and disingenously he pretends to be moderate in order to secure a majority.

Fortunately for those who abhor him, Harper won't be facing either Martin or Chretien in the next election. Harper might even be facing someone principled and not linked to Adscam.

No, I certainly would not celebrate if these results held through to the next election. But a reported drop in CPC support to a mere 35% while the Liberals have yet to pick a leader, may be the beginning of a new trend. Having said that, I don't believe that the figure of 35% will hold up in other polls. It seems far too low...for now. Harper's current popularity in Quebec, reminiscent of Mulroney's former popularity there, guarantees that he's probably not as low as 35%.

Actually many Conservaqtive supporters did not support this choice and have said so publicly. Some Conservative supporters even believe that they don't have to approve of every single action taken by Stephen Harper.

No, reason to celebrate.

Shrewd, yes. Principled, no.

I'm obviously not a big fan of Harper but I'm surprised that CPC is in decline and the Liberals are on the rise. I think that this is a chance finding based on one poll and won't be sustained in subsequent polls. The federal budget, while not reducing income taxes as most small "c" conservative economists would have preferred, nonetheless pandered to 27 or so special interest groups via tax credits, deductions, etc., so should have brought a huge increase in voter support from those easily bought.

Do you suppose this is actually a principled position or one designed merely to get the BQ vote and secure a CPC majority, or both?

Kiraly, is there a regional breakdown? I assume CPC support is particularly low in BC where more people disapproved than approved of the federal budget. Apparently Quebecers loved the budget but this is not surprising. They already get subsidized child daycare throughout Quebec, thanks to their provincial government, and another $1200 a year per child on top of that from Harper. I wonder if this is a fiscal imbalance that Harper will address?

Sounds like the American states rights' approach of the George Wallace era. But I suppose it's important that Prince Edward Island be given more power.

So Scriblett, are you saying that Harper never promised a capital gains tax deferral or are you saying that he did promise it and is saving it for another budget?

It's called pandering to Quebec. Worked for Mulroney...for a while. It will work for Harper...for a while.

Scriblett, I am delighted that you "doubt that the Van. Sun said that." Why would you doubt it unless you believed it was outrageous that Emerson would do such a thing or say such a thing? Sorry, I don't have a link, just the actual newspaper. According to the Vancouver Sun, Emerson previously disclosed that his department paid just under $14,000 to send four Ottawa bureaucrats to Vancouver. Those four bureaucrats were identified by Emerson as Robert Fonberg, then deputy minister of international trade, and three assistant deputy ministers...Robert Dery, Michael Martin and Ken Sunquist. However, the Vancouver Sun discovered Thursday through the Access to Information Act, that Emerson had failed to provide the names of an additional four Ottawa bureaucrats which his department paid another $13,500 to fly to Vancouver. The other four, named in yesterday's Vancouver Sun, were Danielle Thibault, director general of communications; Ian Burney, director general of bilateral and regional trade policy; Paul Robertson, a director of the trade remedies division; and Andrea Lyon, director general of North American trade policy. So there were eight in all. I guess Emerson thinks flying these eight to Vancouver is more economical than flying him to Ottawa.

What is your point? That those numerous URL's are a mass hallucination and Harper never made such a promise? Why do you suppose that people in his own party are trying to explain why he didn't honour this broken promise?

The Vancouver Sun article actually said that? That's too funny. Kiraly, you live in the Lower Mainland. It was in yesterday's Vancouver Sun. Maybe someone you know still has an issue. I was surprised at Emerson's comments. I had expected him to blame Harper which is his usual MO when he steps in something which does not smell good.

This campaign promise has certainly proven to be a "myth", not to mention a broken promise. Here's a link to what Harper promised: http://www.gowlings.com/resources/enewslet...060113c.en.html There are many more links on Google to this broken promise if you decide to search further.

University professors often point out in their promotional material for a book, and even on the book cover itself, their university affiliation even though the book is a novel written for profit in their free time. It is hard to imagine a US government, never mind a Canadian government, engaging in such censorship. Harper is setting a dangerous precedent. Is this scary? Apparently Conservatives don't think so. That's even scarier.

Shooppie, funny how your apparent inability to find on the internet, a widely cited Harper promise which he has failed to honour is interpreted by you as someone else lying. I found numerous URL's Here's just one: http://www.gowlings.com/resources/enewslet...060113c.en.html

So a university professor must conceal that he is a university professor if he publishes a novel in his free time? Otherwise, he can be accused of promoting his link with the university?

The topic changed when you said that Harper fulfills his campaign promises. Harper picks and chooses which campaign promises he'll honour and which he'll ignore.

From page A3, Friday, May 5, 2006, Vancouver Sun: "Taxpayers paid more than $27,000 to send eight Ottawa-based senior bureaucrats to Vancouver to brief Trade Minister David Emerson in February, according to newly released (Access to Information Act) documents obtained Thursday." In defending this huge waste of taxpayer funds, Emerson said, "I take full responsibility for it. I want to tell you though, I do not apologize for having senior public servants leave Ottawa and come out to communities and actually see what's going on outside of Ottawa." Imagine the outcry from opposition Conservative MPs if Liberal Cabinet Minister David Emerson had squandered money by flying eight bureaucrats to Vancouver rather than meeting with them in Ottawa...and rationalizing it by saying Ottawa public servants need to come out to "communities" like Vancouver. Not surprisingly, the Ottawa bureaucrats had no objections to flying out to Vancouver and being lodged at Vancouver's Fairmont Waterfront Hotel. Looks like David Emerson is competing with former MP Gurmant Grewal for the title of most shameless BC Conservative MP.