jbg

wth? You're comparing Bush to Bill Clinton now? Bush has f'd up the USA, it's sense of self, it's relationship with the world, it's legal ethics, Iraq, terrorism, the list could go on. He's the most arrogant and power-grubbing and just plain WORSE President EVER. His simplistic "visions" are messing up the planet. You could put that on a poll question and get about 65% of Americans agreeing with you. So don't even bother. Given that Ronald Reagan isn't comiing out of the grave soon ans that GWHB was hardly a model President, who else to compare him to? The hapless, feckless Jimmy Carter who was overhwhelmed with kller rabbits? Or Gerald Ford? Or Richard Mihous Nixon? Or perhaps "Hey Hey LBJ, how many children you kill today"? Or JFK who also couldn't keep his zipper up? The pool of available Presidents or PM's is small and all are flawed.

good grief. Winston Churchill must be spinning in his grave. Everything Bush has touched has turned to sh@t. I'm not carping, I'm telling you the man has ruined his Country and is doing his best with the rest of the world. Bush didn't deliver anything. Al Qaida delivered the bad news and ANY President would have gone after them. Pretending otherwise is nonsense. Oh yes. Bill Clinton letting bin Laden slip away a few times, so as to to offend political sensibilities. Case rested.

The term Proven Reserves is defined by OPEC as follows: Thus, the price is highly relevant to determining what the reserves are.

Why is "Bush" the automatic demonization term these days? Oh, I don't know. Maybe because he's been an unmitigated disaster? For every uninformed person who says that, I point to Winston churchill as an example. No one ever likes to hear the news that they're at war. The West is at war, and it started before the Crusades, not on January 20, 2001. Bush delivered the bad news, and is fighting the war with the political and military tools he has. The carping is not helpful.

Why is "Bush" the automatic demonization term these days?

If this werein the US, this would be considered "conduct", which is not protected, rather than "speech", which is.

My point is that I doubt that people like Maurice Strong, Demairis, and the various rather wealthy power brokers supporting Kyoto are bleeding heart environmentalists who care about Mother Earth. I see a much more cynical agenda, while the guitar-strummers who think they're supporting clean air and wholesomeness have no idea what's really going on.

Especially since I'm quite sure that INAC, the gun registry, and a whole host of programs I can't even think of, as well as the "sponsorship program" must be fertile sources of LPOC patronage and corruption. It is natural to expect that any program where there is no clear definition of "success" elnds itself to corruption. For sponsorship, for example, there was no way for the public to determine if the incentives to make Quebec more "Canadian" were working or not. So there was no way of monitoring even the "substance" of the program, netting out the obvious graft. Ditto INAC. There is no way to know if the natives are any better off when money is shoveled in, so if some goes missing, no one notices. Same with the gun registry. By creating and/or mis-administering huge, expensive programs the Lieberals have left themselves wide open. Did they really expect that the attacks would stop when CPC techies could get into the computers and see how the Canadian taxpayer was really being raped?

HAHAHA!! Seriously guys, if Rolling Stone said so, it must be true. I mean this is ROLLING S TONE!!! Oh I get it. Forget the FACTS of the case. Just shoot the messenger. I'm outta here. There is no way that Kerry won that election. 51% - 48% is a rather big win in the context of recent contested US elections.

Actually, it's electoral votes, not population that Kerry would have won if not for voter fraud. We also know that Bush "won" Ohio by 51-48%, but statewide results were not matched by the court-supervised hand count of the 147,400 absentee and provisional ballots in which Kerry received 54.46% of the vote. In Cuyahoga County, Ohio the number of recorded votes was more than 93,000 greater than the number of registered voters. Horsefeathers!!! Cuyahoga County is largely minority and any "overvote" would favor the Democrats. The actual turnouts are quite low there, so the fraud would have created far more Kerry than Bush votes. Thus, Bush's margin would have been bigger.

I was being facetious. You may know me from other boards.

What we saw was the Martin faction of the LPOC trying to drive a spike into the Chrétien faction. This wasn't honesty or self-disclosure; this was partisan infighting and sharp elbows.

Oh yes. The same ones who slept through the third reading of the budget vote. Harper's one smart operator, and he'll get a majority. By the way, it shouldn't take an American to tell you that a minority government leader cannot "call" an election; he must be defeated on a confidence vote. See. King/Byng.

Gerryhatrick=proudpegger=Liberal double dipper........they never change,do they? A "hat trick" (link) is any three victories in sport. Thus, apparently, the name "gerryhatrick". Interesting entymology? Threads and posts, in threesomes.

Well, how else to get money from Liberal-friendly ad agencies back to the Lieberal Party? Its quite funny, i found in a newspaper that the liberal party announced they paid back their whole debt a week ago.. Repaid all proceeds of AdScam?

We won't be running out of oil for the next few hundred years. As the price increases, previously unprofitable deposits become profitable. I agree. There's even a school of thought that at least some oil reservoirs go much deeper than believed and are essentially self-replenishing.

Well, how else to get money from Liberal-friendly ad agencies back to the Lieberal Party?

First of all, Bush is not "near-lunatic". It is of vital importance to fight radical Islamism (really the successor to cold-War communism) on their turf rather than ours. While concededly Saddam was not involved in the 911 attacks, and may not have gotten that far along the nuclear road, there is no question that both the geographic centrality of the country and the presence of a largely educated population made it a prime candidate for regime change. Eventually the methods of the colonial era must inevitably be restored; local control on local matters, with a liberal smattering of Western bases. That part of the world is too important and too dangerous to allow it to be so badly misgoverned.

I suspect that the sentiment started as early as 1774, when many Loyalists began to flee to what's now Canada, then apparently just non-rebelling provinces, from New England. There were many who had literally zed interest in seeing what would happen in a brand new country, a republic. Worse, it wasn not even known if it was going to be one country, or 13, or many more countries. So anti-Americanism is an essential element of the pieces that made up Canada. As the years have gone by the excuses have changed. First it was our aggression, later Viet Nam, now Iraq. In April 1973, when I was 16, I spent a weekend at the home of a nice North York family, on a band exchange program. I was told then, when I asked if Canadians regarded their relations with the US as brotherly or close, they said "not really". I received similar feedback at a Yonge Street bookstore.

What press ban?

Especially since when France colonized Quebec they did so in the name of the Catholic Church, not in the name of the French monarch.

Who else would sponsor those editorials dressed up as news articles, or the anti-American fun of Rick Mercer?

Great poem!!! You should try that on a few other forums, such as Rabble. I'm sure you're be appreciated.

You got me right. My point is that these "scientists" are bringing their political bent for a command and control economy into the picture, by conjuring doomsday scenarios and then proposing highly bureaucratic and likely ineffective "solutions" to those problems. The mischievous agenda of these "scientists" became obvious with the Club of Rome's belief in "limits of growth". If food scarcity couldn't be used as an argument to restrict Western prosperity, first global cooling, now global warming does the job. What next? Global chickenpox?

I visited Montreal during the convention and watched receipts being issued. Though I did not go into the convention (and thus did not get a receipt) they were giving them out. My point is that a convention is not an election activity. It does not occur during or in connection with the writ drop period. In many cases the MP candidates are not selected. In short, it has zed to do with an election. And Valerie Hache's views seem highly partisan. My point is that an event costs something to run. Obviously, a $600 a plate chicken dinner is in part a donation. The chicken costs something. Same with a convention. Perhaps, the portion of the price, above hall rental, cleanup, security, etc. should properly be considered a donation.