jdobbin

And I wonder if the new NDP leader or his people might be charged by the RCMP. Ouch, indeed.

Given that everyone seems to want to have an election or not have an election they can blame on the Liberals, it seems that whatever the Liberals do seems to get the shouting going. Around in Manitoba there has been very little sign of the recession but a lot of areas are suffering badly. They will continue to suffer after some of the stimulus expires at the end of this year. The dollar remains a factor is kicking Canada down a notch. Not to mention what the world situation is. It is quite likely that additional announcements will have to come in the fall in the economic statement. That is, if Harper let's it go through. We could be seeing him announce an election before that. I think you forget that the NDP also aggravated a portion of the population by naming three Liberals to a coalition and then ratcheting up the fear language about all the other parties while dozing off in the governance. The NDP were tossed because they simply collapsed from a lack of initiative. In short, the voters (who are always right) decided they had had enough. What absolute fakery. What a phoney issue. I doubt most Canadians care a whit as they themselves try and take a few weeks off this summer. In any event, according to some of the political reports, Ignatieff has been at party headquarters in Ottawa working the last weeks.

I am. If the RCMP rules against your leader, I predict the NDP will suffer even more in the polls.

I'm sure the world is happy for you.

Is Iran a problem that you are happy to solve?

Yes, it matters not that it means it makes you happy about Iran's stance?

Does it not matter to you?

Given the corruption of the NDP in Saskatchewan, you might have to get over their death. Yeesh. Could it get much worse?

But Iran makes you happy?

The challenge to make you happier about Iran's belligerence is greater?

I think you indicated that they were gone. They aren't. I expect if the NDP can't get out of the corruption, they could easily see themselves replaced as Opposition. The disgust is running pretty high right now.

I think it is great that Republicans keep up the pressure. Let's see a united front on this one.

Nope. Still around. But, as I said, a good economy is no guarantee of victory. The NDP got spanked. And now the corruption scandal will keep them in knots for the foreseeable future.

Well, we certainly know that a good economy didn't help the NDP in Saskatchewan, right?

And this makes you happy?

And yet you always say that the Liberals would have spent more knowing that it can't be proven. The Liberals also cut which is something that the Tories have not really done since getting in office.

We have seen Israel trade land for peace a few times. They did it with Egypt where they removed a half dozen settlements in Sinai and around 4000 or so settlers and a few thousand more troops. We have seen it in Gaza where 21 settlements were shut down and 9000 settlers were removed. We are now seeing it in the West Bank with 23 settlements and 8000 settlers are to be moved. I'm afraid the evidence has been demonstrated. Israel has come to the table, your Hamas has not. Hamas is not even in the peace agenda. It remains to be seen whether they will be or not. They want to end all Israeli presence in the area. Your obvious bias towards them and not identifying them as a terrorist group is not exactly helping. Moving from one area to the next was the agreed upon approach. You don't like it that much is clear but it does get results as clearly Gaza demonstrates. Now, if Hamas will agree to end the violence, there might actually be more progress on a number of fronts. I want you to acknowledge that one side has not come to the table and is determined to use violence to get what it wants. Israel has come to the table. Your Hamas has not. Not good enough. Their stance is to use violence to achieve their aims and not come to the table. You can't bring yourself to even call it a terrorist attack. Baloney. Looks at what their objective is: Total removal of Israelis from the Middle East. How do you reconcile that? They won't come to the table because they can't agree to even live with Gaza and West Bank. They want it all back. I have already indicated that it is. Hamas not coming to the table at all and continuing to fight is a huge stumbling block. It doesn't even achieve your baseline of success which is Oslo. And you continue to support them and put this all on Israel. Israel has come to the table. Your Hamas hasn't. You want to achieve more in the region, speak to your friends there and tell them to come to the table.

I doubt we'd been in as large a deficit if the Liberals had remained in power. As for stimulus money, I think it will still be slow going in terms of hiring. Some projects that end this fiscal year such as the Tory home renovation credit could result in a slowdown next year. So, if Harper thinks it is all over, he is probably wrong.

And the Tories had already budgeted this in the stimulus and the group had met the criteria. The Tories have made noises about other reasons why the group didn't get money this time but it looks like being gay had a huge impact. They money was budgeted. It wasn't asking for more money.

As I said, the Tories are going to great lengths to explain their decision but coming on the heels of Tories expressing misgivings about funding anything gay, it sound like they are trying to make excuses. The regional aspect of the fund was never mentioned in the initial criteria. It is only being talked about now. If you had read the link, you would have seen that. Which was not in the original criteria if you continued to read the link you bring attention to. Well, actually yes. I questioned the money for the Human Rights museum going to Winnipeg. It seemed an awful expensive project and as I mentioned here a few times, I believed the costs of it were being downplayed. In short, the previous criteria for museum funding for Canada was museums in Ottawa since it was central to the country and likely to attract the most Canadians. I wrote this month and months ago in these forums. The criteria was changed without a proper debate. And now, Harper has done it again with another national museum in Halifax. Harper had once made a big deal about politicizing how money in Canada was distributed. He made it important that criteria was set and that fairness, accountability and transparency was evident. The festival in Quebec met that criteria. Harper changed the criteria at the last moment since regional distribution was never mentioned before.

Because many in Quebec are wary of the "redneck" factor as the Montreal Gazette wrote today. If it can be extended to one thing, it can be extended to many. If the Conservatives ever hope to break the logjam preventing them winning majorities, they can't continue to appeal to their base by running interference on programs they designed to prevent that in the first place.

And I'm sure you'd get offended about pretty much anything I write about the Tories. I happened to agree with the way programs and criteria were set up by the Tories. I had no comment about funding previously but now it seems at the last minute, a new criteria is set up. It is the Tories that said they wanted to ensure that everything was outlined and criteria set to avoid money to going to various groups over others for political reasons. What they have shown is that they do decide where money goes even after setting up criteria and politics plays a huge part. If this wasn't good enough for the Liberals, it sure isn't good enough for the Tories. It often gives the impression of a corrupt process where people can have funding pulled because the government doesn't like them. The reaction in Quebec: http://www.montrealgazette.com/travel/Dive...8300/story.html

I find it offensive that the rules change after the criteria is met.

I think Canadians are fairly aware when there is an inconsistent approach to program delivery. You are arguing that money should not be spent on festivals. By all means, debate that before a program is set up. However, the Tories do have a program so the debate is whether the parties meet the criteria for funding. In this case, the government says they did. What we have seen is noises from the Tory caucus about not funding anything gay. This would seem to be a new criteria to funding that wasn't in place when the application was made. Separate argument. There is a program already in place. Criteria has been set. The gay Montreal festival met that criteria and now the money is withdrawn. The government tonight is going to great lengths to explain why they did what they did. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0722?hub=Canada Coming on the heels of the anger in the Tory caucus, it really does this look like it is a gay bias that prevented funding from going through.

Then I'm sure their explanation will make sense if they ever decide to give one. At the moment, given the fact that social conservatives have stepped forward to put a stop to funding, it looks like this is a political decision to stop funding rather than an economic one.