Slavik44

well Then the fact that harper has gotten away with it speaks numbers about the incompetency of the other party leaders.

Ms that statement is a complete joke. Infact many of your statemnts have been a complete joke, that can sway depending on how the situation affects the NDP. A week or two ago I asked wether or not the green's would get a seet in B.C you said NO, you said their votes would end up going to the NDP. Now just the other night you found out the greens could win a seat that once was conservative, and yes thats right, your opinions of green party support changed. You make a ridiculous claim because you realize I have given you an acurate and logical response to your question, but you still want blood from the conservatives. But what I said was the truth, for women to gain poltical power they must get inolved in politics. It is a democracy and the more women stat playing the politcal game the more seats they will get. You seem to be suggesting that we over ride democracy, and legislate how political process in Canada should be run. Do you have an alternative to democracy? Considering you hate it so much? Democracy may not be perfect but it is however the best available option," Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." -Winston Churchill. This is what it comes down to, for democracy to work it takes involvement, if a particular group doesn't get involved they will not get as many people from there grouping in power. This is changing as more women get into politics and it will continue to change. But the Ideals of democracy that have kept the wheels of this country moving, will not. So you can take your anti-democracy B.S else where, it is nice to see YOUR secret agenda for once.

Harper won the debate by not losing, But the most impressive candidate up there in my opinion was gilles duceppe, perhaps because he had a smaller task, but given that english is his second language he was very impressive. I didn't see the first 30 minutes of the debate, so I can't honestly say he was overall the best but from what I saw, Harper was better then Martin and layton when it comes to national leaders.

well MS, Canada is a democracy and in most cases so are party nominations. So the only way for there to be more female candidates is if more females get invovled in politics. Parties are not ignoring the female voter, that would be a stupid move, as i said in most cases parties don't appoint their candidates, so getting more female candidates relies on females getting involved in politics more.

Well two image consultants were reviewing the debate, they bascialyl said martin looked Frantic, it looked like he was giving a speech not participating in a debate. they said the biggest problem with layton is he acted and looked to much like a car salesman, They said duceppe looked stern and thoughtfull, and Harper looked relaxed and more like a statesmen then any other. So to say Martin was poised goes agaisnt the experts.

If you watch Global T.V they have a little graph on the bottom about what viewers think of what the candidates are saying, and every time Mratin opens his mouth it goes into the negative, or strongly disagree, I won't base thsi on my opinion because obviously it is slightly biased to say Harper is doing the best. However the viewers have said overwhlemingly that Martin is the worst, people are more receptive to gilles duceepe's ideas then Martin's.

Headline: "Martin and Layton control the spread of west nile" Anyways i cant imagine to many birds dieing and i really think that is not a good enough reason to say no. Isee nothign wrong with replacing polluting facotries, as long as the alternative is within the same price range and is stable and reliable. I honestly see nothignw rong with using nuclear power it is relativley clean the only real environmental problem I suppose would be the disposal of the rods.

geting martin uncomfortable will be the key, harper is fairly good at looking relaxed, but if you can get Martin to the point where his behavior defeats himself the debate will be smooth riding. This strategy, of getting Martin to defeat himself, has worked well so far, so Harper should stick to it and let Martin do all the losing. As for layton potential voters will be on the left, so he should work at painting Martin as a right winger. duccppe should sit there, look pretty, and make sure to smile.

surre, Martin will be beat by the bloc, the Cons and NDP will basically stick to attakcing martin and both will pick up a few percentage points off of him.

Slavik44.......my quote is from the Ipsos-Reid website. Where is your from? lol, you

well we know what you think, but I belive it may be possible, you never know but the greens will be in the runing for the riding.

Perhaps conservatives appeal more to men then women, but Conservatives appeal jsut as much to women as anyother party. So perhaps we should ask why do other parties not appeal to men?

The same way we find contraband now, Slavik. Routine checks, suspicion of other things leading to searches, etc. That would be especially effective at border crossings. We will not catch every gun or illegal gun owner, just like we don't catch every shipment of heroin coming into the country. Having real penalties and acknowledging the problem is far more effective than making law-abiding cittizens suffer and giving ourselves a false sense of security that something is being done though. Well I see a problem with that, right away we acknowledge we won't catch every one. Next unlike herione guns would still be sold freely outside of urban areas, easy access. Unlike drugs the RCMP probabley does not have to many Gun sniffing dogs. I would also think it is easier to coneal a gun than say a couple kilos of herione. "of the 149 gun killings last year, handguns accounted for two-thirds" so we can assume we are trying to find easy to conceal weapons. So there are some flaws with that. which brings me to my next point. Do we need gun control? I mean does canada need gun control or do we see a problem in America and try to fix it in Canada? 149 gun killings last year, America had over 10,000 I think, thats a huge difference. Do we really need gun control. that with the costs of referendums, more police force, more training, hightend security at the borders, more equipment, it could easily topple 2 billion dollars. When Statistics tell us that anywhere from 200,000 to 250,000 people are homeless in Canada and who knows how many die each year. Statistics also tell us that "Patients have reason to be nervous. On May 8, the National Post reported that "an estimated 10,000 Canadians die every year as a result of preventable mistakes in hospitals". While gun control may be something to talk about we may be better off spending are time and moeny preventing homelessness and preventing needless deaths in hospitals. Infact perhaps if we cut down on poverty and homelessness we would reduce the amount of gang members and because of this reduce the amount of gun deaths. Just soemthing you may want to think about; perhaps there are better more assured ways to save lives? Besides Knives are use din homicides more then Guns, and since the gun registry was put in palce there has been an increase in stabbings, perhaps a link?

no sorry I am afriad to say that this is a media spin it is a half truth. This is why.... What we are told is that 38% of men say they will vote conservative 30% of women say they will vote conservative Then upoun this they tell us how, the conservative aprty apeals to men, it is a party for male supremisicts and what not. However they don;t give you any real substance or true comparions. To compare how a party appeals to women compare it to other parties not men. then you would find Conservatives: 30% of female voters Liberals: 33% of female voters NDP: 19% of female voters BQ: 13% of female voters GP: 5% of Female voters Now do you see anyone argueing that the conservatives appeal more to women then the NDP? Now that may nto be a fair arguement but that is what the media is giving you when they present the information. I woudl really encourage you to dig deeper and look at the source not just the article. At the Source you will find that the ocnservative and Liberals are within 3% of each other for Female voters, the margin of error its self is about 3%. So the Liberals do not neccasarily appeal more to women then the conservatives do. If we continued to use the media's way of presenting this we could argue that the Liberals are an Atlantic Canadian party. That agian is simply not true, much like the arguements used about conservatives and women the appeal to women jsut as much as the liberals. Here is the polling data for you guys to look at if you want, draw your own conclusions, do not just say the media said it, so it must be true, evne if they give you some numbers, look at all the numbers, not jsut soem of the numbers. http://www.ekos.com/admin/articles/11June2...essReleaseb.pdf

how would you find the gun? It seems like the easiest quetion to answer but, with the amount of cvillian liberties and rights canada has, you would start runing into problems with "fruit of the poisonous vine" and what not. As people do not walk around openly with guns where would we find them? Simply take a list of people from the gun registry and decide to search their house? Search their work place? School lockers? Place of worship? Car? bag? Purse? Their has to be an adequate reason to initiate the search and unfortunantely, "The guy had a beer gut and a banadna" Wouldn't cut it.

Well I live in an urban area, and there are guns in my hosue, but it isn't to feel secure, it is for hunting. As for your suggestion, i will use vanocuver as an example. Say we ban all guns in Vancouver, we force people to pay to have their guns stored outside city limits. We would then have to regulate the gun storage market, and make sure it is in line. next logically we would have to ban bullets beig gsold within the city as well. As you can easily make a homemade dispossable gun. Furthermore many hunters make their own bullets, that two would need to be illegal aswell. now you can imagine all the regulations and work that woudl be required. I mean look at how much effort we put into controlling pot, that is the biggest reason to de-criminalize 5 grams or so. to take the load of the police. Doing this would be 50 times harder to maintain and make work. Beyond that i woudl ahve to assuem that the cost woudl be astronomical. Your biggest problem is you base thsi on the theory that we own guns to be safe. I honestly do not belive Canadains own guns to be safe. Another point would be the fact that criminals are very good at hiding gun's/stashing guns, meanign again we may jsut take guns out of the hands fo people we don't need to. While I applaud your thought, I must say it is not practical, and most likely not possible to implement.

No it is not that i don't like you, i don't even, truley, know you. Just trying to proove a point, that how a person types, should not determine how we discriminate agaisnt waht is said.

"wake-up call!! you need a quotation mark on the end of wake up call, it reflects very poorly on you and leads me to belive you are a complete idiot and have no idea what you are talking about. Please take the time to put some thought into your post next time.

Sorry i can't help but notice how hipocritcal you are. You lecture me in one post about how you must face the facts, and think about what you post. but you refuse to face the fact that the NDP, as of now, will not get enough seets to hold the balance of power. Infact even if the NDP got 50 seats the majority of them would most likely come from the liberals, meanign it would still be hard to see the NDP and the Liberals, as of now, forming a majority coalition.

Stop putting words in my mouth, please. I never said I coulnd't or didn;t think with my head, i said i posted with my heart. meaning i sincerley belive what I post and i do think to back up what I post, to insinuate that I don't is a laod of crap, but I first and foremost follow my heart and then use my head to back it up. I still ask you to give me the statemnt where harper said he would ban abortion, yet you have not confronted this and you ahve not proven me wrong. You continue to put words in my mout, mis interpret what i say, or just completly ignore it because of my typing skills. It seems to be that you are the one who needs to do soem thinking before he posts, where is your proof that harper wants to ban abortion, that was the question that started this whole thing. So far no one ahs answered it, no oen has adressed it, why? If you have such un deniable proof that he wants to, show it to me. If nto do not accuse me of not thinking when I post, because I am capable of thinking and following my heart, and I do. All I am askign is that people give me a little respect and instead of critisizing my typing, answer my questions. If that is to much to ask, the perhaps those who refuse to do so, are the ones who ar ein for a rude awekening. I too (look I even added a double "o" for you guys) can think of many perfect scenarios, but they are nto aplicable. if you search through my posting history you will realize I have never brought them up. To assume I sit here and see a utopian society under stephen harper is very niave of you. To assume i sti here and belvie I know the light to make the whole world join hads, is very niave of you. To assuem that I follow my heart only is again very niave of you. To sot harper will ban abortiona nd not back it up with fact, and acuse me of not being able to think with my head, is downright hipocritical and un acceptable.

Technically if you hold an opinion you can be classified into a group of people holding a simlar opinion, I do not calssify people in accordance of my beliefs but in accordance to their beliefs. I belvie Alliance Fanatic is a right winger, not because we agree with each other alot, but because his views are right wing. I Do not classify Maplesryup as a left winger because we disagree, I classify him as a left winger because his views are left wing. To say you are neither is nice on paper but not true, your views may be sporadic, but your views on one particular situation will lean either left or right. Of course I am an un educated dislexic so I guess my opinions don't count, i guess we must measure people by their education. So often people talk about how conservatives want to eliminate peoples rights and discriminate against them based on certain factors, I don't know if you have said this, but if you have, I would like you to plainly outline what you belive.

But I do post from my heart, if i post from my head what I post is meaningless, for me to post it has to have meaning, and if it has meaning to me and matters to me in my heart, that is mor eproof then anything that i care greatly about what i say. It comes from my heart because I care.

sure when people post degrading comments about spelling instead of concentrating on the arguement and addressing it, the quality has gone down. i remeber my first posts here, I was argueing about how we shoudl not be America's lap dogs, my typing was 1,000 times worse then but no rightwinger tried to tell me how to spell they were able to converse on the subject. So sure it has gone down, doesn't mean it can't go up. Plus it is election tiem so things will get alittle more out of order, it is to be expected.

Uber. It's usually around here: when you can't correct the arguement, attack the writer. I'm returning the favours from now on. hey I wasn't attacking you, I was asking you to support your arguements. If you want to be an asshole go ahead, but it just ruins the forums. If you have a problem with my arguement, then let me know, don't be a jerk about it. If you know my arguement to be wrong then prove me wrong. Tha tis the purpose of these forums, not to post degrading comments about my typing skills, when you have nothing better to say.