jdobbin

Don't know how many links or transcripts he needs to see to believe that. FOX Network was broadcasting that Obama was to blame for the attack and Hannity was one of those believing he Obama deserved no credit for rescue and was noncommittal prior. The Conservative blogs were howling at Obama for not authorizing a rescue. You can see how this blog has had to climb down from that stand. http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/04/how-...e-happened.html FOX News has tried to bury Obama's part in ordering deadly force. http://www.newshounds.us/2009/04/12/fox_ne...rate_rescue.php Rush Limbaugh attacked Jonah Goldberg for crediting Obama. http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Rightwing_pu...rates_0413.html Hannity completely disagreed that Obama had anything to do with the rescue. The various links already up show that FOX was blaming Obama for not providing security for the American flagged ship.

What segment wants to abandon the five principles? Who? Which MPs? Which policies?

I haven't bothered to post the Glenn Beck histrionics because I'm not sure it can even be classified as real. It was comedy that I was saw. Someone uploaded FOX's response in the last days. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtg4p-rKuIU And more: And Conservative talk radio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5pdA6R6Fcg

He just can't seem to get his head around the fact that FOX and conservative talk radio were saying just how impotent Obama was and that the escalation was a result of Obama letting the pirates have free reign along Somalia's coasts. Hannity called Obama non-committal according to the link already posted and the conservative blogosphere was blaming Obama for the captain being recaptured by not authorizing a rescue.

You deny that people like Limbaugh and Hannity weren't blaming Obama for the pirates and saying he deserved no credit for the rescue? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/14/b...y_n_186613.html Don't you even watch FOX? Do you need a printed transcript to believe things There is one in this link. Or, you can simply click the link that shows the Hannity broadcast. In any event, you are lying again as you always lie.

I stated it because there is no Republican who is rejecting the stimulus package. They all are. Sanford is taking the majority of the money and I don't know how many times it has to be pointed out to you. Tell me which Republican who is rejecting federal assistance? There isn't one. Sanford included. This is why you are lying. And when caught for lying as you did on Franken, you decide to slink off. All of your Republican governors are accepting stimulus. Sanford is caught up on only a portion of it and I'm not convinced he won't take it in the end. By the way, I'll post where I want to and especially in this forum to ensure that everyone knows the points that you have lied about.

Actually, the Feds have every right to set up general standards of care as part of equalization. It does not attempt to run programs within the provinces but can withhold money from transfers in Ontario won't allow new citizens to access healthcare anywhere in Canada. That is the portability clause of the funding arrangement. Do you think that provinces should be able to withhold care from someone in Newfoundland who moves to Alberta? Each province can explore those options under the Canada Health Act. If some province wants to end universality, the Feds have every right to withhold transfers.

Transfer payments are entrenched in the Constitution. The Feds have not attempted to run provincial health programs. National standards were agreed to by the provinces and the Feds.

Never said it wasn't. It is why the federal government doesn't run it. However, anyone who says that there isn't a role for the federal government in healthcare standards, coordination and funding ignores the historic role. We don't need 10 Level 4 labs for infectious diseases. We don't need 10 standards on drugs. The federal government has an important role in providing these things. The constitutional role of transfer payments is entrenched and the Feds can set general standards for care before providing the money. It is why Paul Martin negotiated a deal to build daycare spaces with each province. That program, unlike the Tory unilateral tax credit program that bypassed the provinces, actually built spaces with staff. The Tory program was simply an income supplement that didn't offer enough to help provide actual daycare. The Tory program on daycare didn't provide any infrastructure money for spaces to be built. In the words of the minister responsible, it failed in that category. The truth is that Tories don't really believe in daycare. And yet combined with other transfers was enough to get the provinces off the back of the Feds without going into deficit. National standards still can have an important role along with stable long term financing. The Tory program for daycare certainly has not helped the provinces. It bypassed them. The Tory approach of bypassing the provinces is not helpful in the least.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21211.html Coleman is probably not going to concede but that Supreme Court is not likely rule in his favour. It is all over except the crying by the right.

You're the liar. Sanford is the only one who has not come fully aboard. All the rest have fallen into line. He is taking the rest of the funds though. Funny that. And funny the lies that pour out of the right.

We have gone over this before and despite the links that showed that Martin did have a program in place and Conservatve figures to show that progran actually created spaces, you ignored it. Each province wanted to run their own program as they saw fit. The Feds negotiated deals with each province accordingly. One of the reason Harper doesn't have the provinces crawling up his back on healthcare as they used to is because he maintained the stable funding for the program that Martin put in place. The Tories showed how much they cared about daycare by dismantling the deal that Liberals put in place in favour of one that absolutely created zero daycare spaces.

There was a daycare program and it was negotiated with all ten provinces. You know this. The Harper government dismantled it in its first year despite the fact that it actually produced daycare spaces whereas their program didn't. .I'm sure the Liberals will support the police in keeping the program in place. It was long term financing after years of cuts to end the deficit.

The Liberals introduced a daycare program under Martin only to have it replaced by the Tory program which failed and continues to fail in providing daycare spaces. Stable long term financing of healthcare was restored by Martin and that financing has continued under Harper.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National Probably the best strategy for the Liberal party to win over women voters is to concentrate on policies such a daycare and healthcare, two important issues for families. It is true that recruitment of women as candidates and a less caustic response will likely have appeal, it will be policies that really set Liberals and Conservatives apart. Social issues are where the two parties will have significant differences. To appeal to the general voter, the Liberals will have to show they are more competent on finances, jobs and the overall economy.

It was on Hannity last week where he blamed Obama for the escalation in pirate attacks and for leaving the American ship without escort. FOX wasn't the worst of the bunch. This is what Rush Limbaugh said: http://mediamatters.org/limbaughwire/2009/04/09#0027

And modern Tories were slow to even ask for a ceasefire despite the fact that civilians in a no fire zone were being targeted by Sri Lanka.

That already happened with your conservative friends in the media who blamed Obama for this to begin with and have said Obama deserves no credit for ordering a rescue at the first opportunity.

Inhofe doesn't want to end wasteful spending but McCain does. From your link:

I have no idea what Daniel thought FOX would say. My comment was on what FOX has been saying which is that situation was Obama's fault to begin with and that he deserves no credit for ordering the rescue.

The difference here of course is that war is different than peacetime. The "just in time" culture we have depends on the swift unfettered transportation from port to port. Multiple crew inspections would ensure in each port call and it would be very time consuming and expensive according the the U.S. Maritime Academy.

I think FOX's point was that Obama deserves no credit for ordering the successful rescue but that he should be blamed if it went badly. What were the first cuts that he made?

I was not just referring to in Canada. The country has spoken out on the killing of civilians in many nations but seemed reluctant to call for ceasefire in this case. Only this past Thursday did the government join many of the major nations in calling for a ceasefire. The targetting of civilians is well documented. Hence, the call for the ceasefire. The Tigers will be defeated. Then, as before, the Tamil people will suffer. And the government of Sri Lanka doesn't want them out of there either. Try to get the story straight. And the government backs the brutal continuation of oppression against the Tamils. That is what your party is doing.

Then the ships lose the right of "innocent passage" as detailed in the Law of the Sea. The freighters and their crews would be held up at every port for expensive inspections. Law of the Sea Conventions http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agr...nclos/part2.htm

Then it is the Conservative government that you should be upset with. Legislation is their domain. Denial alert! You said that the Conservatives should have told the RCMP to deal with this. Well, they had their opportunity on Parliament Hill. Looks like the Tories are supporting terrorism if we stick to your standard. Then your party failed failed to act. The pictures showed Tamil protests right on Parliament Hill which is federal property policed by the RCMP. Speak to your party about that.