betsy

The one thing that got me scratching my head is Dion's response regarding his leadership and him being an "underdog," something like this: "I thank Mr Harper for painting me as such because now since there is a very low expectation of me, I will be able to surprise them." Like the saying goes, I mean it is not hard to rise above if one is at the bottom of the rung. Harper has faced tremendous difficulty from the time he decided to run for Prime Minister. The personal attacks and negative opinions from the Opposition parties and from most of the media continued to plague him....and yet he was able to rise way above that, having his minority government the longest running minority government in Canadian history. I don't think I am articulating well what I'm trying to convey, but that statement by Dion is very weak, to say the least. I am envisioning Dion talking in front of other world leaders. Weak and strange statements like this will be very humiliating for Canada.

Simple. It is a sarcastic response to the way the Democrats had turned up their uppity noses and implied being a Mayor of a small town, and being a Governor of Alaska is something to be ashamed of...like as if working for small towns and far-flung states is degrading and that mayors of small towns and other states far from civilization do not have the same governing responsibilities. How do you think people in these small towns feel being flatly told working for them does not count? How do you think people of Alaska feel? Palin was responding to the insults hurled to her and Alaskans. She was responding to the Democrats' derisive attitude towards small town America! That was very un-diplomatic of the Democrats! And here is Obama spouting about diplomacy! Alaska is far from civilization...therefore it doesn't count? Obama had had casually dismissed the threat that Iran could pose to us based on its size: it is tiny. Eh? Come again? Besides, what's all this pre-occupation about size?

That's exactly what I'm trying to say! The other parties are more worried about being criticized by other world leaders - most of whom comprised of dictators and corrupt tyrants with their own agenda! That's not leadership! That's an appeaser... a mollifyer... a push-over....a spineless follower! A real leader listens....but he does not necessarily have to do what others suggest! A real leader makes his own decision on what he thinks is for the best interest of his country! A real leader can....and WILL be able to get other world leaders to see it his way! Which Harper clearly demonstrated early on in his role as Prime Minister who stood up for the Israel victims to be recognized alongside Lebanese victims! Do you see any of these opposition leaders having the balls to do that?? Of course not! The other leaders are all validation-seekers! They are afraid to decide without someone to validate their decisions....afraid to make any major move without someone or something to lay the blame on in case something goes wrong. A real leader does not crave for a constant "pat on the backs" and hollow praises mostly coming from leaders who have their hands out for financial aids! A real leader takes risks for the right reason! I prefer a leader who makes us stand out in the world community for astuteness and credibility for in the long run, our opinion will weigh more! We are one of the G7. We are a major player on the world stage! Let's perform like one.

Speaking of the "Green Shift," looks like the Liberals are in trouble for using this name. Somebody filed a lawsuit against the Liberals and filed an injunction to stop them from using the "Green Shift." So it's gonna be tough what with all the changes they're doing with their green plan - I wonder if that's what they mean by "the winds of change?" - ...and now they have to scramble and come up with a new name. "Make Shift Plan" would be good. Anyway, did I hear Dion right? GREEN FARM FARMS? Who ever came up with that name?

I think a lot of liberal-minded women feel the same way you do. It was Hillary, during her battle with Obama, who pointed out that sexism still exists within their party. Michelle Obama reluctantly agreed with her on The View. Democrats know that tackling Palin is a mine-field. There's talk that it will be Hillary who'll take her on. I can't wait to see the outcome of that. I put my money on Palin.

Hello there, Jefferiah! It's been quite a while....and am equally glad to see you're still around. Yes. Finally, someone who represent and fight for our values.

Two female journalists were obviously star-struck after Sarah-cuda's convention speech. The grin on their faces as one quipped "definitely she's no shrinking violet!" was almost said with pride. Tom Brokaw was openly contradicted by the female reporter who had a past interview with Palin, and Biden's jaw almost dropped when his female interviewer openly challenged and accused him of personal attacks on Palin! I, too, seems to have been bitten by the Palin bug. I can't get enough of the woman! Reminiscent of how I felt when I first heard of Stephen Harper. She is refreshing! I think McCain had shown astuteness in his decision to choose her for a running mate. The title of this thread was changed to: What is your take on Sarah Palin? The title used to be: The Cuda, What's your take on Pitbull Palin?

I may be just a wee bit biased here but, imho, the recent actions of both Dion and Layton don't show real leadership skills. Instead they are exhibiting that they're mere "followers." Both are latching on trying to ride Obama's coat-tails, both spouting about "CHANGE". But I must say Layton really takes the cake...to the point of copy-catting the "rolled-sleeves style" of Barack. But lol, he even failed that! It was funny the way the newsmen pointed out how phony it was: Jack saying "Oh I'm feeling the heat here. I need to take off my jacket." And he took off his jacket. His sleeves were already rolled!!! LOL! Stephen's ad hit it on the nail. Leadership doesn't mean agreeing to about almost anything just to get along (the way the Liberals and NDP and Green are all getting panicky everytime we don't march to what the UN or the the other world leaders want us to do). As I've pointed out in the past, Harper took a stand supporting Bush in Iraq at the start of the war even though it meant political suicide; and standing up to and getting France and another nation (forgot which one) to bend to his will instead by insisting that Israel victims be recognized alongside Lebanon. And being a newbie Prime Minister at that. Now, that's a leader.

The journalists pundits were speculating that in the event of a coup attempt, they can't really force Dion to step down. Apparently, Dion is a very stubborn man and is more likely to dig in his heels. But yes, I think Ignatieff is the popular choice to become the next Liberal leader.

I didn't know that part. It gets more interesting..... Manley was appointed by Harper to be part of the panel that would assess the war in Afghanistan. Some Liberals are wondering and griping as to why Manley would accept such position knowing that it would give the Conservatives some credible ammunition against criticisms or snipes from the Liberals.

"We will not actively pursue bringing back to Canada murderers who have been tried in a democratic country that supports the rule of law," Day told the House of Commons on Thursday." This statement does not mean you are being "written off" by the government. Again, I state that in almost, if not every democratic countries....we do have consul offices. I am sure that if there is any evidence that the Canadian had been railroaded, our government would act upon it. Anyway, why should we ACTIVELY PURSUE BRINGING BACK TO CANADA murderers who had been tried in democratic countries? If a Canadian committed crime in another democratic country, why shouldn't he serve his time there? Why should that country, and this murderer's victim, not have the satisfaction of seeing punishment for said crime be meted out and served in that country? And why should we shoulder the expenses of this murderer's upkeep in our prison?

Assuming it was a fair trial. In most democratic countries, we do have consular offices if I'm not mistaken....so it is safe to assume that our citizen had access to his consul officer. What is it that consuls do in situations like this? Did the government say there would not be any attempt at talks at all? Correct me if I'm wrong....I only heard the part that says we will not ask for clemency. You mention the word "negotiation." What kind of negotiation do you have in mind?

Yesterday (2 Nov), Duffy revealed the very latest Ipso-Reid poll: 60% Canadians approved the mini-budget. However despite the gaffes and fiasco of the Liberals, there was no significant change with the Conservatives popularity. Craig Oliver wonders about the accuracy of the recent polls since he said he feels the difference in the atmosphere. He is betting that the change in that direction will occur in the coming weeks and he is predicting a big jump in Conservatives popularity.

How do you suggest we fight, if a country is un-willing to cooperate?

If I understood correctly, it was specified that the government will not ask for clemency from democratic countries. At least the government is being blunt about its stance on the issue. Canadians going abroad should think twice before committing any crimes in other countries.

Duffy ran the tape of the interview again (after a Liberal strategist flatly denied that the GST wouldn't be cut and tried to spin it). On the tape, Dion explicitly stated that he would revisit the GST tax cut. That's how Duffy and the journalist-pundits understood it and that was how they discussed it. It was clear. I think I'd rely more on the tape rather that a newspaper clip.

It was mentioned way back that Chretien can be very spiteful. That spite was the real reason why he tried to block Conrad Black from getting that British title. But now, looking back at the recent events that happened in the Liberal Party, I wonder if Chretien schemed - out of spite - to sabotage his own political party. It is said that it was Chretien who pushed for Dion to become leader. Surely, after working with him all these years, he must know that definitely Dion is not leader-material. Just look at all the bloopers and gaffes, all the decisions he's made so far.....I cringe to even imagine that this man would lead a nation. Then, there was the poor or perfect timing of the tell-all book by Chretien. For a supposedly very intelligent former Prime Minister, surely he must know what the book was going to do to the Party - right after the big defeat in Quebec election. What was he thinking???? He could've at least delayed the sale of the book at a time when the Liberal Party could withstand its attack on another former leader of the Party (Martin). Apparently Chretien had kinder words to say about Mulroney than his colleague. What do you think?

So, he is going to bring back what Harper had taken away. His election campaign will be, "Vote Liberal and I promise to raise the GST Tax again!" Liberal MPs' jaws must've dropped when Dion delivered his bombshell. According to Duffy, there's rumor of a coup to happen before Christmas.

Blame Mohammed! If they show you the list, I'm willing to bet it's loaded with Mohammeds! Anyway, why do you say the war on terror isn't going very well. In the US at least, it's going very well. One only has to look at the lack of attacks, AND the length of the list. The length of the list is indicative of the war going well. For our side.

Bob Smith???? You use the name Bob Smith as a freaking example???? How many Bob Smith do you find in your local mosque? Get real, girl. Maybe you mean Bobed Smithowed, you might have a point. Kidding aside, if the name Mohammed Ali is listed on that terror list, it is not surprising for that list to swell to that number. Let me put it this way, Mohammed sez it all.

Today, MDuffy and the press gallery called this attempt to dig up controversy over the Conservative database by the Liberals as....petty. There you go. Even the press aren't buying it! The Liberals only end up looking so desperate.

I know that this has something to do about their religious beliefs. But before I give my answer, and just for clarity, please explain clearly: What is the specific reason why the Muslim doctor would refuse giving a pap test? Wait! I just re-read your whole post and since both are already doctors... I must say....the Muslim doctor has the same right as that of the Christian doctor that was given to them....thereby, the Muslim's religious belief should be respected. The woman should be referred to somebody who is willing to give a pap test. This issue is not a matter of life and death. If I'm not mistaken, this issue is being addressed. That there is also a law that requires the patient be referred to someone who can. Please refer to the old thread regarding the morning-pill incident. Since both are licensed doctors, I am sure that both these doctors had complied with all the necessary requirements in order to become licensed. So if ever there is a dire need, or if ever the Muslim or Christian doctor is forced to do a pap test or prescribe medicines....we know that he is fully qualified to do so. What I don't agree with is for STUDENTS to "pick and choose or refuse" to comply with the full requirements. And I had already explained in this thread as to why. Refer to my post #34.

Oh boy, conflict or campaign or picnic....call it whatever. Like a pacifier..... (and I don't mean peace-keeper or a meddler or a busy-body or a smug holier-than-thou, or a referee, etc - take your pick),....whatever soothes you. All I know is that for me it is called "war" since our men are fighting and dying over there and we're spending billions for this war.

But we're not talking about doctors! We are talking about STUDENTS who refuse to follow our standards and refuse to complete their training. In my view, these people should not be doctors at all! Clearly they lack the simplest yet most meaningful requirement for the job. Perhaps they'd demand to change the Doctor's Oath too! Like being able to choose whose lives they're willing to save....

I thank you for at least humoring me. The scenario I gave you may be indeed far out, however the shortage of doctors we're having right now could put us in an unpleasant situation in the near future. The medical field, like governmental bodies, seemed to have attracted those who plot against us. Remember the doctors terrorists who - thank goodness - botched up the job? Hey, you are the one who brought in the Christian-doctor-morning-pills-controversy....comparing my stance with that morning pill debate to this situation. Whether you support the Muslim students or not is not the point there at all. This is about your reference to my stance on the other issue. I gave a direct reply to your specific comment, and point out that the two are not comparable at all. And not only did I correct you....but I also explained clearly why.