gc1765

I think that rather than comparing Harper to Hitler, a much better comparison would be to compare the reaction of Harper to that of Bush after 9/11. There is no doubt that Bush used anti-terrorism in his 2004 campaign, that he would be "tough" on terror. That is, at least in part, why he got re-elected. I think Harper is using the same fear tactic: "this new government...", implying that the conservatives will be much tougher on terror than the liberals. So yes, it is using it to his political advantage. Of course what some people don't realize is that based on the number of deaths from terrorism vs. cancer, you are about 1000 times more likely to die of cancer, but cancer does sell a campaign as well as terrorism.

Kyoto is not increasing our emissions, rather Canada is increasing it's emissions despite Kyoto. I think that's what you meant to say. Part of that blame may lie on the liberals, but most of it lies on every individual who does not do their part. I know you are doing your part, as am I, but there are many people out there who would still rather drive to work than take the bus or ride their bike. Cars are what contributes the most to greenhouse gases (not to mention other pollutants). I'm not promoting Kyoto, I'm promoting the facts. Alberta?? Are you kidding me? They are responsible for more emissions than any province. Of course that is not the fault of the average Albertan, but rather the fault of the oil companies. The same people lobbying against Kyoto... What is the Kyoto argument? There are tons of facts and evidence to suggest that cutting greenhouse gases will benefit the environment. Whether Kyoto is the best way to go about cutting emissions is debatable.

I think many people (myself included) don't hate American people, they just hate the american government (specifically bush...and the people who voted for him).

Why label foods that contain carcinogens? How about banning any food that contains higher levels of carcinogens than what is safe? Oh wait, that is already done. How about all the oil company lobbyist trying to stop Kyoto!! Yep, and right now the oil companies are winning, and we are all going to suffer from it.

Law enforcement officials may have better things to do than read people's DNA, but they would still have the potential to read it, and isn't that reason enough to avoid having a DNA database. And there's always a possibility of other people getting their hands on the information. If you are convicted of a serious crime (like murder) then it makes sense to have your DNA on file. If you are a suspect then you should submit to a DNA test with a warrant, if you are found innocent get rid of the info. Other than that the government has absolutely no right to have your DNA info.

The economy is doing better under Bush than under Clinton, and Clinton never had to deal with a devestating hit to the economy as a result of the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Clinton never had an economic policy. He didn't need one. He merely followed Ronald Reagan's economic record. In 1983, the final year that Reagan's tax cuts went into effect, the US economy started a 17 year period of economic growth, finally halting with the burst of the dotcom bubble, and then the devasting 9-11 attack on the US. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created between 1983 and 1989 alone. Clinton rode along for the ride, with the exception of a massive tax hike early in his first term. The debt rose every single year that Clinton was in power. The crime rate is lower now than in the Clinton years, and there is less poverty today than in the Clinton years. Does this mean that if the economy improves under the conservative government we can thank the liberals? Bush lowered taxes after Clinton had raised taxes (once early in his 1st term). After the Republicans took control of Congress (I am assuming you know how the US govt system works), they kept Clinton in check. Do you think that if Congress was controlled by the Dems, that Clinton would have not signed Kyoto, or would not have raised taxes? I'm not arguing that the republican congress didn't keep Clinton in check. My point was that you said "Clinton rode along for the ride..." and implied that the economy was only strong under Clinton because of the previous Reagan administration. So maybe if the economy is strong under Harper we can thank the liberals, according to your logic. P.S. Reagan and Bush may have cut taxes, but they did so at the expense of the debt, which will hurt in the long run. And you said that the debt rose every year Clinton was in power, but Reagan and Bush added way more debt than Clinton. Also, the decrease in crime in the U.S. started while Clinton was in power, so again according to your logic he is responsible for that as well.

The economy is doing better under Bush than under Clinton, and Clinton never had to deal with a devestating hit to the economy as a result of the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Clinton never had an economic policy. He didn't need one. He merely followed Ronald Reagan's economic record. In 1983, the final year that Reagan's tax cuts went into effect, the US economy started a 17 year period of economic growth, finally halting with the burst of the dotcom bubble, and then the devasting 9-11 attack on the US. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created between 1983 and 1989 alone. Clinton rode along for the ride, with the exception of a massive tax hike early in his first term. The debt rose every single year that Clinton was in power. The crime rate is lower now than in the Clinton years, and there is less poverty today than in the Clinton years. Does this mean that if the economy improves under the conservative government we can thank the liberals?

I think McCain will probably win the republican nomination. I'm not sure about the democrats, I don't think there is an obvious choice.

"Paul Martin sucks" -> 2,240,000 "Liberals suck" -> 1,600,000 "Ignatieff sucks" -> 19,500 The best result I found was THIS one. If you put those phrases in quotes you get much fewer: "Paul martin sucks" (in quotations) : 19 "liberals suck" : 52, 000 "Ignatieff sucks" : 0

"scary stephen harper" : 136 "scary harper" : 795 scary + "stephen harper" : 123, 000 scary stephen harper : 582, 000 "harper is scary" : 398 "harper sucks" : 94, 700

I admitted that I screwed up on the title. I saw this just before I had a meeting and quickly, too quickly, posted this thread. However, substitute "Kyoto" with "global warming" in the title and I stand by what I said. al-Gore has admitted that it is okay to lie about global warming to get his point across. The delicious irony is that Grist Magazine is an enviromental mag. I think you are missing the point that Naci Sey brought up, which is that Al Gore is not lying. He clearly says "...factual presentations..." Factual does not mean lying. He is saying that these facts should be over-represented because the average american won't believe that global warming is a problem until you tell them ten million times.

Fixed election dates won't work in a minority government situation, since obviously the opposition can bring down the government anytime. It may work in a majority government, but hypothetically even in a majority situation, some members of the governing party may decided to vote with the opposition on an issue of confidence (though probably not likely). Though I suppose if it were done on purpose they would have to face the electorate. Finally, I think it would be hypocritical for harper to criticize the opposition for bringing down the government early, afterall he tried pretty hard to bring the liberals down back in 2005. Then again harper is known for his hypocrisy.

The liberals do not need another francophone leader. We had chretien for too long, and although martin is anglophone he lived in montreal so that doesn't really count, especially since he was only the leader for 2 years.

I know my name is not Black Dog, but I think I can help. Here is a link from the government of Canada about equalization payments. Alberta did recieve equalization payments from 1957-1964. http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/frmwrk_e.html

At least Saddam has now been indicted for genocide, otherwise the trial would be a complete joke. Killing 148 people for attempting to assassinate him may be wrong (as opposed to simply putting them in jail for the rest of their life, as the U.S. would have done for an attempted presidential assassination!), but his real crime is genocide. Why has the court not focused on that?

After skimming through all of these posts, it appears that nobody has answered the question....why hasn't harper put forth another candidate for the position instead of giving up altogether?

1. Override the charter to take rights away from minorities 2. Tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body (see #1 above) 3. Politicize the courts after criticizing the liberals for doing the same 4. Lower taxes for the rich while increasing taxes for the poor yeah that's a great idea

To Riverwind and Geoffrey, Like I said in my previous post, most of the victims will never recieve a single cent. Nor will the church, which has confessed to abuse http://www.presbyterian.ca/residentialschools/ or the government. In fact, it makes them financially liable, so perhaps you should take their word for it. Or maybe you'll believe Dr. Peter Bryce who quoted 50,000 dead, http://hmb.utoronto.ca/HMB438H/weekly_supp...07/genocide.pdf plus references in that document, especially "Bryce, Dr. P.H., The Story of a National Crime, Being a Record of the Health Conditions of the Indians of Canada from 1904-1921 (Ottawa, 1922)", look them up and read them before you post a reply. There were witnesses to these murders whow will never recieve a cent for being a witness. If a person is on trial for murder, would you assume that all of the witnesses had been paid for their testimony? Or if the guilty party confessed, would you believe it then? Cause if I'm ever on trial for muder, I want you on my jury. I don't know how much more evidence you could ask for, there is as much evidence for genocide here in Canada as there was in germany in the 30's/40's, so let me ask you something, do you believe the holocaust really happened? And if so why, where's the proof? And what makes that 'proof' any different from the proof you need that it happened in Canada? Frankly, I'm tired of aruging with you both, so why don't you do your OWN homework. Visit reserves and talk to elders, call the department of Indian Affairs and ask them for statistics, talk to the churches which ran these schools and learn more. Or if you're too lazy just type 'canada's genocide' or something similar in google and see what you find. All I ask is that you learn more, if you still don't believe it then what have you lost? And if it changes your mind then you will have learned something important. Unless your afraid of the truth...

My mistake, I should have been more clear...I mean there have been literally tens of thousands of cases of rape and murder since the beginning of residential schools in Canada. If you add physical abuse that was used as punishment in those days, obviously that number gets much, much larger. Not to mention all of the people who witnessed these atrocities. It is amazing how much people underestimate how severe the abuse in residential schools was.

I am reading exactly what you wrote, you said that it happened to a few kids...well I can tell you that it happened to a hell of a lot more than a few kids, try tens of thousands. I have never heard of tens of thousands of white kids being abused to the extent that natives were, if you can prove me wrong then I'm all ears. P.S. It is sad that not many people in Canada know much about the history of residential schools.

There is no evidence that a large number of kids were raped in these schools. It happened to a few kids, just like it happened to white kids at schools like Mount Cashel. The trouble is we will never know the truth since making up about stories about being raped is a great way to get cash from the gov't and to make excuses for a drinking problem. By the way, making up stories to get easy money from the gov't is something white people do too.Actually, there is evidence of rape, abuse and even murder at residential schools, like bodies that had been buried with no explanation, as well as testimony from non-natives working at these schools. And most of those people didn't get a penny for it. I suggest you do a little more research on topics before you post your opinions. How many natives want to go back to a stone age existance with no guns, no cars or snow mobiles and no health care? The traditional lifestyle sounds romantic to those of us that are used to the comforts of modern technology but it was pretty brutal. I don't have any stats handy but it would not be surprised to find out that the life expectancy on a native reservation today is actually higher than it was when natives 'lived off the land'. ....and no crack, meth or alcohol either? I bet lots of people would be happy for that kind of life. And how do you know how bad it was, have you ever "lived off the land"?

Shoop: I was referring to the poll that was the topic of this thread, which was the environics research group poll putting the conservatives at 41% and liberals at 22%. SES puts the conservatives at 38% and liberals at 28% which narrows the gap considerably, much like the difference between most polls and the election. Perhaps SES is just a more accurate poll....or maybe because it was done the day before the election most of those undecided people had made up their mind?

It seems that according to this poll liberal support has dropped, though not by as much as it may seem. Almost everyone seems to forget that just days before the election, polls were indicating 41-42 percent for the conservatives, yet they only recieved 36 percent of the vote. The moral of the story is that a poll is NOT an election. There are probably many reasons for this, here are but two: 1) the undecided vote. The liberals are generally in the middle of the political spectrum. The strongly right-wing and strongly left wing people have probably already made up their mind that they are going to vote for the conservatives and the liberals, respectively. The undecided vote is generally somewhere in the middle, and on election day many of those votes go to the liberals. 2) the liberals were previously in power. A lot of people don't like to admit that they will vote liberal, mainly because of the sponsorship fiasco. So in a poll, they will be more reluctant to admit their support for the liberals. This could be seen before the election as well. In many ridings where the liberals won, there were actually more conservative lawn signs around. This also goes to show that many (not all) liberal supporters are not 'proud' supporters but believe that they are better than the alternatives. P.S. here is a poll published jan 18, 2006 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=election2006

I'm not a fan of bob rae...but can we at least get an actual quote? How are we supposed to know exactly what he said? Until a credible source can back up the story I'm a little skeptical.

I would be very surprised if this happened, especially with a minority government. I think most people have given up on incorporating Quebec into the constitution after meech lake and charlottetown. I don't think people want another referendum on this issue, but I also don't think it will happen without a referendum.