betsy

But the "selling out" to the Alliance was done with the knowledge of party members! How can you say it was not democratic? Members were told of the plan to merge....and members voted who would lead! Dion and May, on the other hand, had sprung this surprise on their own members! And the Green Party is actually a small "c" apparently in their values, at least that's what May was explaining in an interview a few weeks ago. According to a journalist, May is against womens' right to choose...which I would interpret that she is anti-abortion. And what is this? The leader of the Green Party is endorsing that her rival party leader (Liberal) will make a better Prime Minister! So where does that leaves her???? She's suggesting she's not as good as Dion to be a Prime Minister? What is she doing leading her party then? The Green Party should just kick her out of office and find another leader who thinks she/he is a good leader to go head-to-head with any other leaders vying to be Prime Minister....since in a way, Elizabeth May seems to be conceding defeat as a leader, practically saying people should vote for Dion (and not her), since Dion will make a better PM!

Yeah! And Broadbent also revealed that Elizabeth May tried to talk to the NDP too, but was politely told to take a hike. Talk about hunger for power! I'm not that surprised about Dion (since he belongs with the Chretien era, so what do you expect?) BUT, for a rookie like May, she seems quite at ease getting into the political sleaze game in no time at all. Scary to think to what extent she can go once she's in power. Layton is right! Dion and May had spat on democracy! What about those who believes in Liberal values in Nova Scotia? Why shouldn't they get the option to vote for a Liberal candidate? What happens to our country if this practice becomes the norm? MDuffy also said that some prominent Liberal supporters are calling for an open revolt against Dion. Will hopeful Liberal contenders take advantage of this situation to get rid of Dion?

Latest poll revealed by MDuffy today, on question "Who is best as Prime Minister" has Harper at 42%, and Dion at 17% and Layton at 16%. The guy from SES sez that the most intriguing result was that all the other parties' members (Liberal, NDP and Green) had listed Harper as their second choice...

You don't think the environment has become a big priority for the Conservatives all of a sudden? It wasn't as big of a political issue during the last campaign, but now that it has become a huge issue, it has become a priority for the Conservatives all of a sudden. How's that for conviction? The way Dion and Layton are carrying on....those two are masters at creating mass-hysteria! Ha-ha-ha! What do you think? Of course Harper is going to address it. What leader wouldn't?

And in another scrum with the press regarding the environment, somebody asked about energy used in big houses and mansions, and Dion is quick to quip that his wife had the inspectors in to see how they can reduce energy consumption in their house. He's just doing that now? Well, what took him so long? He should've at least done that at the very same time he named his dog Kyoto.

It is not scientific to assume. That is the keyword here....this is all based on assumption then! I noticed that Elizabeth May and the president of Terra-something both said that according to the scientific study, "climate change is very likely caused by man." "Very likely" is quite different from, "yes, it is."

Not to mention all the chemicals in our food...whether to preserve them for shipping, or for longer shelf-life, or for better taste, etc.., We are saturated with chemicals. Yes, I see what you mean and yes, I guess our greenhouse emission does contribute to it. We need to approach this in a very practical manner. I shudder to think that we blow billions to satisfy Kyoto....and then, not have enough funds to maneuver around when we do really and direly need it!

I still don't buy what environmentalists are saying. I've read somewhere that just a single forest fire of so many hectares produces more than all the cars' emission in one year. My position on this is that everything happening now (not only climate changing) all over the world....is just earth going through a natural cycle. Who knows, maybe it's about due to shift again and change things around (maybe not in our lifetime). Those strong volcanoes lately from differnt parts, and volcanoes getting active....something is happening down there.

Definitely, there's something going on with this planet. looking at all the earthquakes (mostly big ones) happening very often now, volcanoes waking up and erupting, plus all the unusual and frequent storms, etc...all seem to be happening one after the other. But I tend to believe though that the earth is going through its own natural cycle.... Can eliminating green gas stop these? No. One thing for sure though....climate change is coming. And if it's a sure thing, we better prepare ourselves to adjust to it. The funding should be more concentrated in getting people prepared. That might even mean eventual relocation for those that will be gravely affected. Why should we throw money away on something that scientists are saying is a sure thing to come? Well, forget the polls. I always mess this thing up. But still, what do you think?

Link ABOUT FREAKING TIME!!!! "the actions of a minority group within a state who are intent on forcing political change by means of a mixture of subversion, propaganda and military pressure, aiming to persuade or intimidate the broad mass of people to accept such a change." That can be used to pretty much stifle any protest the government wants. Are you against protest too?? If the protest involves a MIXTURE of subversion, propaganda and military pressure aiming to persuade or INTIMIDATE the broad mass of people to accept a change.

I don't understand the question. If you can please explain so I can cast my answer....

Equally sickening is the blanket-bashing of all males! As far as I know, no one here is blaming the woman. Get a hold of your emotions for crying out loud....so you can understand what is being said here. Too bad, this topic could've had the opportunity at an enlightening, powerful, MATURE discussion related to the incident.... without the hysterical and senseless dramatics!

Harper must be a chess enthusiast. If it's true that he's macro-managing and doing all the decisions for his party....he's a truly brilliant man. He's playing his opponents like chess pieces. He gets them going where he wants them to go. He just stale-mated the Bloc....and backed Dion and Layton in a corner. The Libs and NDP want to label him as manipulative (I guess that's their confession that they got "manipulated"...meaning OUT-SMARTED). But that is an important skill as a leader. Let's face it, his job requires a lot of wheelin' and dealin' domestic-wise and foreign-wise. I'd be more assured having a leader who could calculatingly square-off with any leaders of any groups or nations....and not be just a posturing wimpy-ass who gets easily swallowed up...or out-smarted... by other ferocious and cunning foreign leaders. Look how he stood up to Chirac and other leaders in that convention when Harper insisted Israel victims be recognized too! Somehow I find it hard picturing Dion or Layton doing the same thing...instead they're most likely be tripping all over themselves trying to agree with Chirac, just so they can puff their chests back here and brag: well, Canada is recognized as an important part of the international community. I have a mental image of the Liberals and NDP starring in a survivor-type of reality tv. Their fire is reduced to just embers....and you see Layton and Dion both crouched desperately blowing to get it going, while the rest of their parties are all busy, furiously rubbing sticks. Give Harper more rope...the Libs and NDP will be dead meat.

The truth on 911 is coming out. Once it is exposed for all to see people will be seriously questioning his close relationship to George Bush, the US government, phoney war on terror, secret deals to sell away Canada under SPP and NAU. Don't hang your hopes too much on that Bush-strategy! It's getting too stale....even the journalists are shaking their heads. Even the Media isn't harping on it anymore...only the Liberals and the NDP.....because they're running out of "ammunition." Desperate, they're hanging on to every straw. Martha Hall Findley got stumped again by a man who apparently even has a beef with the federal government (can't remember his name but he's with a coalition of something). Martha was trying to show that Harper ads are very "attackish" whereas the Liberal ads will be positive. The guy replied , "well, apparently it's working for Harper." Martha sez, "you mean negative is much better than positive?" The man replied, "the Liberal ads had been known to be the most vicious in history. Harper is just fighting fire with fire." Martha said no more. Duffy praised the man for his equanimity given how he feels towards the government.

Sounds to me like you've become too influenced by radical feminists. Sounds to me like she is blamming the victim And no offense intended, but seems to me, this topic is USING THE VICTIM as a mean to rant off some big chips logged on someone's shoulder.

Sounds to me like you've become too influenced by radical feminists. Sounds to me like she is blamming the victim Blame is a very strong word. Let's say we're just trying to analyse the situation (how it could've been handled to avoid fatal results).....after all, no one knows how we'll react when faced with a very strong and stressful situation such as this, and we never know what's going on in that gunman's head. He may've been bent on killing the woman no matter what...or he may've just blew a major fuse. Heck, for all we know he may've just smoked a bit too much weed and was having a very bad trip! But it's true. It was already a very tensed situation (to say the least)....the gunman was most likely at a very high desperation scale, not mentioning the rage he was in (especially if it's a domestic dispute).... struggling at that moment was not the best option. With a gun to your head. Especially if help is on its way. Gee, how many cops died answering to calls of domestic dispute? Well, all we could do now is speculate. Just because somebody is dead doesn't mean she didn't make an unconscious error contributing to her death...nor is there anything wrong in pointing that out. I say "unconscious"...because maybe the woman was overcomed by fear and panicked.

According to MDuffy, the new decima poll yesterday states that the Conservatives are 6% ahead of the Liberals in Ontario......tie up alongside NDP and the Liberals among women and rural areas. Journalists are saying people are getting to know Harper...and are realizing there is nothing really scary about him. That if Harper keeps what he's doing....and waited for the fall to call an election....he can be assured of a majority. I think that a lot of thinking women are seeing through the Liberals and the NDP....that all this cahmpioning of women is all just posturing.

I read the link you've provided. The facts are: The witness tried to intervene, and was told to get out of the way. (So he did try....) The woman was struggling trying to get away from the gunman. (Would the situation turned out differently if she cooperated without any struggles, and waited for authorities to do the talking? After all, that's what law enforcers advice when you're faced with someone holding a gun to your head).

Because it's the sensible thing to do. Otherwise, the perp would've shot two people dead instead of one. So what's pregnant got to do with it? Being pregnant does not give a woman any higher privileged status than the rest of the population.....at least, not by today's radical feminists' standards! Especially according to them, that thing in her tummy isn't human anyway... There was a time not too long ago when "neanderthals" would risk all just to save females and children. Their safety above all else! The male moral code then was : women and children first! I bet if the witness interfered and got shot..........he'll be called a moron. And someone will be asking, "when will men grow up and stop trying to be stupid macho heroes? See? If he didn't rush in there maybe that poor woman would still be alive today!"

You could shop around too: refuse them as clients. Why should I refuse them for clients? I'm okay with the child...yes, he's a handful little bully...but it's nothing that I can handle. He's actually improved in the daycare. I've had kids a whole lot worst than him....some I've dropped! And by his granpa's experience with him, granpa knows how to handle him too. This child is playing his parents like violins! His problem is at home! And it won't be corrected unless mom and dad face up to reality instead of running away...hoping it will get better when he grows up. Mom and dad can't even get their stories straight...one opinion contradicts the other! In all my years involved in daycare I've seen some a whole lot worst than this little boy. A few years back, while I was under a GOVERNMENT-FUNDED daycare agency, this agency gave me three siblings (all boys) who were apparently kicked out from other fellow-home daycare providers working under this agency. The agency was desperate to place them....that they even decided to turn a blind eye knowing fully well that by placing them with me, I was going over the ratio of children allowed in a home daycare. The children were older 5, 7 and 9 years of age. I eventually gave them up too only after a couple of weeks with me. We're talking real trash talks, and violent display of play (pretend-stabbling with a toy utensil and outright bullying of the other children in the daycare)....and oh boy, when those brothers fought against one another it's real whackings! They were not bad all the time, but they definitely were a very bad influence on the others. I had to think of the others in my care...the younger ones were so intimidated. The latest news I've had about them, one just got out of jail. We felt sorry for them, they've had a tough life. Their mom (whom I've met and interviewed with) eventually skipped town and abandoned them with their dad, saying she couldn't handle the stress anymore.

Colicky kids are in pain? I didn't know that....I thought they just don't know why they do cry non-stop...I read an article advicing parents to leave the house to get a break from the crying kid. One of my previous parents said her baby used to be colicky, that they had to give her a ride in the car to settle her down.

In other words, it's all about the dollars? She'd rather stick her child in the daycare to get her money's worth. Btw, parents are paying for the space. I can only have so many children...why should my income suffer if a parent decides to keep her child at home for whatever reasons? If parents worry about paying for that, I guess they must worry about paying for holidays...and usually these types of parents are the type who'd load their child with tylenol to get that temperature down just so he can still be brought to the daycare (to hell with contaminating other children)...well, there are other daycares who don't charge for days the child is absent. I'd say they should go shop around to find somebody else. But to be fair, I firmly believe this mom that I have is not worried about the money. They are actually generous. It's not about the money for her....I think the child is just too stressful, for her and her husband.

Have you even been near a baby? A baby spends his days sleeping, some minor league playing, eating, poo-ing and pee-ing. If a baby cries....something is wrong! He's in pain, or hungry, or wet...etc.... that's how they communicate! But you might be talking about a colicky baby. The ones that cries non-stop. Yes, some do exists. A pair of earplugs and knowing when to tune him out is a must. Toddlers are a different story. That's why they need to be taught. That's how they learn. Or perhaps the daycare provider is to blame, considering they're spending the most time with the child. Possible. Some public daycares don't want to apply any discipline at all, what with probably part of union agreements and all, for fear of getting sued. Why, somebody I know was complaining that she got called from work to come to the daycare to handle her child who's having a fit! It depends on the caregiver...whether public or private. However, caregivers from public institutions got their "hands REALLY tied"....they dance by a lot of rules....and these rules are not all about discipline either. A loving caregiver with a real good knack in handling children in a public institution may not be able to fully demonstrate that prowess, even if she wants to. And that's partly the big point I'm trying to make. A daycare is NOT a parent! If you need or have to work for whatever reasons you may have....by all means, work! But at least, try to spend as much time with your child...and CRAM AS MUCH AS YOU CAN introducing and teaching your child to simple values (and this may definitely include arguing and butting horns with him...because just like any normal child, he thinks he knows everything!), and to have your child be as close to you (continuous bonding) as much as he can, to make up for those times you are not there! I know it's asking a lot of parents....but sorry, that's the main part of being a parent. That is your child....not the daycare's. If there's anyone who should love him more...and be concerned about his future more than anyone else.....it should be you. Daycares are just here to assist you. We're not here to fully take over your role! So, where does he equate in your priority list? In the early eighties, when I was working in an American daycare, children can only spend so much time MAXIMUM in our daycare. If I'm not mistaken, it's 10 hours. There is a reason for that: no matter how "homey" a daycare tries to be....it still is NOT HOME. And parents were strongly encouraged to spend time with their children. But of course, life was so different in the eighties.... Don't some parents sigh and say, "He's growing so fast. I want to enjoy him as much as I can"....well put yourself in that little boy's shoes. If he could only understand and formulate, he'll be saying, "I'm growing up fast. I want to enjoy the presence of mom/dad as much as I can....because once I start school...man, that's it for me. I'll only be seeing them when I'm home and awake!"

Definitely. Whole-heartedly agree.

My husband and I were at a restaurant. This child of about 3 0r 4 years of age was all over the place. Going from table to tabl....and his mom was keeping an eye on him....but seemed to be not really bothered by her son's activity. I guess she figures he's trying to be friendly, trying to chat people up as they eat. She must find him ohhhh so cute. He came to our table. We glared at him! And pronto, he retreated closer to mommy and didn't come anywhere near us again. We were not there to entertain the boredom of her child. I mean, why and how can children learn some manners, respect and consideration for others...when some parents are so full of themselves? If only children will be introduced to and learn at an early stage about the concept of showing some considerations and empathy for others.....just those two values alone.....the world will be in so much a better shape today!