gc1765

He has said many times that he is supporting the Conservatives because of their promise to address the fiscal imbalance. I don't see much difference between that and May supporting the Liberals for the environment.

I think you know what I meant. If you weren't trying to stay alive, you wouldn't bother eating. And no, it's not OK to kill you, that would be "needless". Dying "needfully" would be dying of old age, for example. Wrong! I never said that.

No, Layton was complaining about May & Dion's backroom deal. May basically called him a hypocrite for being critical of their "backroom deal" while having his own backroom deals with Harper.

In PR, there is usually a minimum number of votes required for seats. Using the results of the last election, I believe only the CPC, LPoC, Bloc, NDP and Greens would get seats. If you want to make up random numbers instead, you could just as easily put the Greens in first. Not that I support PR, I think there are much better systems.

That has nothing to do with PR. With that list of parties, the Bloc could just as easily win with our current system. ...and with those parties running, it could just as easily be the Green Party winning as the Bloc. May could theoretically become PM too, and I'm sure she has more of an interest in become PM than Duceppe.

How?

In other words, to negotiate? aka backroom deal?

Ah, but they should be buying more! More pencils bought means more money, right? So instead of buying a billion pencils, they should buy a trillion and that will make them richer? And if that makes them richer they will have more money and should buy 10 trillion pencils, or 100 trillion. And that will make them even more money that they will be able to buy a quadrillion pencils... Unfortunately, that's not how economics works.

Yes. You are going to die at some point too, but that doesn't mean you are going to do everything in your power to stay alive for as long as possible, right? Where, Afghanistan? At least Afghanistan was harboring the terrorists responsible for 9/11, unlike Iraq.

So Americans should get together and decided they want a whole lot of pencils. Then the government can buy up billions of dollars worth of pencils, and everyone in the U.S. will make a profit? Fair enough. The reason I care...I don't like to see people dying needlessly.

Note: any site that advertises penis enlargers is probably not credible. Got anything from MSM? When, specifically? What did they do that was a threat? Do you consider George Washington to be a terrorist?

So if the U.S. government spent a huge amount of money on toasters or frisbees or toothpicks, that would help the economy as well?

You think the U.S. remains permanently at war in order to help its economy? That's the kind of thing I would expect to hear from a far-left conspiracy theorist, not a right-winger. Oh well. Perhaps you could explain to me how war helps the economy? How does using up more resources help the economy?

But speaking of statistics... Link I guess the U.S. must permanently be at war in order for the economy to keep improving like that?

Why don't you explain how you think these things make the war in Iraq worth it? Perhaps you should read my post that I wrote to B. Max a few posts ago, about Lisa and her rock. Unless you can explain how the war in Iraq would improve the economy, those statistics mean nothing.

Proof that Saddam was behind the attack?

Aside from oil and people, what do these countries have that are of interest to the U.S.? Do you really think the U.S. was headed for a recession if they didn't go to war in Iraq? Or that the war in Iraq has improved the economy? I can tell you one way it would actually hurt the economy: $400 billion. Now, how did it help the economy?

Link (from a credible source)? When did they prove they were a threat to the U.S.? There is no shred of evidence to suggest it is true. I could say that you dont' know for a fact that Stephen Harper hasn't killed any Americans. Unless you can prove that Harper hasn't killed any Americans, should we put Harper on trial? Except that those "terrorists" in Iraq werent terrorists before the war. The terrorists from other parts of the world (eg afghanistan) can still choose to attack the U.S. if they wish. The war does not change this one bit. Sorry but I can't help throwing in a Simpsons reference here, because that's exactly what this reminds me of. Are you a simpsons fan? "Homer: Not a bear in sight. The "Bear Patrol" is working like a charm! Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad. Homer: [uncomprehendingly] Thanks, honey. Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away. Homer: Hmm. How does it work? Lisa: It doesn't work. (pause) It's just a stupid rock! Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you? Homer: (pause) Lisa, I want to buy your rock. "

What are U.S. interests in the region other than oil? What does the Iraq war have to do with the 70's?

Even if they were (which they weren't) does that automatically make them a threat to the United States? Is America a threat because it has a heck of a lot more weapons than Iraq? Saddam did not kill a single American, nor did he fund anyone who killed Americans. The old "fight the terrorists there so we dont' have to fight them here"? How does a presence in Iraq prevent terrorism from happening in the U.S.? Iraq has only created more so-called "terrorists" (ie insurgents), it has not made Americans safer.

Since Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11...perhaps you could explain how Iraq was a threat without brining up 9/11?

The cold war is over. You could argue that Iraq was a threat to the region, but you have already stated that the Iraq war was not about helping people in that region (ie helping them by preventing an attack from Saddam). Someone has to pay for those military contracts. It might benefit Canadians, but only at the expense of Americans. Huh? You are trying to claim that Americans are benefitting financially by the war in Iraq, through oil. How is oil in Iraq helping Americans financially if Americans are paying more for it, as well as paying the $400 billion for the war?

And obviously this is the only factor involved....

Yes, I'm certain that Layton and Harper are such good friends that Layton calls up Harper just to say hi and see how he is doing? How nice of him. Seriously though, why else would Layton be talking with Harper?

There is a difference: Laws against speeding or illegal parking make it possible to catch people for speeding or parking illegally (and thus serve a purpose). Does the gun registry (I assume that's what geoffrey means when he says restrictions) help catch people for gun crimes?