myata

Wow. Parrotting another, foreign politician (even if the text was prepared by a minion, surely 100% coincidence of the "ideas" between the two speeches could not escape Harper - if he's fit to do anything political that is) - a "ploy by Liberals"? For the lack of anything more original maybe, this seems to be the motto of the moment with the Harper's crowd. Very credible. And, "how's it taken out of context", beg to ask? The context was very clear: Canada's participation in the Iraq aventure. Harper was 100% on board; and he could not even find his own, original arguments to support his position. What an independent, laudable international performance! We can only expect more, and better still, of the same, should he gets reelected.

Nope, for some unbeknownst reason, even after those vicious attacks (with WMD and ballistic missiles, remember?) neither NATO solidarity, nor legitimacy of the UN had been invoked. Why? I wonder.... All had to be done by us, solely and alone, poor, threatened and prosecuted ones... (and then, of course, whatever buddies could be handtwisted into it ... not for real, granted, more as a show of solidarity - or in the hope of a prompt payback maybe, like that Georgia, honourable #3 till recent highly regrettable misadventure). But help is near.. If only Harper hangs around long enough for the next adventure, what's there next on the liberation agenda?

And what about independency? In all of these major international events Harper followed Bush's administration step in step: - Lebanon war - Kosovo - Georgia conflict As it appears, taking cues from somebody else's script is not an isolated episode in Harper's foreign policies. Are we (Canadian public) OK with beign written off as another (not even a major one) voice in the Bush's pack?

Does that attitute include embarking on unilateral, self proclaimed pseudo liberation missions on the other end of the world? I hope Harper is asked this question in the debates, and he's as sincere as yourself (kudos for "openness" btw - something that comes with a lot of squeak and pain from this supposedly uber transparent bunch).

As said, just the right attitute to vote Harpers's CPC. March on, no questions asked, no thinking needed. To B.-C.: That's like, when Iraq attacked the US (with WMD) and Britain (with ballistic missiles)?

According to CBC CBC: Harper speech on Iraq, in 2003 Mr Harper presented in the Parliament a speech "calling for Canadian troops to be deployed to Iraq." Excerpt from Harper's speech: And another, two days prior speech, by Australia (then) PM John Howard: Common parts in the two excerpts are highlighted (m.). The rate of interlap between the two is approximately 80% (m.). Which calls for the following questions: 1) What is the percentage of (in)dependency in Harper's foreign policy? 2) Where will Canada find itself in case of another liberating adventure by one of its close allies / associates, if Harper's government were happen to be in power at the time?

That's our man. Just the kind of polemics Harper's crowd is so keen on holding in this election. Just the attitude to do a serious analysys and meaningful discussion of issues and hopefully, work out real solutions. What does it matter that he does not seem to have any clue what he's talking about?

To cheer and to recognize achievement are two different things. Perhaps China isn't at the point where it could lead everybody else in space technology. Perhaps their technology is less than perfect and in the serious need of improvement. This does not in any way diminish their achievement of putting a man into orbit and out into the outer space. Sure they're following in the others footsteps. The point is that in this game in particular, one cannot make a breakthrough without making these first steps. And they take decades to accomplish. China has started on the path and it deserves recognition.

If you never rode one, you may find it to be a greater challenge than you think (and want to applaud yourself for the achievement, etc). Anyways, the statement is factually incorrect, as out of some 200 countries, only 3 (three) has ever executed a manned space flight with a walk in the open space. "Could have", "did not choose to" does not matter a bit (no, milligram, nanobyte, etc) because without making the first step one's bound to remain in one spot only: i.e. on their bum on the coach. Nobody can be a real space power without manned space flight; China can do manned space flight; = China is a space power; one of the 3, so far. Europe may be joining hopefully soon, with their ATV carrier. Which will bring the number to 4. Still a respectable position to aspire to. Welcome to reality.

There's no difference between Islam / Muslim as there's no difference of Christianity / Christian etc. But there's any number of people here who'd bring up certain event as an indication of problem / guilt of the entire group perpetrator is a member of. Do you really want to be one of them? P.S. and FYI: this is an example of a well known logical fallacy of generalization. John lives in Ottawa, John likes to paint his face red - ergo - everybody who lives in Ottawa paints their face red. Generalization can only be performed on a logically proven connection. E.g people belonging to a certain tribe paint their face red; the tribe resides in area A; -> walking around A one may expect to meet somebody with a red face. My two cents.

One more time and in English please: list the countries that executed a manned space flight, on their own carrier, and a spacewalk. Thank you.

Everybody like ... Europe? Or Canada? Or .... who else, exactly?? Why being so broadly general??

Many of these terms: "information"; "understands" need to be put in the context, understood, taken critically, etc. E.g would the colour of underwear contender likes to wear be a meaningful information input to make an informed election decision? Or how he/she would appear in different colour schemes with varyingly suggestive backdrop? What about making them say something they never said, or take it out of context? Now there was already a comment posted somewhere about the nature of "understanding". E.g if I don't understand (and am proud of it) basic grade 3 math, is there a problem with the math? Or with "everybodys"? We may want to be careful as to how far we want to go in admiring our newly found stup(en)dity. The wish may just be granted, in a way of a self fulfilling prophecy.

BBC: Space congress No matter how reported, China's making real strides in space exploration.

Yes I see the notorious US-style campaigning (kick your opponent whatever way possible at all, nobody will care once the election's over). The only patented way to get mental giants like Bush and Chaney at the helm with nuke buttons, and ,00,000 of ready to go wherever and for whatever reason (or no reason) commandos at fingertips. Now coming to a riding near you courtesy of CPC of Canada. Enjoy (your democracy) (while you still can).

Much of that information was already discussed at length in the other threads (e.g Gun Control). Such as that the center of "tough justice" in the developed world - the US - (up to the ultimate, proposed by somebody here - and not exactly shunned by Harpers' Conservatives, given their subtle changes of policy w.r.t. death penalty abroad) also has consistently highest violent crime rates. Or that Canada's incarceration rate is already among the highest among the developed countries, while its violent crime rate definitely isn't. The asnwer, as has been already pointed out, is in persistent meticulous adressing specific crime challenges - most importantly, gang related, with an array of measures, rather than fanning out non existent general crime scare, with a quick "get tough" solution. But why do I have that feeling that scared population, that won't listen to the facts and arguments from experts in "ivory towers" (quoting Harper), and instead would follow a leader promising a quick and easy to grasp solution to a complex long term problem, is much more of the electorate Conservatives would like to see?

I think everybody should make an effort to keep their published artifacts intelligible (or else, avoid publishing them altogether till that possibiliity can be assured). If nobody can understand what you're saying, what would be the point of saying it?

deleted

A clear "hear-see" situation. In practice guns never solve any problmes. They cannot, possibly. But when so many lofty speakers want to make it a matter of belief... it changes the whole story, does it? Anyways this was never intended to be a thread about gun control, there is one (at least) already.

Switzerland's firearm homicide rate is higher than that of Australia, England, and Germany. US's rate is by far the highest in the developed world. Wikipedia: gun violence. Guns won't solve freedom and democracy problems, and they don't solve crime problems. Only people do.

Logically means that all connections are argumented and proven. Not just stated. BTW more violent condition of American society (higher violent crime, higher homicides, higher gun related crimes) is also confirmed by facts - crime stats. Somehow, (correct) logic also goes hand in hand with the reality, too.

Well, as said everything is a tradeoff. Arm everybody now to make one last glorious stand in that apocalyptic civil war, and watch our everyday freedoms trickle away, so it (war) becomes more likely. Because in the end, after all words, a gun is an instrument of violence. More guns, more attention to guns, more obsessions with guns means more violence. Can't be any other way, logically.

No, the problem is that you always assume that people with guns will always be on the side of "the right"; or you'll always be; or the majority will. Yet there's no such guarantee, ever. People with guns are as easily swayed or deceived as those without them (hopefully, not easier). There you go. Gun solves nothing. With or without it, society will be free only as long as its citizens are. And citizens falling for near superstisious belief that a thing in their pocket somehow embues them with freedom, immunity from all evil, are actually making the first step to losing it (ie. freedom). Second one is of course succumbing to fear, which is common in the societies with prolific guns. Fear to speak to a stranger, fear of neighbour, coworker etc. So what's on the balance? Pipe dream last stand glory against dripping your freedom drop by drop here and now - make sure you get it right.

And any superstition, including belief in miraculous powers of certain instrument, is already the first step on the road to lose one's freedom. We're lost, let's no, not think what happened; not reexamine what we did; change our ways; no, let's get out our guns. They're sure to help where our brains are at loss.

In citizen who's capable of thinking critically, open minded and mentally alert; not in her gun. Crux of the argument has been that no bells, whistles or toys will give magical solution where citizens have relinquished their right (and responsibility) to remain free and alert.