gc1765

Duceppe is not running for Prime Minister either.

How so? Can you elaborate on this?

Nice try linking the two. There are people on this board who support racism. Lynching is an act of racism. Therefore posters on this board are a threat.

Geopolitical? How does having a presence in the middle east help the Americans? How are Canadians benefitting? Gas is also still cheaper than bottled water, but I don't see how that helps out Americans who are paying hundreds of billions for this war. Gas would still be cheaper than bottled water without the war.

So who exactly is benefitting from this? The American people who are paying more for oil? And how come Bush never said it was about oil, are you calling Bush a liar (well ok, that much is obvious)?

Well, I think I can honestly say that this is the first time I have heard a right-winger say that the Iraq war was primarily about oil. So why is oil more expensive now? Shouldn't it be at least $400 Billion cheaper in order for the U.S. to be getting their money worth?

Do you believe that the purpose of the Iraq war was to help these people? And secondly, do you think it was worth it?

A threat to who? and how?

Not to mention that these tax cuts will be paid for by their children/grandchildren etc...

Let's pretend for one second that all 2,400 bottles are CO2 and that global warming is going to be the end of the world. Notice I said pretend. In this case, no one would argue against cutting CO2. But then again, 2,400 bottles divided by 5 billion people is that "tip of one eyedropper". And changing a single bulb would be a fraction of that, and so would taking the bus once in a while. Therefore, why should anyone bother cutting emissions in this case either if it's only going to be a small fraction of a tip of an eyedropper in 2,400 bottles?

That's a very vauge statement. Either Iraq was a threat or it was not. If you agree it was not a threat, then you probably agree with the rest of my post above.

Is this addressed to me? If it is, I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am saying it's not how many seats that should count, but the percentage of the popular vote. Where to draw the line is a different question, which is the question that I posed in hopes of hearing other people's opinion. For example, let's pretend I used the number 10%, then only the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and Bloc (barely) would be involved. Someone else might prefer the number 4% in which case the greens would be included too, but not the others. Do you agree that it's the % of vote and not number of seats that count? If so, where would you draw the line?

Going back to my original hypothetical scenario: Which is more of a "fringe" party; a party with 5% of the popular vote and seats in the HOC, or a party with 15% popular vote and zero seats?

Isn't that what we are debating? Whether the Green Party Should be involved in the debate? Not whether the Green Party will be involved in the debate.

So I take it you are agreeing with my response to B. Max? If you acknowledge that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, then you acknowledge that we wouldn't "have more 9/11's to talk about"? And presumably if you agree with that much, you will agree that the Iraq war was not justified? And a waste of money? Money that could have gone towards a tax cut re: the opening post?

Is that more important than percentage of vote? Imagine a completely hypothetical situation, a party gets 15% of the vote but no seats. Another party gets 5% of the vote, and enough seats for party status. Who is more worthy of being involved in the debate?

You forgot to mention the people who believe in the conspiracy theory that global warming is a hoax and a socialist scheme. Funny how right-wingers always conveniently leave that one out. Let's not forget there are conspiracy theorists on BOTH the extreme left and extreme right.

Except that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11...

So what's the magic number, 5%? 10%? 15%? Anyone?

Agreed. The problem is when people use it to rationalize corruption by the Conservatives. Consider these two statements: "The Conservatives did something bad, and it was wrong of them to do so. They have no excuse. However, given that they are better than the other parties, I will still vote for them" "The Conservatives did something bad, but that's OK because the Liberals also did something bad" I can respect the first statement, but sometimes it would appear that certain posters actually believe that statement #2 is acceptable. Now, if only the Conservatives would point to Liberal mistakes that weren't committed by FORMER members. I mean, I don't blame Harper for the fact that John A. was an alcoholic.

I assumed this: "After May denied there was any backroom deals (explaining and making it all seem so innocent and cute how Dion called her up)" meant that you thought there was something wrong with May and Dion and their "backroom deal". If that wasn't your intention, I apologize. If it was your intention, perhaps you could clarify the difference between May & Dion talking vs. Layton & Harper talking.

I agree there is nothing wrong with Layton talking with Harper. ...but then why is there something wrong with May talking with Dion?

It's Ok for an opposition leader to talk with the prime minister, but it's not ok for a leader of a political party to talk with the leader of the opposition?

Troll I've clarified my statement twice now. Go back and read my previous post and quit trolling. As I said before, I'm not interested in debating semantics. Read my previous post, and try to bring something new to the argument. Otherwise, consider yourself ignored.

Delayed reaction? Negative ads? Your guess is as good as mine. But I'm sure the income trust thing had at least something to do with it.