Slavik44

I am sure they will, but seeing as how we already have posts claiming the CPC has lost the race, I felt it would be fair to indicate that the race has just started and its a draw, certainly not over for anyone yet.

Poll Looks like the polls are starting to show more and more that this will not be an easy election, with both the Liberals and CPC tied at 31%. Another bright note for the CPC is that they clock in only 2% below the Liberals in Ontario (37% to 35%). But the real question is wether or not the Conservatives can keep this success going, as they tend to have a problem of sliding down in the polls after they match the liberals.

Why is this a bad move on harpers part??? Support for gay marriage law: Quebec 62 Ontario 56 B.C. 53 Atlantic 48 Alberta 41 Man./Sask. 39 Opposed to new definition: Alberta 62 Sask./Man. 62 Atlantic 46 Ontario 43 B.C. 43 Quebec 39 Theoreticaly speaking if harper made the election a referendum on SSM, the NDP, Liberals, and bloc would be left fighting over about 55% of the vote. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Both crimes are just as wrong but the penalty for them should be different because the situation surrounding the crimes is different. In one case the crime was commited because you were gay, it was motivated solely by the fact that the person was gay. The person who commited the crime saw you come out of a gay bar got so enraged that he killed you. On the other hand the second crime you described could have occured because you were caught cheating at a poker game and the guy lost his last pay check because of it. See the fact is that hate can be motivated by different things, perhaps you were murderd for money, perhaps you were killed for love...but the fact is you were not killed solely because you were a part of a minority community, and you death does not signify a warning of I am out to get you. In the second case the murder was for personal reasons in the first case the murder was motivated not only be more public reasons but worked as a message to incite fear with in the gay community.

Really???? is that so, cause you know I think you might be wrong. Just an inkling, but what do you suggest, that any Parent who has a child with FAS gets 5 years in prison, cause you know every one knows they are pregnant within ten seconds of conception, so clearly anyone who has a baby born with FAS, drank alcohol with the full knowledge that they were pregnant. You know I just don't think so. Sure Maybe we could introduce a bill that states after having sex you must be strapped to a chair and monitored 24/7 for three weeks and if you are found to be pregnant your must remain for the remainder of the pregnancy, if not...well you will be back in a day. Of course we don't really know when everyone is having sex...so in every Bedroom, bathroom, backseat, and kitchen(hey thats where sex starts right) we can place a sentry. Other than that, what do you propose to ensure no women can drink alcohol while pregnant??? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Posting responses with such faulty logic only hurts the credibility of the poster - it definitely doesn't damage the point I put forward. I notice that the part you clipped in my original post was: Of individuals with FAE between the ages of 12 and 51, · 95% will have mental health problems; · 68% will experience trouble with the law; · 55% will be confined in prison, drug or alcohol treatment centre or mental institution; · 52% will exhibit inappropriate sexual behaviour http://www.fasworld.com/facts.ihtml I consider that to be serious child abuse. Manitoba tried to lock up a pregnant glue sniffer a few years ago to protect the unborn child. (That woman had already produced damaged babies.) The system lost. Last year I had a pregnant tenant in my suite who was stoned daily on crack cocaine. I went to the police and social services. The police said they could not do anything under the law; social services said they would take the baby away after it was born - and they did... Is it just me that believes ruining a child's life before it comes out of the womb to be disgusting??? How in the world can any caring individual think otherwise??? . <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong again. First off I did not clip out the stats as a way to avoid them, and your inferences that I did are simply false. I clipped out those stats because at previous times when I posted here I recieved a number complaints, some about my spelling and others about how I needlessly quoted huge documents when a couple sentences would suffice. Infact I was told that needlessly quoting text was more offensive than saying Fuck You to a poster, being the polite person I am I am not going to say "Fuck You gord" and I certainly wouldn't want to be more offensive than that so I simply cut out a portion of the text that took up alot of space to avoid complaints. My intention was not to avoid the statistics just keeping more post down to a more managable size. Secondly, while you can consider those statistics child abuse, I do not know how many cases of FAS were caused by people not knowing they are pregnant. Lets face it it takes a while for people to find out. As well it hasn;t been until recently that scientific advancement has tuaght us about nutritional practices and therefore there could be a lag time in statistics, the statistics obviously are following children who must be atleast 18 years old. Therefore we are looking at a society from 20 years ago, not today and 20 years ago was well 20 years ago and in 20 years alot has changed. In your haste what you have done infact is use present day information to draw and quater a parent from the 1970's and 1980's. It is then very hard for any rational person to cast judgement that all or even most cases of FAS are caused by evil parents. When there are many factors surrounding the situation that would prohibt such a judgement from being made. Although a very serios matter none the less you are using it out of context as a means to advance a political smearing. Of this you should be ashamed of yourself, what you ahve done is not further the cause of suffering children you have used suffering children to further your own cause, and that is dispicable. These children are not the priority of your post but a casualty of your post you have used them to make inciteful remarks agaisnt the Liberal party of Canada. to be honest with you, I fell that if you truly cared about the children you should have made a non-partisan and non-sensationalist thread about what the government could and should do to stop this very serious problem. But Instead you refused to take the high road or the moral road, you used it to launch a sensationalist attack, shame on you. As for the manitoba case, it is just that a case, meaning one, you know before two and after zero. As you might have gathered I am not one who is into this whole sensationalism binge the canadian media has put us on. One case is not enough to base a whole arguement, niether is two or three cases. There are thousands and thousands of babies born every year in Canada, and of that you can pick out one case of abuse, one case of failure??? And based on this you are going to call a whole political party a bunch of prostitute loving, child hating, daughter fuckers???? As for your story, it remains just that a story, we are on an onlien message board, I can tell stories about anything. I coudl tell people last night I saw you sodomizing a thirteen year old boy and therefore you are a hipocrite. But the fact is I can't actually proove it...it is plain and simple hearsay, and just like sensationalism I am not willing or interested in making an arguement based on hearsay or allowing someone else to make such an arguement. For someone who remarked about my faulty logic I feel I must remind you about throwing stones while living in a glass house. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow you are a very Liberal person, I never would have guessed, or is it that you just liberaly interpret laws you don't like so as to give yourself an avenue to attack them???? Because what bill C-250 did was include sexual orientation under hate crimes. If you look at previous cases of hate crimes you would find your worries to be expelled. For instance I will use James Keegstra(simply because I have it infront of me) A quick background woudl be that in this case an Albertan teacher told his students that the holocaust never happend, he was charged with commiting a hate crime. He applied to the queens bench to have the charge dismissed on the gorunds that it violated his freedom of expression under S. 2( of the charter. This request was denied, he was tried and convicted. On his appeal his arguements were accepted. The reason for their acceptance was that In other words unless your speech incites violence against the gay community you have nothing to worry about, you will not be held criminally responsible. You can write a newspaper and say you do not support homosexual marrige or even homosexual acts. You are still free to do so, under the condition that you don't write P.S next monday at seven we should meet at McDonalds with some guns and go kill gay people. Just like, as has been demonstarted, you can say the holocaust never hapened. The Precedent has been set that as long as your speech or writing does not incite violent acts it is not a hate crime. Personally my values and apparently the values of the Liberal party do not include protecting someones right to incite violence.

Which could play to her advantage and the advantage of the CPC, a silent backbencher is a CPC wet dream. Generally speaking when a backbencher gets noticted it tends to be for all the wrong reasons.

why is it always 50 year olds? You know just as well as I do that 99.9% of 14 year olds are not interested in having sex with a 50 year old, infact the 50 year old most likely to take advantage of your 14 year old...would be her father. Why are you playing number games??? If I change it to 25 year olds having consensual (???) sex with 14 year olds, does your position remain the same??? The Liberals made a coalition with the NDP and Bloc to oppose every effort to date by the Conservative Party of Canada to raise the Age of Consent from 14 years to at least 16 years. The Liberals are leaving children unprotected by law from sexual predation by adults. this is pure unequivocal bullshit. Sexual predation is illegal, if I rape your 14 year old daughter or commit any act of sexual harrasment she is protected by law. If am incessently stalking your daughter she could also file a restraining order, again she is protected by law from sexual predation, because sexual predation is illegal. Bullshit??? Maybe you are right - I will immediately change my position from "sexual predation" to "sexual manipulation" The definition of manipulation is: http://www.wordreference.com/definition/manipulation or: http://www.answers.com/topic/manipulation The rest of your responses are easy to counter. But nice try to deflect that Liberal values are NOT Canadian values... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> than go right ahead and counter them, lets hear your arguements, its one thign to say I can counter them...it is another to actually do so...and when you do I will counter them no problem.

Score a few for the moral panic button and gross misrepresentation of the facts... why is it always 50 year olds? You know just as well as I do that 99.9% of 14 year olds are not interested in having sex with a 50 year old, infact the 50 year old most likely to take advantage of your 14 year old...would be her father. this is pure unequivocal bullshit. Sexual predation is illegal, if I rape your 14 year old daughter or commit any act of sexual harrasment she is protected by law. If am incessently stalking your daughter she could also file a restraining order, again she is protected by law from sexual predation, because sexual predation is illegal. Can't say it is the career option I want for my children but so what it should be my responsibility to ensure that they don;t end up as a prostitute, as Chris rock says you know when your kid is a stripper you fucked up. Not the government, but you yourself. On an aside Prostitution itself has never been illegal in Canada so you cannot decriminalize something that is not illegal. You can however loosen the laws that have placed restrictions on prostitution. The young offenders act no longer exists Really???? is that so, cause you know I think you might be wrong. Just an inkling, but what do you suggest, that any Parent who has a child with FAS gets 5 years in prison, cause you know every one knows they are pregnant within ten seconds of conception, so clearly anyone who has a baby born with FAS, drank alcohol with the full knowledge that they were pregnant. You know I just don't think so. Sure Maybe we could introduce a bill that states after having sex you must be strapped to a chair and monitored 24/7 for three weeks and if you are found to be pregnant your must remain for the remainder of the pregnancy, if not...well you will be back in a day. Of course we don't really know when everyone is having sex...so in every Bedroom, bathroom, backseat, and kitchen(hey thats where sex starts right) we can place a sentry. Other than that, what do you propose to ensure no women can drink alcohol while pregnant???

Social Libertarian 13.6% Economical Authoritarian 36.4%

No but it seems like we could be talking about a football game where you are down 20-23 at half time, as all that is required is to ask to die, two times in ten days, no doctors neccasary buckshot will do. Common, if the terminally i'll want to go, let them, but if your 18 year old son's girlfriend broke up with him and he is so heart broken to the point that he requests to die 2 times in ten days, should I grab my gun and shoot him for you, or will you put him out of his never ending missery? I think it is more scary that we are willing to treat people like dogs. Where even when they are perfectly healthy, we can get them shot, maybe we could get them stuffed at a taxedermist aswell? The original post I saw made no mention of the terminally ill, just someoen over 18, no doctor is neccasary to make the assessment. IF we want some liberalization of Euthanasia go for it, but we need more boundaries then 18 years old. Unless the rest of the bill contains these boundaries, and they were not posted, although I would want a doctor to be one of those boundaries.

I love how we ahve goen from the topic of Canada having 4 of the top 100 universities in the world, to bashing liberal arts majors, but with some people that seems to be a hobbie. Of course sometimes there is an expressed ignorance of a what a Liberal arts course entails, an exageration of the truth, or a common myth, like describing geography courses as trivial pursuit, an dLiberal arts courses as just plain trivial. For instance Argus calaimed that... Understandign the formulas was key, where as a history course was memorizing what happens, Bullshit. I can say with all honesty in the four history courses I have taken I have never once written down an exact date on any of my mid terms or final tests, because as every history teacher stresses the date is not important. On essays the question is not what happend and when, but why did it happen, what did it happen for, not what was the American revolution, but why was their an American revolution. there is a distinct difference between the two. Infact memorizing who created pastries is not at all important but being able to answer why he created pastries and what the significance of the pastry was is important. Well actually I don't think there is significance to the pastry, although it does taste good, but the principle applies, to everything you have learned. History is not to Know when Mussolini invaded abyssinia now called ethopia, it is to understand why the Fuck he wanted to invade a piece of sand in Africa in the first place. If anythign a Liberal arts course is exactly what you fault it on not possesing. It is understanding why event X happened and the significance of event X and how it relates to event Y, to simplyfy it. If we are going to critisize Liberal arts lets start on a fair ground here, people who say mussolini did this, Fail the class...it is not about what he did and why he did it, and maybe if you weren't taking the remedial history of 15th century foods in college you would have learned that m8t. -------------------------------------------------------------------- So argus says he has met some Liberal arts majors who became clerks, so now the majority of Liberal arts majors are clerks???? That is a stretch. What if I told you Bruce lee was a philosophy majors, does that mean I can claim most philosophy majors will be superstars? No, I am sure you will argue that it means some Arts majors become Clerks well so what. I met a buisness major who flunked out of a first year history class, I met a biology major who did the same, in the end all of these wild generalisations mean nothing. Argus might have said this, but Argus is not God, I suppose takign those valuable edumacation courses have taught you to accept everything you hear, what a waste of a good mind. As far as having to many professionals living in a Knowledged based economy, having people who know how to learn at the very least is advantageous, and if that is the least they get out of four years of school, then so be it. Besides that it seems to be that alot of managers I have met simply look for a degree, not a specific degree, no gurantee this is representative but that it is somethign to think about. I would say Business majors are just wasting there time as well. I fyou don't belive me pick up a paper, Almost No one is looking for a buisness major, they are looking for a manager with 2 years expirence...the degree is not the central hinge to being hired, it is the expirence. Which leads me to wager we don't need more money spent on buisness schools, but more time spent looking at Co-op programs at buisness schools. As well Who determines wether or not Liberal arts students contribute to society, you explicity stated, that we should not be wasting resources on people who will not use those resources to contribute back to society. Well actually they are...In America (no Canadian statistics) Some one with a Bachelors degree earns 55% more than someone with a high school degree...So someone with a degree is generally contributing more back to society than a high school graduate. So they are puttign those resources to use, masters degree sits at 98% more and a PHD at 161% and a professional degree at 208%, so all across the board people who go to university as a rule contribute more back to society. Another point to argue is Raising tuition and decreasing university enrollment, why? I woudl argue if we want the best of the best of the best, of the best, and so on, we shoudl want a good screening pool. If we want the best people to be doctors, we want more people in university to compete for spots in med school after 3-4 years, Or for spots in Masters degrees. Given Canada's current state of education I don't think we can screen out people for future careers at the ages we screened people out a century or two centruies ago. There are alot of people succesfull in a college environment who were not in a high school enivronment and vice versa. In reality it is not up to you to argue where hte money is and where it isn't and to determien that your degree, what ever it is, will be more valuable then another degree. Unless you are getting a degree in engineering or pharmacy...you will be prretty well on even grounds with a History Major (which most consider the lowest of the lows) E.X Earnings by major examples amongst Male Populations in America: Economics: $36,000 History: $30,418 Math: $36,828 Psychology: $30,457 Buisness: $34, 938 Biology: $33,129 Pharmecy: $48,979

Your Type is ENTP by Marina Margaret Heiss "Clever" is the word that perhaps describes ENTPs best. The professor who juggles half a dozen ideas for research papers and grant proposals in his mind while giving a highly entertaining lecture on an abstruse subject is a classic example of the type. So is the stand-up comedian whose lampoons are not only funny, but incisively accurate. ENTPs are usually verbally as well as cerebrally quick, and generally love to argue--both for its own sake, and to show off their often-impressive skills. They tend to have a perverse sense of humor as well, and enjoy playing devil's advocate. They sometimes confuse, even inadvertently hurt, those who don't understand or accept the concept of argument as a sport. ENTPs are as innovative and ingenious at problem-solving as they are at verbal gymnastics; on occasion, however, they manage to outsmart themselves. This can take the form of getting found out at "sharp practice"--ENTPs have been known to cut corners without regard to the rules if it's expedient -- or simply in the collapse of an over-ambitious juggling act. Both at work and at home, ENTPs are very fond of "toys"--physical or intellectual, the more sophisticated the better. They tend to tire of these quickly, however, and move on to new ones. ENTPs are basically optimists, but in spite of this (perhaps because of it?), they tend to become extremely petulant about small setbacks and inconveniences. (Major setbacks they tend to regard as challenges, and tackle with determin- ation.) ENTPs have little patience with those they consider wrongheaded or unintelligent, and show little restraint in demonstrating this. However, they do tend to be extremely genial, if not charming, when not being harassed by life in general. In terms of their relationships with others, ENTPs are capable of bonding very closely and, initially, suddenly, with their loved ones. Some appear to be deceptively offhand with their nearest and dearest; others are so demonstrative that they succeed in shocking co-workers who've only seen their professional side. ENTPs are also good at acquiring friends who are as clever and entertaining as they are. Aside from those two areas, ENTPs tend to be oblivious of the rest of humanity, except as an audience -- good, bad, or potential. ----------------------------- anyways cool test I think it nailed argus, I mean supervisor Gurdian...even sounds like a conservative party hack.

So how much money am I gonna get $1-$2....it remineds me of the time I jokingly tried to bribe me economics teacher for an A+ with twenty bucks, however I don't think the liberals realise what a joke this is, $133 bucks on average, obviously for some more for some less, so lucky me I can put 10 liters of gas in my car. now I am of the opinion that I should never turn down money, especailly my money, so I wont, but eh, if it can't buy a tank of gas, it won't give their campaign for a majority government any feul either.

But ID is not "at a stage" where it cannot be scientifically tested: it can never be scientifically tested. Unles sthey can come up with soem evidence showing an actual designer, it wil remain a "god in the gaps" theory. Put another way: things that may appear to be by design are not evidence of a designer. You can't base a theory on an unprovable inference. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> and if you read my post as a whole you would have noticted... "even if it could be plausible, it is useless as a science because in its current state it is unfalsiable, all we can rely on is God comming to the earth again to tell us, listen fuckers I created you" I never in my post guranteed that it would get out of that stage, I just described what it would need to do, to get out of it, wether or not it can is another question. I could sit back and describe what I would need to do to play in the NHL, but that doens't mean I said one day I will play in the NHL.

I think most people here no that I do belive in some form of intellegint design, and if you don't, you do now. But I also belive that Intellegint design is not at a stage where it can be taught in the classroom. ID in its current state is like evolution before darwin. Many people theororized it but no one could really grasp it or explain the intrecacies or mechanisims of it. Likewise I.D is in its infant stages, it doesn;t have a repreoire that we can teach or learn, until we can gather more teach then in the begining God created the heavens and the Earth, it cannot be taught in a science classroom, even if it could be plausible, it is useless as a science because in its current state it is unfalsiable, all we can rely on is God comming to the earth again to tell us, listen fuckers I created you, this is how I did it. That isn't something we can take seriously, that is not to say we cannot seriously belive it, but it is to say that it is in its infancy, we don't allow 2 week old babies to go to school, and we shouldn't allow the equivalent in theories. We didn't teach evolution in school for a very long time, until it gained some legitimizing factors and acceptance. Likewise we should somehow attempt to get some stock behind intellegint design, if we are to one day truthfully talk about its presence in a science class room. I suppose in this sense God has given I.D theororists (the few that exist) a gift, millions of people willing to waste hours critisizing their information, and that is where I.D belongs, using the gift it has been given, and answering such critisicms if or once it gets past that stage, then we can talk about I.D in the class room. But we should not allow ideology and ideoluges to control what goes on in the classroom. Simply put we shouldn;t teach I.D in the classroom, because it is not at a stage where it can be taught. It is not at a stage where it can be truly reviewed or viewed in an empiracal sense. There is no law that says that it cannot be debated in the class room, I remember some of my friends were in a class in my highschool school and they spent one class debating evolution, the big bang, and intellegint design, such things do happen in the class, and they are not prohibited. But for a teacher to stand up and teach intelligent design, I say simply it is not at that stage yet, it needs to be first devloped outside the class room, to an acceptable standard.

but he held off an invasion in Canadain territory all by himself, okay so it was a burgler in his house...but its the closest we have come to winning a war all by our selves since like forever.

Perhaps if you Practice Racisim in your hiring policies...all you will get out of it, is more Racisim....Maybe Racisim is not the answer to ward off Rascism. If you go out and look for indo-canadian officers specifically to fill a quota to ensure Indo-Canadains have a voice in the police force. It sends a message to the indo Canadians you hire, that they are not police officers, but liasons between the Police Force and their ethnic group, or more like defenders of their ethnic group. That will create even more conflict. So why not just go out and hire some public liasons, improve the ability of the police force to respond to complaints, and ensure that they do thouroughly investigate claims of abuse wether rascism, assault, or violation of constitutional rights..it seems to be as though lodging a complaint against the local police could very well be a long ardous process that most likely has little return. Perhaps we should change that. I do not belive the Answer lies in making the police force a confederacy of rival gangs that act first and foremost as ethnic protectors, rather then public protectors. Yes we most stop Rasicism in the Police Force, but we must do that through transparency, not through infighting and mutually assured Ass Kickings, or creating the possibility where you could let a brother off the hook that is walking a very fine and dangerous line.

Can someone tell me how dominant african countries are in the olympics? I'll tell you ethopia top african country 7 medals. I guess the first thing people will say is that clearly that is the power of money, or is it? Does money have the power to over rule genes? Is a rich white athlete better then a poor black athlete. Is there a reason why Afro-Americans and Afro-Europeans...are better then Africans? Is it the money or is it the genetics? What do I mean, evolution, take two very different specimens from the same species and breed them generally their off-spring may be consider to have better genes, then two similar specimens fromt eh same species. Could genetics then be used to explain the dominance of African Americans in sport? Clearly Way back when alot of africans must have a white slave master in their blood lines, If Tohmas Jefferson did it, I am sure others did it as well. How about selective importation, I might be being a little crude here, but are immigrants normally the poor dying starving people from third world country's? Or do we normally weed out the "genetic crap" other countries have to offer, allowing only the best Asains into our country. For instance if we had a debate contest and invited 970 random people from colleges across canada, and then went and selected only students with a 4.0 GPA from America...and found that 20 of our top 50 finishers came from America. Now does that mean anything? No because we expect that to happen...we selected the educated elite to compete agaisnt a random group of students. Perhaps we ahve a trivia contest and invite 999 random people from canada and ken jennings...statistically Ken Jennings has a 1/1000 chance of winning, realistically...he has already won. So when asains do well in North America is it because all asains are better and smarter, or because our immigration systems is designed to find Ken Jennings, not average Joe. I am not try to be a rascist, I am not trying to be an ass, I am just wondering if perhaps we are not considering all options. If perhaps there is a ground between, its the culture, or its the genes...perhaps its in the history and perhaps its in the system of this world.

Now tell me how many people said Al gore just so bush wouldn;t have become president??? Anyways seing as hwo BBM wants so action in his thread....I will through three names in, unfortunantley two of them are just losers of the presidential race that I gained some level of respect for during my American history courses. 1. Henry Clay , hey he lost the presidential election more then F.D.R won it, I think...and after seeing overheads put up daily showing this guy lossing...I really started to feel sorry for the poor guy, but beyond that I really got the impression that he was a central figure in American politics during a critical time in the nation, and I do belive that history may have been very different had he not existed. 2. Robert LaFollette, another third party progressive candidate who ran in one presidential election, and lost. He was a man of his convictiosn and he stuck to them...wether you agree or disagree you can't help but somewhat respect that. But other then just being a third party candidate he did have expirence in government as a very popular and succesfull govenor. 3. John nance garner, okay I am only saying this because off the top of my head he is the only VP I truly remember and thats just because he compared the vice presidency to a steaming glass of piss.

A while ago I remember readin apolish joke (I know I am ashamed to admit myself) that went somethign along the lines of, How do you take over the polish...make them a country and wait. This also seems to apply very well to the conservatives...you just need to make them one big party and wait. To say that some one paid to have this poll conducted for the sole purpose of making the conservatives look bad is as laughable as the Conservative Party themselves. Its a waste of money they do not need any help looking bad, disunified, or out of sync, they do a great job by themselves. The Conservatives are making all the wrong mooves at all the wrong times. Its Like watching the Coyote in those road runner cartoons, with his stregnth, technological superiority, and endless bank account, every attempt to take down the road runner, results in an anvil being dropped on his head or a big explosion. It is very odd that you want to bring up failed attempts to bring down the Martin government, as glaring examples of layton's loss of credibility when infact it was the biggest blunder Harper could have made, he was cross eyed and though his Ace high was a four of a kind...and got beat by an astute political move by Martin and his staff. Here harper is bangign on his cage like a caveman for an election, and martin turns right around and says, its all yours after the gomery report is released. What does Harper do, continue on his path to destruction, in the publics eyes he can no longer justify a summer election, and his polling starts to drop. But just like the coyote he has already lit the fuse to his rocket and sails right into a cliff, a public who is willing to wait for an election, and a parliment now in agreement with them. After that he gets smacked by an anvil the size of Gurmant Grewal, while trying to get into his sheeps clothing(visa vie Harper extreme make over eddition), for his next attack. The person who lost the most in the fiascal was Harper. Paul Martin got through it, thats been his life story...he gets by. Duceppe, well he isn't in contention for prime minister and unless he started drinking molson Canadian he can do what he wants. Layton...was able to play both sides of the coin and come out perfectly fine, with his loyal 19. It has now been three months since the CPC had Martin written off and the coronation plans set, and they have yet to be recusatated. Perhpas they might be when the gomery report comes out, but that will not be enough. Two times the conservatives have depended on the Liberals to defeat themselves, and two times the conservatives have defeated themselves, yet you and so many other conservatives still belive it will happen. Even if the Liberals don't deserve to be in power there has to be someone to take it from them, not some one praying to God 24/7 that the liberals will hand it to them on a golden platter, stop being so niave. The conservatives are the disaster of 2005, and the have let canadians down by not being the party to unseat the liberals. It pains me every time I read a post that exalts the conservatives as the party to unseet the liberals, when they are unseating themselves as official opposition, hopping the Liberals will just up and walk out. It saddens me more to see the conservatives continually using the tried and failed method to defeat the liberals, then the fact the liberals are in power. A party that stupid is too incompetent to run a family of one, let alone a country, and it is this that continues to paint the conservatives in a bad light. Not some possible poll out of 15, that the liberals or maybe the NDP, or maybe the block, may have spent $6,000 on, to maybe try and paint the Conservatives in a bad light. Maybe it is actually time to admit the truth, The conservatives have been killing themselves very loudly with their song, end of story.

I don't normally post on here that much anymore but this title people have given him really annoys me. Why is it that he has to be the man who saved the liberals, that is such a lame way to describe this guy. He would better described as the politician who got it right. When talkign about politics and politicians almost everyone in canada is cynical, adopting the attitude that the only difference between a politician and a bucket of shit is the bucket. Gurment Grewals popularity has dropped faster then the value of enron stocks, and former B.C premier and current health minister dosanjh is about as popular as Israel during rammadan. Paul Martin is once seen as the guy who connected with the voters, now he looks about as capable of doing his job as homer simpson at the power plant, Meanwhile Stephen Harper still holds a striking resemblance to Mr. Burns. It seems like out of all the politicians in Canada Chuck Cadman was one who stood out as a bright spot amongst the bunch of thieves, crook, and mobsters, blowing air on parliment hill. But amongst all of that people have to go and label him as that dude who saved the liberals, hell he did that, but he is also the dude that people trusted...Which makes him the politician who got it right, common give this guy just a bit of the respect he deserves.

Technically I think the christian heaven would be the easiest to get into, peace of cake...as it does nto neccasarilly require a Life of great deeds...apparently just two or three words...and being the lazy person I am well I draw the line at four words.

yeah it has been tossed around however, I think greg felt it just would not be possible.

Obviously Paul Martin didn;t get the memo...

Okay I am gonna run this down nice and slowly for you, Teachers who say that are attempting to be humurous. In many cases being a university professor makes you the top of your field. For instnace History, the best you can do in the field of history is be a university professor, if you ahve a P.H.D in history and are not teaching than you are a failure, when your teaching your a success. The same applies for numerous subjects at school, in many cases the best paying Jobs with the best hours and the highest level of prestige are at universities. Maybe with Lawyers, Engineers, Buisness majors, and Accounting majors what you say may have a grain of truth to it, but on the flip side, 90% of courses from anthropology to Zoology the top of your field is at a university. You can fix that by electing Belinda Stronach...

http://www.vancouvertelevision.com/topnews...20050419-04.htm Well this is one of a few polls I have seen as of late that shows the B.C Liberals with a solid lead over the NDP, it looks as though they have rebounded in the past few months, so what do you guys think...will the Liberals maintain the lead to election day?