gc1765

I believe we have already had this discussion: Link See my last post. You mean subsidizing it below the black market rate, there is no free market rate as there is no free market. Even below the black market rate, the government would be making a huge profit.

Even the ones about pandering to your favourite province, Quebec?

I agree that it sounds like sour grapes coming from a hypocrite....but that doesn't change the fact that the other 59 are good reasons not to vote for the Conservatives (well most of them anyways).

Thanks. I haven't actually read the book, but I found it hard to believe that Carter would be anti-semitic. Maybe I'll check out the book and decide for myself, if I have time to read it.

government subsidization?

Surely even you can see that Carter has accomplished more than Hitler.

I find it hilarious that right-wingers call Jimmy Carter a failure when he has accomplished much, much more than any of them. How many terms have you been president?

What did he say that could be interpreted as anti-semitic?

Who said anything about Christianity? I'm not a biblical scholar either, but I'm pretty sure there's another religion that believes in the old testament as well.

You are quite right, instead of attacking the Japanese and German military, and the government that supported it, we should have attacked as many innocent civilians as possible, even if they were opposed to the war. While we are at it, let's attack Germany tomorrow, I mean clearly the Germans living today are guilty by association as well. A lot of Germans were nazis, therefore Germany is not a "peaceful" country, therefore we should blame all Germans for the mistakes of the past. Same goes with Japan.

No, it wouldn't. I would judge the extremists as extremists and judge the moderates as moderates. Two very different religions, just happen to have the same name. The beliefs of a moderate Muslim are as far removed from the extremist Muslims as the beliefs of moderate Christians are removed from those same extremist Muslims. If you are going to lump moderate and extremist Muslims together, why not lump all religion together? Why not say that religion in general is violent and blame all religious people for that violence? You would probably aruge that it's ridiculous to compare a Christian/Hindu/Bhuddist etc. with an extremist Muslim and I would argue that it's just as ridiculous to compare a moderate Muslim with an extremist Muslim. He certainly didn't help the situation by invading Iraq. See my signature. ...but that's a whole different issue.

Some people believe that Muslims are guilty by association, that just because other muslims are killing people, the moderate muslims should be lumped in with, and judged alongside, the extremists. That doesn't make any sense to me. If a Christian kills an abortion doctor, I do not blame all Christians, and I do not blame Christianity, I blame the person responsible. Same goes with Islam.

You haven't read the bible? "12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God." Deuteronomy 13:12-16 ...and that's just ONE example.

I agree it would be nice to get some more information...like exactly what the documents are. The Liberals seem to be pretty sure that they have proof. As of now I have no reason to believe that they would simply make up such a wild accusation, and if it turns out that the whole accusation was a fabrication that will look very badly for the Liberals. Apparently even Preston Manning agrees that compensation was paid, and that it was a mistake, but stockwell denies it.

I saw stockwell day on the news denying the incident. If it isn't a big deal, he should at least have the decency to admit it.

I agree

What if they continued to lie about it (deny it)?

Would you beleve it if it came from Preston Manning?

Why is that noteworthy?

If they did that, don't you think the Conservatives would accuse the Liberals of playing politics? Should scandals only surface during election campaigns?

"Liberal MP Mark Holland said documents the party discovered last week raise new questions about whether Day's office negotiated payment to a sitting MP in exchange for his stepping aside in a B.C. riding" Where did you hear that they have had access to it for 14 months?

No, you are all wrong. Clearly, Katrina was created by the eco-nazi, global warming agenda pushing, scientists. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that scientists want to destroy the economy, so that scientists can rule the world. So, they created this myth called "global warming", but despite being pushed by the left-wing media, people were not fooled by the ridiculous notion that CO2 could cause global warming by absorbing the heat radiated from the earth. So, to further provide "proof" of global warming, they created hurricane Katrina, and blamed it on global warming. Now people are filled with fear and are starting to believe the lies spewed by these eco-nazis. Pretty soon our economy will collapse, and scientists will be enslaving us all. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Anyone else see this from the National Post

Harper's secret agenda is to outspend the Liberals, apparently. ...well at least until he gets his majority.

Thanks for avoiding the question