blueblood

Read my signature and take the test, do I look like a socialist to you? 100% of hetero and homo people had unprotected sex in the thirties and earlier. What relevance do your numbers mean? By your logic, in the thirties and earlier, there would be an epidemic of STD's of biblical proportions.

Really, it appears public opinion these days turns on a dime. It's whoever can spin the best that comes out on top. Harper put the kibosh on the coalition on that. Harper has a tightrope to walk for the next couple of weeks. Harper is playing into the fact that Canadians want gov't to all work together to deal with the economic problems. If Harper slides in poison, he has the initiative by saying "Blah blah blah, Ignatieff doesn't want to work cooperatively to solve problems, blah blah blah, Ignatieff only cares about gaining power just like the rest of them, blah blah blah, The tories are listening to Canadians by trying to work together, the Liberals are not" and so on and so forth. The Liberals have a narrow window of opportunity to seize power, and in that window they will have an easy job of it. The Tories now have to work on closing that window.

What's the big deal, there is already a law on the books concerning this type of unethical behavior. Ask the ex football player from Regina how the clink is. It's unethical people who spread HIV/AIDS, not just homosexuals. I am now stupider for having read your allegation that all homosexuals want to spread aids.

They said that when Dion first was made leader, he also polled very well right off the bat. Just wait a couple of months, and then see. I will say however, the Liberals are in much better strategic shape than they were with Dion as leader. All the Libs have to do is pass the budget and they have the Tories by the throat.

Don't let the facts of the Geneva conventions get in the way of your ignorance. No its if the husband and wife are in a shooting match with 9mms over her leaving him and she is hiding behind the kids while hubby and wife take pot shots at each other. She is responsible for the kids being killed. Yes palestinians are dogs and cowards for hiding behind civilians and supporting a terrorist gov't. They decided to lob rockets into Israel and are paying the price. Why can't they be more civilized like their friends in the West Bank? Yes they are fair game. The Japanese chose not to surrender when their army was beaten. The Japanese population supported their gov't. They paid the price. Had Japan surrendered when their armies got smashed at iwo jima, when their navy and airforce got destroyed, no Japanese civilians would have died. War is Hell. The middle Easterners, pissed away their army long ago, its not the west's problem that they are incompetant. If Hamas doesn't want civilians to die, then they can fight conventionally. Saladin fought conventionally and did quite well. It's not the wests fault Middle eastern armed forces are so easy to kill. What is also funny is that you called the IDF butchers. If that's the case then they would have gassed Gaza already and been done with it. That would have been a lot cheaper and there would have been few Israeli casualties. If the IDF were butchers, there would be hundreds of thousands of dead palestinians right now. Obviously the IDF is going after Hamas only militants, if you can't get that through your head, logic is not a strong suit for you. So Hamas is allowed to butcher Israeli citizens with rocket attacks, but the IDF isn't allowed to strike back at Hamas militants hiding behind civilians. Nice double standard. We now know you think Israeli's are dogs and savages and it doesn't matter how many of their civilians die.

That will be one of life's little mysteries...

Harper's goose is just about cooked from tory brass anyway.

Not from PMPM's massive promises in the 06 election...

I'd wait a couple of months to find out what Iggy's numbers really are. The honeymoon period sort of glosses things over. You'd say the same thing if a new tory leader were in place.

Those 250 children's death are entirely the fault of Hamas, they can fight on a battlefield and settle it for themselves. Instead they have chosen to hide behind children and as a result, they die as well. The Geneva conventions happen to agree with me. Yes the japs killed by the atom bomb were human shields, by supporting a gov't that is at war with the US, they were fair game to Truman. You don't seem to understand the concept of standard warfare, when civilians are in the way of two armies, they wind up dead. If one army is vastly outmatched and is hiding behind civilians, they are responsible for any civilian deaths that may incurr. The Argentinians understood that in the Falkland Islands war, and that is why they caved.

His core region of Quebec is rural and wealthy - typical tory voters. I didn't say the spin would be small... I think the less combative approach is to try and goad the voters into looking like Harper is playing nice and when he springs his trap, Ignatieff will look bad. However, the fact that no ads were released about the coalition doesn't bode well for the tories. I think Harper has changed tactics and is going to try to be the hero that saved the economy, which IMO is incredibly risky because when the Libs raise enough money, the gloves come off. For his sake Harper better hope this mess clears quickly and the Libs play nice. After the budget, I think the Libs are in the driver's seat.

Considering his riding consists of the UofM, the last thing the tories need in such a toss up riding is an uber religious idealist such as him.

Bruinooge should be punted for opening this can of worms. The last thing the party needs is going back to the scary scary nonsense.

I think there are some seats in Quebec that will vote tory no matter what just like some seats in Manitoba. Harper will have a hard time getting above 10 seats there however. Fiscal Conservatism in Quebec is a hard sell, no matter which party is doing it. I thought he prorogued in order to buy time to spring another plank to fight a campaign on. However the Liberals as it looks threw a wrench into that scheme by punting Dion, installing Ignatieff, and wasting no time on getting down to business. Harper's best chance now is if the economy recovers quickly and he can rebalance the books, or try to go to an early election and try and put the best spin possible.

Coming from Waterhen and living in Winnipeg I wouldn't be surprised.

That's funny because Ignatieff is trying his damndest to get as far away from the coalition as possible. Harper may be arrogant, but he is definetely no fool. Harper puts himself in positions where he comes out ahead no matter what the opposition does. IMO the Liberals have bigger fools than the CPC, hence my voting intentions.

Nice to know you condone suicide bombing and human shields as acceptable warfare tactics. The middle east used to have the best military forces in the world, cry me a river that they pissed it away. The middle easterners should be fortunate that they are fighting Israelis and the US and not the USSR, we all know what happens when the USSR decides to throw it's weight around. Sorry they are still cowardly, any army that uses civilians as a shield is cowardly and is directly responsible for any civilian deaths that may occur.

Except the Liberals have fools like Justin Trudeau and Pablo Rodriquez as MP's. Still no LPC votes from this cowboy, the CPC still appeal to me.

In that case the political subsidy reduction would be good for the Liberals as in the fact the BQ would be toast financially. The Liberals would probably pick up seats in Quebec. I think the political subsidy reduction might actually be good for federalism. And this is why Harper wanted an early election. I think Harper prorogued parliament to save his own bacon. Tory Brass, I think wouldn't have cared one whit about the coalition thing, party leaders are a dime a dozen. Harper should have asked for an election right there.

THe hope that they follow their election platforms. That and Trudeau/Chretien Liberal attitudes towards rural/western Canada were not to my satisfaction.

Why not see how the tories govern in a majority? The same risk is involved (I.E. constitution and elections involved being the limits) A majority is not the keys to the candy store.

So in other words, Harper has nothing to lose by calling an election. I see Harper slipping poison in here and playing the blame game, all while stirring up the coalition to run his election campaign on.

It's been same @#$! different pile since Mulroney...

Harper will pay a price after the next election. If he loses/gets another minority, he'll be done immediately after. If he gets a majority, he'll be done halfway to late in his tenure. If Harper doesn't act like a horse's ass, he allows Ignatieff to build credibility and establish his base.