gc1765

And yet, we were still emitting more carbon dioxide than them back in 1990, weren't we? How can we tell Europe (or third world countries) to reduce their emissions when we emit so much more? It's like the guy driving an SUV telling the guy driving a smart car that he will only cut his emissions if the guy driving the smart car reduces his as well.

Do you think if Clinton had done more, al qaeda would have backed off? Or do you think they were so dedicated to their goals that nothing short of death could have stopped them from carrying them out? If you think a "stronger" response would have prevented 9/11, then how come it didn't stop the terrorist attacks that have occured since then?

Yep, just like he did to Martin in 2005...which brings me back to the question you STILL haven't answered...

Did bin laden say that's the reason why he attacked the U.S.? Seriously though, do you really think al qaeda thought out the consequences of their actions?

Link Happy? Now, your turn to answer my question: Are you denying that Layton and Martin had a "backroom deal" or do you agree that they did?

Of course that's all I have to say. Just like if you were to ask whether I have a problem with Jack Layton eating a sandwich for lunch, I would say no, I don't see a problem with that. Is that all you have to say, asking me if that's all I have to say?

Ah, but the war is neverending...

You are the one who said that oil was rationed for war.

Are you denying that Layton and Martin had a backroom deal in 2005? I see no problem with the deal.

He has had deals with both Martin and Harper...but since there are quite a few partisan Conservatives on this board who will never admit that Harper had any backroom deals with Layton, surely even the most partisan of Conservatives remember Jack's famous deal with Paul Martin in 2005?

May was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of Jack Layton criticizing someone for a "backroom deal" when Layton has had his fair share of "backroom deals"....if not with Harper (which he has), then certainly with Paul Martin in 2005. Point is, Jack has zero credibility when it comes to backroom deals. Wouldn't you agree?

But all of that oil is going to the war effort, at the expense of the American people. Isn't the prosperity of Americans proportional to the amount of oil they have? How does having less oil make Americans richer?

Wouldn't that go against your theory that war makes money?

Actually, that is a good point. There was a movement to get rid of Harper in the summer of 2005, but obviously that failed.

Fair enough. I agree. He was pretty much the only good candidate. Dion isn't bad and was my second choice...I'm just glad they didn't choose Iggy or Rae, we probably would have seen a "Dump Iggy/Rae" movement a long time ago.

It's not hard to believe there is simple life out there, such as bacteria. Intelligent life that can, and has visited earth? naaaaah

Good questions: True. It is going to be arbitrary no matter how you decide it. That gives me a good idea. Why not invite only the top 4 or 5 (choose your arbitary number) parties? Then you wouldn't have to worry about who gets how many votes. In theory, that might sound like a good idea. But where do you draw the line with that one? Should the communist party be allowed to debate the economy? The marijuana party be allowed to debate the legalization of marijuana?

We already have a thread on this topic... Anyways, who do you think the Liberals should have made as leader?

If my life depended on it, that would be a different story. But I would still be alive with or without the Iraq war. I would also still be alive even if I don't gain a whole bunch of oil tomorrow.

So then there should be a number of other fringe parties included in the debates. Where do you draw the line? Seems like having at least one Member or Parliament at the time the writ is dropped is a good starting point. I never said whether the Green Party should be included or not. I'd draw the line at a certain percentage of the vote, not number of seats in the house. Where to draw the line? Your guess is as good as mine. 5%? 10%? 15%? I dont' know.

Well, personally I'd agree with you on the first two but not the third. But that's just me.

I think May is being realistic and knows she doesn't have a great chance at winning...actually at this point she has next to zero chance unless something drastic happens. She knows the race is between the Conservatives and Liberals, and given those two choices I think she would rather have the Liberals in power. But that isn't going to stop her from wanting to pick up a few seats if possible, and increase the Green Party's standings, so that they have a better shot in the future.

It's one riding. I'm sure the Greens will still be campaigning in the other 307 ridings.

I agree. As long as they are close in age, I don't see a problem. If there's a huge age difference, then there's a problem.

If you could kill someone in order to save 10 peoples' lives, would you do it? Would you kill someone for no reason at all? Would you kill someone for oil?