jdobbin

Who are you talking to about your claim then? The Queen?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...fghanistan.html Four Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan today...

I think a lot of Canadians are worried that Afghanistan might have insurmoutable problems. The pourous border with Pakistan that shields al Qaeda and the international drug trade put Canada in the firing line. The dug drealing Taliban can pay more to a fighter than the government can to a soldier.

This is an old argument you make. Everything you don't believe is a myth. There is no legal basis in the world that doesn't define Canada as being a sovereign nation. The only way a settlement is going to happen is through negotiation. Stop threatening violence.

Do they teach evolution as well?

Defined as sovereign nation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_Canada

So much for the peaceful process you talked about. I guess it remains to be seen what will happen. One thing is for certain, it will not be easy to convince Canadians in the disputed areas to vacate their homes as you have demanded.

The Queen is a mere figurehead though. It's not like her approval is needed for anything. The actual head of state is the Governor General. Political decisions reside with Parliament.

It might be preferable to some Canadians than a party committted to staying in Afghanistan long term when the situation might worsen substantially.

The Conservatives have Afghahistan. It is going to have around their necks like a millstone. Martha Hall Findlay is looking more and more credible. Perhaps not as leader now but as a strong member of the party. Kennedy might be a fine addition too and Dion has shown some strength. It is too early for Rae to be leader of a party that he has no history with. Having said that, he might be a strong front bencher in opposition or cabinet. Volpe has to redeem himself over time.

You probably forget the yawner that was the Conservative leadership campaign and then even bigger yawn that was the merger. People could barely identify Harper and McKay.

It wasn't so much a boycott as it has been little desire to see some of his latest movies, especially Passion of the Christ. I had very little interest in seeing it dramatized. Braveheart might be a great movie but I have often missed Best Picture films because they didn't appeal to me.

If Canada is not a legal nation, how can it give back something when you don't recognize its existence?

Canada didn't sign that document if I am not mistaken. And the U.N. cannot and will not enforce a decision regarding the matter.

I've re-read the decision a few times now. Where does it say there are no limits there? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Guerin The Nisga Treaty had lots of limits placed on it.

This just gives the government a fiduciary duty to protect native rights. It doesn't say what limits to those rights are.

There has been a restoration of money to the health system people are awaiting the latest stats to see if the flow of doctors south is comtinuing. There has been a flow of doctors and nurses back in recent years because many nurse in the U.S. recieve lower wages that Canadian nurse. Doctors return in some cases because the cost of liability makes their practice too costly.

I think there are a lot of hard working people in Parliament. If your own local MP is unsatisfactory, you do your bets to defeat them. I don't think my local MP is the best we can get so I will be voting against them the next election.

I accepted the gax tax to general revenue because it was needed for some time to eliminate the deficit and to pay for services like environmental protection. After the deficit was eliminated, I believed the gas tax should apply to the infrastructure deficit. And widely, the Liberal looked to move some of the tax to muncipalities for infrastructure. I look forward to the Harper government continuing that policy. If zero tax is good so much zero government.

I think one of the things that damages political parties is not taking bids on contracts. It doesn't pass the smell test and opens up the contract to corrupt practices. What is the purpose of government in your opinion? If all taxes were eliminated, could we dispense witn it?

Would health care fall into that category?

Does that mean all people are corrupt? Because it is people who elect other people to office.

How should taxes be collected if it is just for military and police. Sales tax, income, property?

At the moment, not all the tax goes to infrastructure. It goes to general revenue. I have no problem with the precentage if it is going to improve infrastructure. So the basic change would be to allocate it where it is supposed to go.

The gasoline tax. All money should go to infrastructure.