yorkman

I don't think the "good times" in Alberta are totally of Ralph's making or because of his extraordinary performance. I think oil has much to do with those good times. Probably anyone of us could have managed Alberta's affairs under the economic conditions of the past 40 years. His arrogance in wanting to stay on until 2008 is breathtaking.....a down home type of arrogance but arrogance all the same. Not much different from all the other successful pols who never know when to leave and end up having to be pushed out. What a way to end a career.

I don't share the Bushian values.

They would come to our aid only if it was in their interests to do so. I would suggest. If the oil fields of Alberta were threatened they would be there in a flash for sure. Or the electricity grid was threatened or sabotaged. And they would never leave you that is certain. I still see no correlation with WWI or II. However, it makes for good rhetoric to justify the invasion of Iraq and the continuing occupation of Afghanistan. And by the way, we DID come to the US' aid after the WTC attack.....big time I recall. But when we didn't agree with their invasion of Iraq which we all now know was based on lies, the conservatives here seethed because we didn't join that adventure. As long as we keep saying yessir, how high sir, they will love us and the new Conservatives will be happy with our good relations. And we can all be happy with our war economies. Lots of opportunities now for Canadians to encourage their kids to join the forces and go to Afghan.

What's this got to do with WWII? Where are the similarities? Where is the mighty army threatening our shores? The deck is stacked in our favour and we're now the occupiers and invaders. Such bravery! We talk about the barbarianism of axe wielding 16-year olds but see nothing wrong with planes dropping bombs on villages or Canadian/British/American soldiers bashing down the doors of homes, etc., etc., terrorizing children who are likely to grow up despising westerners of all stripes. They don't differentiate even if we would like to think our guys and girls are only doing good. That's a nice fantasy but nothing more.

Why is David Frum being dragged into this? Are you suggesting there is some kind of nefarious deep-integration plan afoot and David Frum is the go-between for Bush and Harper? Huh? It certainly seems plausible doesn't it. The rhetoric is getting mighty close to that of Bush's at his most militaristic. When he talks about the axis of evil, we will know for sure! I'm sure Frum isn't on the payroll as yet and probably doesn't have to be as Harper has the script down pat. Like Bush too, Harper seems to be only truly comfortable when in a tightly controlled military setting with the forces cheering him on, with the media being used as pawns and with little or no opposition or serious questions being asked. Talk about deja vu! It's like we have gone back three years in time to the good ol' days when Bush was top of the polls and the invasion of Iraq was going swimmingly. We haven't have we??!! Of course not, this is Afghanistan and we are just being really good guys, bringing civilization and democracy to Afghans! It would have been nice if we had seen an Afghan official (say Karzai) with Harper to give some indication that we were COOPERATING with the Afghans with their FULL support. But then it's not really safe - even with all his American bodyguards - for Karzai to venture far from Kabul.

This is nothing but propaganda and PR - the selling of our mission in Afghanistan. As the days go by Mr. Harper is looking more and more like the Bush mini-me most of us thought he was. His rhetoric is identical. Obviously, some people are buying it. But then again, propaganda is nothing new whether or not it is coming from the occupiers trying to impose their values on another society (Canada in Afghanistan) and meddling in their internal affairs. Or whether it's coming from an invader such as America in Iraq. Don't think we would take too kindly to that if it were in reverse. Some of us even get a bit testy when the Americans start telling us what we should do. Mr. Harper had better not follow the Bush (and Frum) line too closely though.......based on the latest opinion polls south of the border. Hopefully Canadians won't take five years to wake up to what is going on in their name. Though it appears the media have all gone to sleep on the issue. Guess they see a good story line that is going to last for 10 years or so - longer then the first and second world wars together. HI MARGRACE!!!

And if you believe that "leave it to beaver" fantasy you're a tad on the naive. Wasn't it the former leader of the Reform Party who would never live in Stornoway!!! And ended up living there.....when they have their chance they'll take it. If they don't they're really f*****d.

You are right wilbur. And I disagreed with the Liberals decision as well. So there you go. THey shouldn't be there. There is nothing to gain except the approval of George Bush(whose support in the US is now at about 37 Per cent!!!) and that of Bill Clinton. Wow, I feel much better now!! A bad decision is a bad decision. If Harper continues down this road it is his burden, no one elses.

It's not about Brison or the Liberals any more . Don't you get it? You are the government now.

So argus, if all you say is true why doesn't Harper simply cooperate and get it over with. He has nothing to worry about. He made his political decision and he is entitled to that. He is the one who is keeping this story in the headlines by not cooperating - even though he tells us he has the highest of ethical standards. And if they want to investigate Belinda, go for it. And Keith Martin and Scott Brison and, and. I don't agree with floor crossing. Mr. Harper has to get used to the heat. It's not easy being PM and the government as the whirling dirvish Peter MacKay has learned. No matter which party is doing the tempting or the crossing, the whole process stinks and lacks any semblance of integrity. And that applies to Harper as much as anyone else.

And who are you afraid of geoffrey? Who do you think is going to invade us or is capable of doing so other the the United States? The people the Americans are fighting in Iraq and that we are dealing with in Afghanistan are wielding axes; using car bombs; some grenades; guns; etc. They don't have an air force; they don't have an army with tanks and the all the bells and whistles; they don't have a navy either. So just whow are we so afraid of? And who has invaded the United States, Australia or Great Britain or Europe recently? It seems to be an argument upon which to base huge increases in military spending which seems incapable of dealing with a band of passionate insurgents who have only terrorism to use as a weapon - primarily in their own countries.

It's all for nothing. Those guys and gals are dying for nothing. That's very hard to face when it's your child. But it is reality. So you have to make up something to explain why they died. Ah yes ----- for freedom; for our way of life; for the preservation of America's and the West's wealth and pre-eminence; and all the other rhetoric. But in the end it's for nothing....... unless someone comes up with some better answers rather than empty rhetoric.

Absolutely mind-boggling! He's the ethics commissioner, approved by Parliament. The PM should - if he weren't so stubborn; arrogant; vindictive; and petulant - cooperate with the Commissioner and we wouldn't have a story and the Commissioner would probably find there was not an issue. After all Harper campaigned on the basis of ethics in government. He didn't say he would only do government differently and democratically and ethically when he had to deal with Conservative appointees and other Conservatives clammering to get their snouts into the public trough. Things seem to be worse than ever in Ottawa. And he's only been PM for a month. Yikes! And to think I was feeling good about the election results in the few weeks immediately after the election. Guess you have to be a true Alliance Conservative to condone what's been going on. At least we cannot blame this type of behaviour on Liberals anymore. They certainly didn't have a lock on this type of behaviour which Conservative denouced prior to the election. Talk about hypocrisy. It's breathtaking.

And what is wrong with "cutting and running" if the mission is proved to be wrong and if we are going to have to commit to 10 years of fighting Afghan insurgents and opponents of Karzai. God the 2nd World War was over in six years!! And these people are fighting with axes and car bombs. All this blather about cutting and running is simply macho posturing on the part of military and wannabe military types. Lets just have a debate and have someone clearly state why we are there and what are objectives are. And I don't mean defending our way of life (which doesn't appear to be being threatened by Afghanistan and its militia of car bombers and axe wielders) and freedom and democracy. What do we actually want to achieve in the next year or two. And lets have a vote in Afghanistan to see if they want foreigners on their land protecting the puppet Karzai. I don't see too many Afghans speaking out and begging us to stay. Andyway, lets just have some clarity from Mr. Harper and Mr. MacKay as to the time line and the objectives.

Perhaps someone could articulate for me what American culture is? Hollywood? Reality Television? Italian Opera? Russian Ballet? There appears to be a strong Black component to all "American" music such as jazz and the blues and rock but I'm never quite sure what american culture is other than what we see from Hollywood and television. Other than that it is really rooted in European and British culture except for the black component. American culture - whatever that might mean or be to any one person - has certainly seen better days.

We are there to simply prop up a puppet President put in place by the American government and a former oil consultant with connections to the Bushes. Not for much more as far as I can see. Particularly when you scrape away all the rhetoric coming from Hillier, MacKay and Harper. They are obviously singing from the same hymn book as Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield......we will not cut and run; we don't want to harm morale by opposing the mission; we must support our troops; etc. Of course we support our troops but we don't have to support their mission. Also, I didn't realize that the Afghan people were anxious for us to be there. We're not their to rebuild the nation at all. We're there to fight insurgents and kill them. And eventually we will be killing innocent people which will lead to more recruits for the Taliban or whomever else wants to fight the occupiers. And we are them now! No support from this quarter. Sad for our soldiers and their families for the suffering they will be facing over the years ahead. Especially as it will all be for nought. I still think that those who are so gung-ho about us being there should be doing everything in their power to encourage their children and grandchildren to sign up soon so they can fight the good fight and bring our way of life to the Afghans!!!

I don't agree with what Belinda did either. If long time PCers jumped ship I do understand based on the 'unethical' way Mackay handled the merger. If Emerson changed his tune that quickly I think he owed it to his constituents to resign. Then he could have been appointed to the Senate like Mr. Fortier. Anyway you look at it, Harper does not come out of this with high marks for ethical behaviour or for consistency in rhetoric. Hypcocritical is the word that best defines his 'clever' behaviour. If he had not portrayed himself as the Mr. Clean and Mr. Ethical of politics, the reaction may have been more muted. Of course, the problem was really that of his Communications person!!! So much for taking responsibility for your actions. Ah well, he still has time to demonstrate his "new way" of doing politics.

What a differencen a few weeks make. Now that the Conservatives are the Government, all is fair in politics it seems. At least according to the Conservative supporters!!! What a crock. Only effective when dishing it out it seems. As we all thought, just a new group at the trough who behave no more ethically than the gang that preceded. Makes one feel good all over. Stephen never did take criticism well however. A major sulk will be in order methinks.

I find it quite mind boggling that the staunch Harper/NewConservative supporters find criticisms of Harper and/or Bush to be bashing or anti-American or not thoughtful or unfair or whatever. These are the same people who have been bashing all things Liberal or NDP; calling supporters of same names; continually running down all things that have been Canadian in nature or that are different from the way things are done in America; venomously attacking individuals; etc. The Conservatives are now the Government. So get used to the criticism. That's how democracy works. Fair is fair in my opinion.

I don't believe this story for one moment. If the person had actually been refused service for not speaking French this would be a media story. It isn't. In my opinion, this person set out to be difficult and to create an issue and, no doubt, was abusive to the receptionist. This is a very easy story to read between the lines on. Fortunately, they didn't succeed as most people would be very skeptical of the claim. This item needed a reality check. Do you honestly believe that medical practitioners would turn you away because you couldn't speak French? If that were the case there would be twenty similar stories a day. In no way was I justifying the person being refused service. I see it as an effort on the parts of some to create an issue where one doesn't exist to support their particular agenda.

I wonder if those complaining are the same ones who demonstrated in Ottawa on November 11, 2005.....saving Union Jacks. It seems as though some people in this country would only be happy if we returned to our colonial days. As for the momentum towards a common language - I assume you mean English. I think it is wonderful when people around the world can communicate with one another. Personally, I prefer a world where people maintain their cultures and languages and their different accents within language groups. Those too are fast disappearing as we become this common blob. Also, learning a few words in another language does not seem to be such a major effort - particularly if you are living in an are where there is a large population of francophones or Chinese, etc., etc.

It sounds to me as though this person went to a clinic designed to provide services in French to the French speaking citizens of Cornwall. It would not surprise me to learn that this person also knew that in advance if they had been a citizen of Cornwall for any length of time and not an outsider. In other words it sounds like a set up by one person in that small segment of the English speaking population of Eastern Ontario that sees francophones as a major threat to the rights of the majority English speaking population of Ontario. If anything, it is the French-speaking people of far Eastern Ontario that are under threat in a sea of English.

I don't think it's necessary to deport Burns but then again we could start there.

Who is this Stephen Harper anyway? He certainly has seen the writing on the wall and will say just about anything to appear middle of the road. That's smart politics for sure as his old message was rejected resoundingly by the majority of Canadians. But is this man the real Stephen Harper or was the former Alliance Leader, Reform worker or lobbyist for the NCC the real Harper. Guess if he's making all these liberal promises he will have to keep them if elected PM, being the ethical man he says he is. Wow, that old Reform/Alliance base is going to be some teed off to say the least.

Of course parents will abuse this system just as many did with the baby bonus. Or does everyone think all parents used the baby bonus to further their children's education and to buy clothes and food for them and not to get their hair done or to buy gin. It didn't work that way nor will Harper's plan. When people speak the reality of the situation they are shouted down for telling the truth. When they pussy foot, they are shouted down for pussy footing or being politically correct. Lets face, it many parents will buy beer and popcorn and go to the movies with such day care money.