Murray B.

What if the government apprehends an insurrection? Can they continue in those circumstances? Would the legions of law abiding gun owners in B.C. become a problem if the government continued without a vote for too long? See, the gun registry makes perfect sense once you start to understand what the agenda really is. It never was about the safety of the citizens.

Are you joking? Look, I as much said I admired Jon which makes voting for me the same as voting for him. This is simple but what if someone really wants Hillary to win. This is not so easy since the U.S. often discriminates against people who are differently located. Canada is part of North America too, you know. Why should a little thing like citizenship and a border stop me from voting for president? I Don't care about the congressors or senatemen but I do want to vote for president. Its too late now and I'm still confused. The voting is done and still don't know which vote was a vote for Hillary. So, does Harper's minority give George Bush another half term or how do they count it down there?

Now, through the miracle of historical revision I can now state that I was 100% correct on the outcome of this election. Only I correctly predicted: Overall Election Results Party Elected Leading TotalVote Share CON 124 0 124 36.25% LIB 103 0 103 30.22% BQ 51 0 51 10.48% NDP 29 0 29 17.49% IND 1 0 1 0.52% OTH0 0 0 0 5.05% Remember you saw it hear first and if you don't remember then think about this: I'm not making this up. I'm not allowed to make things up. Choose your history.

There must be something to this because when they identify someone as Canadian they usually are, Eh? The one I have trouble with is this stereotype of saying "Eh" all the time, Eh? I never say "Eh" and neither does anyone I know, Eh? They must be teasing, Eh? Good day, Eh? Waitaminnut... why is that speech to text thingy putting "Eh" all over the place, Eh? Arrrghh... there it goes again, Eh? [Narrator: Murray B. runs screaming from his keyboard yelling something about hay.]

Carolyn and Tucker have something in common that most people seem unable to see. Both have driven many undecided voters to the opposite side. They are both act so crazy that they cannot be real. It is just entertainment.

It is sad that this is happening but it was entirely predictable and things will probably get worse before they get better. Since the criminals do not seem to be obeying the law that means that bill C68 has only disarmed the victims of crime. This is making criminals the largest armed group in the country and problems must escalate as a result. It is sad that the government allowed hysterical lunatic fringers to talk them into such foolish laws in the first place.

I'm confused. Okay so if I vote for Harper then it is a vote for Bush. This is clear but what about the other parties. Is voting NDP that same as voting for Nader or would that need to be the Green Party? How about the Liberals? Is a vote for them the same as voting for Kerry or is it the same as Gore? How about Hillary? Who is the same as voting for Hillary? And what about Bill Clinton, is anybody the same as voting for him? I'm so confused. P.S. Which one is same as voting for Jon Stewart because I really like his show and I trust him. Can we write in candidates in Canada. JON FOR PM! Hooray... We're number 1, We're number 1 ... GO JON GO!

Do not think that you have power because you choose a name from a list. Real power lies with those that make the list. This is a paraphrase of the words of the great Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt. He was the one that broke up the trusts (monopolies and oligopolies) and made utilities public. His ideas are timeless.

Brett, you are right but I don't think it can ever happen at any level of government. Even at the local level have you noticed how somebody can be worth a $100k when elected for office, work four years at $100K and then be worth $10 million? Now you are asking the fox to put a fence around the chicken coop. Methinks this is something that the chickens will have to do if it is doable at all.

Really?What is it? "Supported by" means that the government only continues when the opposition is allowed to vote. Prevent their vote and the government ends. The other way if you prevent most members from voting the government continues indefinitely. The logic of Boole is not your strong point, I take it? The wording is not accidental either. They knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote it.

Mr. Harper is the son of an east coast accountant that was born and raised in Ontario but has spent his adult life in Calgary. Like the billionaire lawyer says, Harper cannot know what it is to be Canadian. Only lawyers that are billionaires can relate to every one of us, or at least to the ones that matter. Choose your Canada!

Okay, as long as this won't cost me anything I predict the Liberals will be reduced to three seats or less with the remainder about equally split between the Conservatives, NDP, and Bloc. If I am right, what do I win?

A disarm the victims law can only increase violent crime with firearms but how do you know that the law is not working the way the government intended? I mean, how do you know what their agenda actually is? Fascists and the like would love to know where all the firearms are. Maybe this law is working EXACTLY as they intended it to. Scary thought, Eh? Choose your Canada.

No fair! This is a trick question. This is not about the right of gay people to co-habitate but whether the federal government has the right to change a commonly used word. Please separate your question into two parts because there are two totally different issues here. For example: 1. Should gay people have the right to enter into legally recognized unions? 2. Does any government have the right to redefine words in common use?

Sage, the G.G. is now appointed by the PM so I don't think that this would be as much of a problem as it first seems. There is a world of difference between, "supported by more than two-thirds" and "not opposed by more that one third". The similarities were probably intentional but the actual meaning of the text diverges when it is examined closely. The two-thirds requirement makes it very difficult to continue the government but the '82 version makes it easy. What is their real agenda?

It is interesting how politicians now all seem to have the gift of prophesy and can tell us what the other guys are going to do for sure. Seeing as there are a few liars out there perhaps we should give more weight to what has already been done. Here's one from good old Mr. "Just Watch Me": It's in the Constitution act of 1982 which can be seen at <http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#I>: Note the text,"4. (1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its members." This looks good, an election every five years, but read on. Now look at ,"In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be." What is an apprehended insurrection? Who decides this? Now look closely at " not opposed by...more than one third." This means the government will continue forever if they can stop some of the oppostion from voting. As little as a federal policeman with a jug of pepper spray could do that. It's not hard to prevent a few from voting. Shouldn't this clause read "supported by ... more than two thirds"? If I can see this then you have to know that Mr. "Just Watch Me" who was a trained lawyer also knew exactly what it meant. I'm not making this up. I'm not allowed to make things up. Choose your Canada!

Sorry if that is how it came across. This new Conservative party has influences from Alliance, Conservative, Progressive, and Reform parties. In U.S. political terms I suppose they might be more like what young conservatives at Berkely might be like if there were any. The point that I am trying to make is that Mr. Harper's statement was not too shocking. If he had expressed admiration for Handgun Control Inc. or something similar "behind closed doors" then that would be news. Saying the Conserviative admires conservatives says nothing important. I admire Teddy Roosevelt and FDR but this does not mean that I agree with everything that they did. The Liberals are spinning this stuff so much that I am getting dizzy.

The missile defence concept came out of a realization almost thirty years ago that the U.S. and the Soviet Union both had massive first strike policies in place. First strike relies upon the fact that a ballistic missile moves like molasses when first fired. For the first minute they are hardly moving at all. This means that a single nuclear (not nucular) warhead exploded among the slow moving missiles would destroy them all. It follows, that the first country to launch a massive first strike would competely destroy the other. This was kind of like having hair triggers on all the atomic arsenals. Having a ballistic missile defence system, that works or not, reduces the possibility of a massive first stike because it is not possible to eliminate all opposing missiles at the beginning. This political desire to reduce the risk is why the Strategic Defence Initiative came into being in the first place. Nevertheless, there are still those that seem to prefer the old massive first strike option. I'm just glad it was the Soviets on the other side and not some bunch of religious fanatics that would attack regardless of the cost. Of course, the fanatics could get them in a few years. It is, after all, 1945 technology and this is the twenty-first century. Voters should be properly informed about this subject because this is one area where mistakes could be very costly. P.S. There is no reason to assume that Canada is not a target for somebody's nuclear weapons. We have always been targeted for strategic (big picture) reasons and this has nothing to do with our tactical (military) capability or lack thereof. All North American factories, refineries and resources have always been targets regardless of the rhetoric spewed by the politicians.

These ads have made this the funniest election in my memory and that's quite a few of them. The only problem is that it is now becoming impossible to distinguish the real ones from the jokes. Here look what I mean: Harper expresses secret admiration for American conservatives "behind closed doors". Real or joke? Real, but what are they trying to say? Is the Conservative Party leader secretly conservative or are they pointing out a lack of secret agendas. Harper has a dragon, he keeps it in a shed. Stephen Harper drinks his own blood. Real or joke? Joke, he keeps the dragon in the basement and everyone knows he drinks only Unicorn blood. Harper will put armed soldiers on every street corner. Real or joke. Real transcript of approved ad. Harper never said he would do this but even if it happened some day this is not much of a threat? Everyone in the Canadian military is extemely well trained and has excellent discipline. There is no time that I can remember when the CF threatened Canadians. Besides a soldier on my corner would allow me to sleep better at night because my neighborhood has a serious crime problem. Do you hear that Mr. Harper? I want a Canadian soldier...With a big machine gun...Permanently stationed on my corner...Right now. Thank you very much. Ain't gonna happen but it was a nice fantasy while it lasted. Anyways, see how hard it is to tell the real ads from the jokes.

I'm pretty sure that this is true and I also believe that Calgary is in Alberta. Its London that confuses me. Sometimes it is in Britain and sometimes it's in central Canada. They should quit moving it all over the place.

Okay, but they moved just before the attack happened. These sort of groups always move before a major attack. Some think they went into Pakistan and others figured they headed west. Playing musical countries is how they have been able to operate without interference for so many years. There is no good intelligence as to their whereabouts. What are your orders, Mr. President? P.S. Does "planning and execution" apply to the countries that financed, trained and equipped them? Do the "guys" include other groups currently training to attack the United States or just the groups that already have? What if the group is planning to attack European countries, should the President be worried about this?

If France would have gone then I believe that Canada would have gone too. Perhaps France was wise, or perhaps not, but only time (as in decades) will tell. The Iraq war does not change the fact that there are still a dozen countries that finance, equip, and train, operatives dedicated to attacking western democracies. These operative groups move from one friendly country to another every few months to remain hidden and they know about western politics. They have manipulated western governments in ways that have prevented effective countermeasures for years. Finally the clandestine operatives completely destroyed the World Trade Center and thousands of lives were lost. The U.S. adminstration and some allies decided to move against the anti-western trainers of the operative groups and not just the groups themselves. Was this the right thing to do? I don't know, but they had to do something. So, what would you have done? One day you turn on the TV and are shocked by the sight of the World Trade Center burning. What are your orders, Mr. President?

Thank goodness, then the whole P.E.T. patriation thing was just a bad dream? The B.N.A. act must still be in force. That is good. How about metrication? I dreamed this too. Are we still using the King's measure or did we go to some wacko system based on ten fingers? How about the Union Jack, the Queen appointing the Governor General, support for the armed forces, etcetera? Are all this traditions still in place? Thank goodness, you don't want to know what I was dreaming. God save the Queen!

Yes, I heard it is ten times more but I wonder if there is less bigotry per capita in Canada. Don't forget that there is far more regional and linguistic discrimination in Canada. For example Mr. Harper cannot represent Canada because he does not have Canadian values. He can't have these values because he is from Calgary and only central Canadians have Canadian values, or so I hear. This is regional bigotry. I did not make this up. I'm not allowed to make things up. Forget working for the Canadian federal government unless you are "bilingual". Bilingual in this instance does not mean what the dictionary says, but means English-French in Ontario and French-English in Quebec. Forget it if you know any other two languages because that is not bilingual. This is linguistic bigotry. I did not make this up. I'm not allowed to make things up. Overall I do not see how the U.S. of Americans are any great ogres or even how the U.S. government is the greatest evil the world has ever known. For instance, what other country in the history of world would have come up with the Marshal plan? The answer is none, only the U.S.A. would do this. Who defends Canadian sovereignty in the north while Canadians are too stupid to realise the danger? (Under international law the residents can claim the land). For example, the only residents are Danish then the land becomes part of Denmark. For decades the U.S. has placed weather stations in the Canadian north whenever some other country does the same. This happens regularly and is paid for by U.S. taxpayers. These are not the actions of an enemy. Hmm, I could write a book about the good that the U.S. of America has done but this post is already too long. Suffice it to say that not all Canadians are anti-American and perhaps the pro-Americans number far more than most people think. Have a good day, Eh? P.S. The make stuff up refrain is a parody of some unintentionally funny ads currently being run by the Liberal party. One ad claims that Stephen Harper (Conservative Party leader) expressed admiration of American conservatives "behind closed doors". This means that the Conservative is also conservative. This is a real ad. I'm not making this up. I'm not allowed to make things up and this is funniest campaign that I have ever seen in my entire life.

I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand what is going on here. It has nothing to do with lumber and Canada started it. After the election the Canadian government let it be known in Washington that all Canadians would have preferred it if the Democrats would have won. Mr. Bush took this personal attack personally and our relationship soured after that. The joke is on him, however, since an attack on B.C. will hardly be noticed in Ottawa. To them, the western provinces are just cows to be milked and what is one cow more or less to a big outfit like Canada? Heck, most central Canadians don't even know where British Columbia is. If the President had come from a more northern state then he might have been more likely to threaten to shoot them right in the Bombardier. Unlike B.C. bashing this would have really gotten Ottawa's attention. Anyway, next time you folks have a problem with the farmer, don't shoot the cow, Eh!?