John

You know what...it`s not that different. But considering the Ontario Liberals, and the Left in general, are always bashing Harper and the federal Conservatives, one can be excused for expecting them to behave better.

But if Hamas could do it...they would...right?

So the plan is to keep bombing Israel until they can "free Gaza and the West Bank from the stifling control of Israel so they can develop economically into a free and self-reliant state."?

And Hamas wants to eliminate Israel. So we're at a good point in the process...

Further to that point...I don't know if either warring party would be open to a one-state solution...

I suppose that if things ever became serious in that regard, then there may be arab/muslim states which would want to contribute financially.

Israel seems to be at peace with Egypt and Jordan and Lebanon and we don't hear much from the West Bank these days. In fact things were pretty peaceful until Hamas started throwing missiles at Israel. Your point about the Likud Constitution is enlightening for me personally. But that still doesn't mean Israel doesn't want peace. While international consensus is that the 2-state solution is the best solution, it doesn't mean that it's the only one possible.

To say Israel doesn't want peace because they are not negotiating RIGHT NOW doesn't really prove the point. I'm sure we weren't negotiating with the Soviets around the clock and I'm sure that, during the Cold War, there were times when relations were good and times when they were bad.. And maybe sometimes, when they were bad, we weren't all that many negotiations going on. Israel will negotiate when the time is right for them...just like any other country would be expected to. Hamas would do no less.

Hamas offered and Israel rejected so to press the question of IF Israel would have kept their end of the bargain is, once again, moot. Can you, or can you not, explain why Hamas should be trusted? They are the ones who offered the ceasefire and you're standing up for them. Can you tell us why they should be trusted?

I don't know the specific reasons they gave...but perhaps it's because they don't trust Hamas. It seems that a lot of the demands would place security into the hands of the UN. Once Israel handed over responsibility to the UN, Hamas could go back to their old ways without fear of Israel disrupting the new order by interfering with UN peace keepers. Can you point to anything which would suggest that Hamas can be trusted to keep their end of the bargain? So you say that Israel doesn't want peace but it's really Hamas which doesn't want peace. Hamas didn't need to start lobbing missiles. But they did. Isreal said STOP, and they didn't. Israel said STOP again, and they didn't. Israel said STOP, OR WE'RE COMING IN...and Hamas kept going. So...seriously...what are they supposed to do? Let Hamas keep shooting in the hopes that their Iron Dome protects them indefinitely? No other country would ever be held to that kind of standard.

Israel didn't accept so this question is moot.

My point is that with such an open declaration of intent...it would be hard to accept any cease fire promise of 10 years with any kind of seriousness. Do you honestly believe that Hamas would stick to that? It's a YES or NO question...no need to go off on a tangent. As a country...I don't think that Israel has stated, openly & officially, that kind of desire. YES, there may have been members of the government who have made statements to that effect. But it's a democracy and you're going to get all kind of people saying all kinds of things. YES there are settlements, and they are a legitimate issue to overcome for a lasting peace.

Isn't the destruction of Israel Hamas' main reason for existing? Khaled Meshaal: "You know what! Let's put the whole thing on ice for 10 years. Sure we wanna destroy all you Jews...but what's 10 years in the great big scheme of things? Am I right or am I righ?" I can see him saying that...seriously...I can...

I saw a bit of the press conference this morning. She was talking about consulting with the grassroots and Ontarians to find out what they want and to review policies and programs in an effort to continue ones that work and get rid of ones that don't. It was a bit bland but, having said that, I'm not expecting too much at this point. To me, a leader would be able to articulate a vision of what they want for the province and then have the ability to get that vision across to voters and get elected. On that one I don't think any of the leaders did that in this election. It scares me when I hear people saying "the next election is the PC's to lose". It scares me because, to me at least, it's a sign of people accepting lowered expectations from the PCP, both in who they vote for and what they will accept as a platform. In this leadership race I hope to get excited about what at least one of the contestants has to say about their own vision.

Credit rating goes down. Interest payments go up. Money spent of valuable services go down. Taxes go up as a result. Is it wrong of me to actually wish for that to happen, and quickly...and be somewhat happy when it does happen...simply so that people see what a huge mistake it was electing Wynne?

I'm a Conservative and I voted for Hudak. I wish I could have heard more from the PC's than just jobs (creating and cutting), union bosses and the gas plants. I don't think it was specifically Hudak that sank the ship for them. I don't really think McGuinty was more charming or anything and Ontario voted him in a bunch of times.

" if they are retiring then they are out of a job, which means EI" When did that happen? "If these people can't find jobs..." Are you saying that 100,000 people won't find jobs...or not be ingenious enough to somehow become self sufficient? One of the great failings of the Left is that they don't believe people can, or will, do anything to better their own lives.,,that once they've been laid off they will stay laid off for the rest of their lives...forever collecting EI and welfare. " Is it impossible to bring down the debt and be easy on the people?" I think "the people" have had a pretty easy ride for the past 11 years. Laying off 100,000 people sucks...but think of how big the problem will be after 4 more years of Liberal rule. "Didn't this guy learn anything form the Harris era??" Didn't Wynne learn anything from the Rae era???

That's interesting because I feel they're pretty right at the moment, but wouldn't mind them going farther. What would you suggest they do?

It would be ridiculous fear mongering but it's a fresh face on the old "hidden agenda" which holds no water by itself these days.

I'm wondering if this move is more of a long-term strategy. Stephen Harper basically came out against one of his own back benchers when the abortion issue was recently raised, which illustrates that while the PM doesn't want to touch the issue, there are elements within the CPC that would love to. Could the Liberals be setting up for the time when Harper steps down and CPC discipline isn't so strong? This way they could claim that they are on the side of women and womens' choice over their own bodies and at the same time point to the CPC and say "we're not so sure about those guys"? I wouldn't be surprised if the Liberals start spouting off about a conservative "war on women."

According to the article, substandard airline maintenance is the fault of Transporation Canada regulations, not the private sector. If you have a problem with foreign products, you shouldn't buy them. That's exactly what I do with certain products. Faulty cars are being taken off the road via voluntary recalls by the makers. There wouldn't be so many rail accidents involving oil if more pipelines were built. As far as pollution goes...the Soviet Union was filled with public employees and they had some of the worst environmental disasters in history. If there wasn't so much money mispent by government maybe some of those bridges could be rebuilt... It's hard to see how more public jobs would solve these problems. It seems that government IS the cause of some of these while exercising some personal choice would take care of others. Perhaps the food processing industry is a wreck, I really don't know, but overall, as a society, more government jobs are not the answer.

Unless the Liberals are planning to touch the issue...

I get the feeling this might automatically kill chances for a whole swath of ridings. And what's the point of it all? No party, even the CPC, are not going to touch the issue.

Maybe it won't be a million but...hands down...PC policy will see more private sector job creation than either NDP or Liberal. More public sector jobs are not what we need.

I can't believe how many people I speak with are voting Liberal because they think Wynne is a "nice" lady. They say they don't care about the deficit because "that's the way governments do it." The apathy is so stunningly demoralizing. People just don't care.