sir_springer

Oh, and BTW, Commie Boy... You want to know what the railway is all about? I used to live in Lloydminster, and often would have to wait at a railway crossing for trains on the way to work. Watching those trains, it became apparent to me what Canada is primarily about: The trains head east loaded with grain, lumber, coal, oil...read "wealth"... And, for the most part, short of the odd load of Fords and Chevy's, they come back empty. That is what the railways were all about, kiddo. Your school books...the State's greatest and most insidious means of propaganda...will tell you it was all about unifying and building a great nation. The reality was that it was all about tapping the wealth of the west in order to feed the factories of Ontario and Quebec. It was pointed out in a study back in the '80s that western Canada's 27% of the population was in fact producing 51% of the real wealth of this country. I could live with sharing the wealth... IF central Canada at least had the decency to throw in some political equality our way in return for what we kick into this country. But instead, we get a constitution that is almost literally inalterable, and that thoroughly entrenches in stone the suprmecy and hegemony of central Canada over the rest of the colonies. And thus we get treated like second rate citizens in our own nation. Ontario and Quebec can elect Liberal-leftist governments until hell won't have any more of that crap, and we get stuffed with the results of it, like it or lump it. And the very idea of an actual EEE Senate that would put a cork in this ongoing farce is nothing more than a pipe dream at best. Even more insulting, our own political expressions get treated like GD Nazis in Ottawa and by their liberal snot mutts in the eastern media. If they had a referendum tomorrow, I'd vote for separation in a heartbeat. Because, all things considered, we simply just don't need this crap, period! And the suggestion that we need to replace it with American crap instead is just plain garbage. We, unlike almost every other province in Canada, save for Alberta, could go it alone... And never look back.

Poet... Rightly or wrongly, the reality of governing is that it involves taking in money (taxes and revenue) from the populace, and then spending it on behalf of them to supply infrastructure and services. Therefore, more than anything else, your arguement is going to come down to primarily economics. WAC Bennett, attending a federal/provincial conference early on in Trudeau's reign, ripped the concept of equalization to pieces and then left the meeting to return home disgusted. Trudeau immediately branded him a "bigot", and all hell broke loose in BC against Trudeau and his Liberal government. WAC led BC out of economic depression to build this province into the single fastest growing and most dynamic economy in the entire world. This man knew of what he was speaking; he was a brilliant and visionary leader the likes of whom this country has not seen since. I remember him once commenting to a reported on TV in regard to equalization: (to paraphrase) "Ah, yes. Equalization. Bennett writes the cheques in British Columbia, and Smallwood cashes them in Newfoundland." He maintained that there was absolutely no reason that provinces like Quebec, with every bit as much a rich resourse base and capable population as BC's, should need a handout from BC. In essense...and I firmly believe this to be the truth of the matter...because the people of BC have the good sense to elect a good government like Bennett's Socreds, which results in BC becoming prosperous and relatively wealthy, we are then penalized for our success. And thus billions of British Columbian's tax dollars are syphoned out of our economy...read, our pockets...to the federal government to be redisbursed to provinces in which the people elect lousy governments. IOW, BC is subsidizing incompetancy. That was almost 40 years ago when Bennett said that this system of subsidy pretty much would become entrenched in Canada. Well over three decades later, equalization is an assumed reality, making up for as much as 50% of the budgets of some provinces. It is estimated that each Albertan family kicks in roughly $3,000 per year into the federal pot that in turn is sent to other regions of the country. I would assume that everyone here can appreciate what $3,000 per year would mean to each your own household budgets. Alberta oil will not last forever. I would argue that this moeny belongs to the people of Alberta with which to prepare for this eventuality...primarily in order that Alberta does not become a "have not" province when the taps run dry. BC provides a classic example of what happens when people...the electorate...become lazy and stupid regarding their franchise to vote. We end up with a bunch of absolute clowns and idiots running our provincial government, and the province goes in the crapper. Next thing you know, we now qualify for equalization. This leaves only two provinces paying into that udder...Alberta and Ontario...and eight provinces sucking on its teats. Thus, we get to behold such facinating paradoxes, from leadership in provinces collecting equalization, courtesy of Albertans and Ontarians, as: Jean Charest promising tax cuts totalling $5 billion dollars if he gets elected. And Bernard Lord bragging about balanced budgets in order to get elected. Now, what business does Charest have in promising tax breaks to Quebecers at the same time he's sucking money out of Alberta and Ontario in order to pay his bills? And how can Lord brag about a "balanced" budget if a huge chunk of that budget is paid for by Albertans? It's a bloody farce. Equalization is touted as some sort of "Canadian" symbol of unity and identity, and politicians wrap the flag around it in order to make it somehow holy a la apple pie. Anyhoo... You want some very interesting information on what British Columbians get for bang for their bucks in Canada? I suggest you get your hands on the book, "Tax Me, I'm Canadian", put out by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. It's chock full of fact and figures that should depress the absolute hell out of anyone with more than three functioning braincells. Like I said, the best way to approach your case is highlighted by what one person noted in an Albertan newspaper recently: "We should vote ourselves out of Canada, and then renegotiate the terms of rejoining." EXACTLY! Were the current conditions of confederation to be offered to an independant BC in order to entice us to join Canada, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that we would tell Canada to jam such a ridiculous proposition up their collective arses sideways...with a jackhammer. This is the true litmus test of what confederation has to offer BC...which is pretty much jackshit.

Canada took over BC and Alberta's debt? Please explain. And while you're at, please indicate whether or not you think the $160 billion it has cost Alberta for the privilege of waving the Maple Leaf over the last 30 years was good value for the buck. Don't forget to factor in just what that $160 billion would have meant to Albertans if it stayed within the province. Up until the NDP got done savaging BC's economy, we, too, paid a hefty price to be Canadian. I do not ever, ever recall one of those stinking Liberal snots back east so much as even once acknowledge our contribution to this country. Especially considering that they've been robbing us blind out here in order to buy Liberal votes in Quebec and the Maritimes for decades. And the very instant anyone out here even says one word about it, the lousy bastards out there line up to call us all greedy sons of bitches. #^%^@%*#^&$^#%^#%^#^%#!!!!!! :angry:

If BC and Alberta split, we would fast become the richest nation on the planet, with the highest standards of living, bar none. Everytime I've challenged anyone on a forum to give a good arguement as to why we should stay in Canada, I get the same answer: No answer whatsoever, nothing, zilch, nada. I think of it this way...and this could be the basis of your arguement: Were BC and Alberta already a separate entity... Would Canada offer them the current terms of our place in confederation in order to get us to join Canada??? If they did, we'd tell them to go to hell, and how to get there damn fast, too. In fact, they wouldn't have the nerve to make such a sorry-ass offer, would they? "Hey, if you join us, we will syphon off billions out of your economy for decades to come...but it will be worth it." Will it? How? Will Canada supply us with excellent national defense? Will Canada's state of relations with the US benefit BC and Alberta? Will BC and Alberta benefit from enhanced markets for our products? Will BC and Alberta receive proportional numbers of MPs and Senators in Ottawa? Will BC and Alberta get bang for our bucks we send to Ottawa in taxes, etc.? Will we be subject to Canada's asinine ideas of firearms controls? I obviously could go on and on...but I don't want to upset anyone too much...sorta. Nevertheless... Because we're already part and parcel of it, we're stuck with all the above crap, and a whole lot more. And it's only cost BC and Alberta a couple of hundred billion for the privilege, too. So... There's my suggestion to you. Set up a premise in which BC and Alberta are already a separate entity... And then look at the terms of confederation with which we are currently strapped... And consider whether BC and Alberta would accept those terms to enter confederation with Canada. Which, of course, no one but a duck's ass would ever think likely. Therein is defined the pathetic nature of our role within this country.

My prediction for Martin? Harper will humiliate him, and he will tumble. The King who never was. Listened to his acceptance speech on Friday... What an "apple-pie" shmooze was that, eh? ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz.............. The emperor has no clothes.

Paul Martin is the Vanilla Ice of Canadian politics Like a pop band, he steals and recycles other people's ideas from past decades DAVID ANBER Montreal Gazette - Monday, November 03, 2003 Paul Martin is the Vanilla Ice of Canadian politics. For those who might not remember, Vanilla Ice was a rapper who had one big hit in the early 1990s. That song, Ice Ice Baby, went quadruple platinum in less than a month and everybody was convinced that Vanilla Ice was going to replace the rock and pop that dominated the previous three decades. Then it happened. People began to realize why they found the tune so catchy: It turned out that Ice Ice Baby was quite similar to a song by Queen and David Bowie from the previous decade. And so, the Vanilla Ice craze will go down in music history as the combination of empty hype and borrowed styles. Martin might not realize it, but he is quickly defining himself as the next Vanilla Ice. His vision for Canada is really just borrowed lyrics from Brian Mulroney or Stephen Harper. His vision of federalism is just a remix of the tunes first sung by Jean Charest and Ralph Klein. In a world where there are no alternative music genres, this strategy might have worked just fine. But this is no longer the case. By the time the federal election is called in April, the Conservative Party will be formed and Canadians will see quite the political comeback. Sure, Martin dismisses the new party as insignificant in Quebec, but that's only because he believes his own hype. Even among some Canadian Alliance and Tory supporters, the question of uniting the right is divisive. They call it a takeover, and point to a poll that claims Canadians agree, with younger Canadians leading the way. And yet, Alliance and Progressive Conservative campus clubs, representing thousands of young Canadians, have united in support of the unification in every province of the country. What about the Quebec question? Vanilla Martin and the Dave Orchard Band would have Canadians believe that this new party cannot win in Quebec. This, too, is hype. Without it, people might actually notice that Quebec does not traditionally support the Liberal Party. In fact, since the days of Trudeau, the Liberals have never won Quebec. Since 1993, the Bloc Québécois has prevented the Liberals from winning the province. Why? Because Quebecers prefer to elect the strongest alternative to the Liberals. The Bloc might persist as a fringe party buoyed only by the hard-core separatists. The Bloc has existed with the support of a Parti Québécois government in Quebec City. Without this ally, the Bloc's days are clearly numbered. Where will its support go? The borrowed Paul Martin tunes might sound catchy at first, but Quebecers won't buy it. They might even prefer to stay home rather than vote Liberal. What else could explain the drop in voter turnout from 77 per cent in 1993 to 64 per cent in 2000? In this most recent election, 36 per cent of Quebecers didn't vote and only 28 per cent voted Liberal. Martin probably realizes this even though he pretends otherwise. This is why he adopted the Vanilla Ice strategy. He had hoped to copy the popular Mulroney/Harper tunes of late. But he wasn't expecting that the Mulroney and Harper melodies would be making a comeback of their own. And when given the choice between a cheap imitation and the original song, we all know what wins out. It might be a bit hard to say who is going to be lead singer of this new comeback group. With a leader who can speak to Canadians in both official languages, this new party will grow both in Quebec and across the country. The auditions have already started each day during Question Period in the House of Commons. To be sure, this is only rehearsal for when Martin becomes leader, but - by then - his song might just have slipped off the charts.

My thoughts, exactly! --------------------------- November 7, 2003 Checkmate! By LINK BYFIELD -- Calgary Sun There are two men in Ottawa today for whom the universe is unfolding as it should. One is Paul Martin. The other is Stephen Harper. Both are emerging as titans from the depressing political wreckage of the past decade. They will soon face each other, probably this spring, in one of the most interesting federal elections in recent history. If I were a gambler, I'd put my money on Harper. A JMCK poll in mid-October put a united conservative party only 5% behind the Liberals. All the same, Harper is starting from too far back to win. But he'll outshine Martin, gain more in the East than Martin does in the West, and take the wind out of the Liberal sails. He'll keep rising in the next Parliament, while Martin subsides. Martin will probably win. But Harper's the one to watch. Martin has been oversold. Harper, by contrast, has been underestimated from the beginning and will continue to exceed expectations. In one year, he has united a caucus that Preston Manning had divided and Stockwell Day had lost control of. And, just as only Nixon could go to China, only Harper could actually effect a merger. As the Alliance leader who was always least enthused about merging, he was best able to get the Alliance to do it. Whether the Tories will come to the altar remains uncertain. Either way, Harper wins. He has (it seems safe to say) persuaded tens of thousands of Tory-hating western Alliance members to reunite their party with the Conservatives -- on Conservative terms. At the same time, by strenuously opposing gay marriage, he has proved to his own party's distrustful social conservatives that he will support them, if not on all issues, at least on those that stand some chance of winning. Some say his real political ambition all along has been to nudge the Tories back to the right, and hopefully the nation, too. Biding his time, he chose the perfect moment. New Tory leader Peter MacKay had just betrayed his own right-wing supporters by striking a secret deal with leftist leadership contestant David Orchard. Harper realized that MacKay could now be pushed into betraying David Orchard by resuming secret unity talks with the Alliance. Result: No one in the old Conservative Party trusts MacKay to be leader of anything, and no other credible Tory candidates exist. Which leaves only Harper. The only other Tory possibility was former Ontario premier Mike Harris, but last weekend he gave it a pass, as I suspect Harper figured he would. Harris's marital affairs are in a mess. He will soon be investigated by Ontario's new Liberal government for his role in the Ipperwash Native blockade fatality. He can't speak French. Former provincial premiers are never elected prime minister. And he's making way too much money in business to fancy becoming leader of the federal opposition. There were other forces in play. There was enough time -- just barely enough --to pull off a merger before the election next spring. On Jan. 1, the election financing rules will change dramatically, forbidding corporate political donations and granting federal money to parties based on the votes they received in the previous election. The Tories, vote-poor and badly in debt, could not survive this double blow without help. Harper also knew that though Red Tories like Joe Clark and David Orchard were bound to oppose a merger, more influential figures like Brian Mulroney and Don Mazankowski would recognize reality and support it. So Harper made them an offer they couldn't refuse: A merger on their terms, which in effect hands their party over to Alliance leadership. If Tory members do refuse it next month, they will not be forgiven by the electorate. The nation is yearning for a viable alternative to the Liberals. With their party depleted of members, money and credible candidates, the Tories will either accept or they will implode, once and for all. Either way, it's checkmate. Harper has won.

Excellent! We have a leader here, people! _________________________________ From the Ottawa Citizen... Harper seeks balance in merged agenda Alliance leader says new party has to be 'about more than tax cuts' Peter O'Neil and Tom Blackwell The Vancouver Sun with files from National Post November 7, 2003 A merged Canadian Alliance-Progressive Conservative party must openly embrace social conservatives even though the proposed new entity's statement of principles deliberately avoids issues such as abortion or gay marriage, Stephen Harper said yesterday. The Alliance leader, who is seriously considering a bid to lead the proposed new party, said the role of social conservatives in the new party will obviously be a dominate theme of the leadership race. "The party has got to be about more than tax cuts," Mr. Harper said. "I know that's a view in some quarters (in the two parties) that that's what it's about. But, realistically, I think we have to address a range of issues, including some of these issues that are controversial." Mr. Harper acknowledged there is no specific recognition of social conservatives or their agenda in the proposed new party's agreement-in-principle, which calls for a party that balances "fiscal accountability, progressive social policy and individual rights and responsibilities." Meanwhile, in Toronto, Conservative leader Peter MacKay fought off a small but determined band of hecklers last night as he led a Tory show of force in favour of the proposed merger. A crowd of 1,500 activists at a fundraising dinner repeatedly gave Mr. MacKay standing ovations as he trumpeted the amalgamation deal as the only chance to end effective one-party rule by the Liberals. However, much of the applause was designed to drown out boos and shouts from about a dozen opponents of the merger, who called it a betrayal of the party's roots and values. The audience included a who's who of Ontario Conservative heavyweights -- from former premiers Bill Davis and Mike Harris to cable-TV magnate Ted Rogers -- as well as Mr. Harper and several of his caucus colleagues. "We are here to send a message to our re-united conservative family: Get ready, our time is here again," Mr. MacKay told the dinner. "We are here as well to send this message to the most arrogant, corrupt Liberal government we have ever seen in Ottawa: The countdown has begun, and your days are numbered." Outside the convention centre where the event took place, about 35 naysayers marched in defiance of the deal, carrying sings with slogans such as 'MacKay traitor,' 'No merger madness' and 'PC party hijacked.' "I feel like a tourist at the demise of my own party," scoffed one opponent as she left the dinner. But the message most of the Conservatives inside the building tried to convey was one of grateful acceptance of the proposed amalgamation. "This is not an Alliance take-over," said Mr. Davis. "This is a happy marriage." The former premier, one of the architects of the merger, told the crowd he knows some Conservatives are "less than enthused" by the prospect. But he said such divisions in any party are nothing new and "you endeavour to do what you think is right." Mr. Harper acknowledged the merger deal, to be ratified in a vote by members of both parties in early December, doesn't appear consistent with his statement earlier this year that "serious conservative parties simply cannot shy away from values questions." "The purpose of the so-called statement of principles in the agreement with Peter MacKay is really just to provide -- I can be quite blunt about it -- an unobjectionable set of principles that can be used as a basis for a wide variety of conservatives starting a debate." Mr. Harper, in an April speech that was later published as an essay in the now-defunct Citizens Centre Report magazine in June, described social conservatism as "respect for custom and traditions (religious traditions above all), voluntary association, and personal self-restraint reinforced by moral and legal sanctions on behaviour." He wrote the Alliance and its predecessor, the Reform party, had been adrift because of a focus on winning votes rather than advocating strong policies. Writing at a time when there were no serious Alliance-Tory merger negotiations under way, he said a legitimate conservative party must concentrate not just on what the state costs, but also "about what the state values." He said the party should focus on efforts to protect the family by concentrating on issues such as parents' right to reasonably discipline their children; banning child pornography; raising the current age of sexual consent from 14; providing "choice" in education; and "strengthening the institution of marriage." Mr. Harper argued a conservative party that focuses only on tax cuts, as the Alliance attempted to do during the 2000 election, would risk being indistinguishable from a Liberal party under Paul Martin. The essay blasted the "federal Liberals and their cheerleaders in the media and the universities" for opposing the U.S. war against Iraq. He also condemned the "modern left" because of its support for "radical, responsibility-free individualism" and "tribalism in the form of group rights." "The logical end of this thinking (by the left) is the actual banning of conservative views, which some legislators and 'rights' commissions openly contemplate." In yesterday's interview, Mr. Harper said his own positions, such as his recent opposition to gay marriage and his refusal to adopt the strict position of the anti-abortion movement, represent the proper balanced approach. Social conservative groups that harshly criticize abortion, gay rights activists, and left-wing feminists have expressed both concern and cautious optimism about the creation of the new party. While several anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage groups have expressed hope the new party could eventually form a government and have a major impact on policy, there are fears the new party could push aside the social conservative agenda. "For example, the current agreement-in-principle makes no commitment to defend the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage," stated a bulletin on the website of the Canadian Family Action Coalition, which is urging supporters to buy party memberships. © The Ottawa Citizen 2003

http://www.conservative-yes.org/endorsements.asp Joe's reaction? DOH!!!

Not too much would make me happier than to see the NDP obliterated...especially under Jackie "Wonderful Substances To Go" Laydown's watch. Then Pell would have to finally find a real party to support, eh?

Gugsy... What in hell kind of credentials does Prentice have to be leader of the Official Opposition, and potentially Prime Minister??? He's never been elected. He has virtually no political experience. What? He's a nice guy? Big deal. The Liberals eat nice guys for breakfast, and crap them out again before lunch. It's the equivolent of hiring some 18 yearold fresh outta highschool to be CEO of the Royal Bank just because he's an A student and got elected School President once. I find it striking that, aside from Stock Day...who's said he ain't running anyway...the only valid leader for this party just happens to be from the PC side, pick one, anyone. Out of the Sun media, we hear this today: ______________________________________________ Harper edging ahead? Harris pals favour him By MARIA MCCLINTOCK, OTTAWA BUREAU, SUN MEDIA OTTAWA -- With former Ontario premier Mike Harris opting out of the leadership race for the new Conservative party, many of his supporters are considering giving the nod to Alliance Leader Stephen Harper, Sun Media has learned. Sources with the Harris camp confirmed yesterday organizers for Harper and Tory Leader Peter MacKay have been burning up phone lines to key Toronto Harris backers, hoping to sway people to their camps. "I'm leaning toward Stephen Harper," said one Toronto-based Harris backer. "There's a lot of folks that were on the sidelines waiting to hear what Mike was going to do, that would have otherwise supported Stephen." Still, it's too early to write off MacKay who is a hot ticket in Toronto where an estimated 2,000 people have bought $750-a-plate dinner tickets to hear MacKay speak at a leader's dinner Thursday. And other names bandied about as potential leaders include former Ontario Health Minister Tony Clement, MP Scott Brison and Calgary lawyer Jim Prentice. ______________________________________________ This only makes sense. These people want the best man for the job. They thought Harris was that man, but he's out of it. Obviously, Harper is their only other choice. Everyone else is, by comparison, a piker.

What he said!!!

This is the first credible poll I've seen in ages. _____________________________________ United right will halt Liberal landslide poll: With 36% surveyed backing Grits, 31.2% behind merged party, Martin could face minority government David Vienneau and Sean Gordon The Ottawa Citizen; with files from Global National Tuesday, November 04, 2003 A united Conservative party would go a long way toward preventing the Paul Martin-led Liberals from winning a landslide victory in the next federal election, possibly even resulting in a minority government, a new poll obtained by Global National shows. "Although the new Conservative party may not keep the Martin Liberals from forming another government, it would instantly make federal politics more competitive, (and) likely reduce the Liberal margin of victory, possibly to a minority government status,'' says an executive summary of the poll conducted by JMCK Communications of Calgary. "The new Conservative party would out-poll the Liberals in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, move to within 12 per cent of the Liberals in Ontario, and to within approximately seven per cent of the government party in Atlantic Canada." The poll of 1,018 Canadians, conducted between Oct. 19 and 30, showed the Liberals had the support of 37.8 per cent of those surveyed, compared to 16 per cent for the Canadian Alliance and 11.2 per cent for the Progressive Conservatives. The poll is considered accurate with 3.1 percentage points 19 times out of 20. Should the Alliance and the Tories unite, the new party would be much more competitive, receiving the support of 31.2 per cent of those surveyed, less than five percentage points behind 36 per cent for the Liberals. The New Democratic Party was supported by approximately 10 per cent of those surveyed under either scenario, while the Bloc Quebecois would drop from 10.1 per cent with two right-wing parties to 8.4 per cent with just one. The poll found more than 10 per cent of Quebecers would support a new party, compared to only 3.2 per cent who would vote for either the Alliance or the Tories. The poll was conducted before former Ontario premier Mike Harris announced he was abandoning a bid for the leadership of the proposed new party. He was the preferred choice as leader of the new party, garnering support from 22.5 per cent of those surveyed. Alliance leader Stephen Harper placed second, at 19.6 per cent, followed by New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord at 9.5 per cent and former Reform leader Preston Manning at 9.3 per cent. Tory leader Peter MacKay was supported by less than five per cent of those surveyed. Almost one-fifth of Canadians are undecided, and 14.5 per cent wanted some other candidate. "Of the two current leaders, Stephen Harper is being viewed by the Canadian public as having the potential to lead this party, much more so than MacKay,'' JMCK pollster Faron Ellis said. "MacKay's credibility with the average voter has been taxed through this process." Mr. Martin is still the preferred choice for prime minister with almost 44-per-cent support; compared to 14.1 per cent for Mr. Harper and only 3.7 per cent for Mr. MacKay. Given Mr. Harris's decision not to run, Mr. Harper is now seen as the early front-runner by people in both parties, although several Tory sources pointed out the leadership selection process -- which gives each riding equal weight -- could be a disadvantage to a candidate like the Alliance leader, who has a strong regional base rather than national reach. The parties must ratify the merger deal by Dec. 12 -- the Alliance is expected to announce the results of its mail-in ballot by Dec. 4 and the Tories will make their results known two days later. Mr. Harper remained coy about his intentions, although sources said he has already informed his caucus he will enter the race once ratification of the agreement seems assured. The Alliance leader rebuffed suggestions that he could alienate Tory members. "It's inevitable that the leader is going to come from one of the two parties. ... The truth is that we have got to leave our former affiliations behind, and commit to the new party," he said. Mr. MacKay said he hasn't decided whether to run, but warned against bestowing the leadership crown on Mr. Harper prematurely. "I think we are going to get a balance of candidates getting into this race, we are going to see a lot of healthy competition around the leadership contest, which is always good. ... It's too early to suggest that this is going to be a one-person race," he said. © The Ottawa Citizen 2003

Re: the poll.. Prentice was running at about 4%... Until I mentioned this over on another forum. Within 20 minutes, he had about 100 votes. One of the regulars there admitted to sending out a few emails...and the fan club kicked in big time. Pell... I assume you mean that I should accept that westerners will always be second fiddle in Canada, regardless? I accepted that a long time ago, partner...I'm just stubborn enough to fight it anyway. If this proves out yet again when this is all said and done, my fighting days for equality in this country will be over. And a Republic of Western Canada will become my principle focus. If being a "Canadian" at best means second-rate status, then central Canada can stick "I'm Canadian" up their collective asses sideways...with a jackhammer.

Always boggles my mind, eh? Someone from the west that's clearly capable, but associated with something not eastern in roots, is a problem. There's always a problem with someone from the west. Manning, Day, now Harper. And the lifespan of a western PM is measured in mere months. Campbell, Clark, Turner. Oh, Prentice is from the west...but he's of the Progressive Conservatives, so that's not nearly as damning, is it? He could be a good leader. Harper, no...because he's from the Canadian Alliance. Too "western", wouldn't be acceptable in the east. If a westerner says, "No more PMs from Quebec, give someone else a chance!", he's a racist, extremist bastard, typical of what can be expected out of the colonies. But if an easterner says, "No PM from the west, we need a 'national' perspective to 'unite' the country!"... Well, that's an entirely different matter, a perfectly logical observation, and after all, it's absolutely true. What utter GD bullshit! Harper is even from the GTA, grew up there, educated there... But, God forbid, he went and actually lived in Alberta for a while. Stupid jerk, now he's tainted meat. Screw him! The bloody turncoat, anyways! The guy is intelligent as hell....yep. The guy is "conservative"...yep. The guy is a proven leader...yep. The guy is bi-lingual...yep. The guy is articulate...yep. The guy is young...yep. The guy is principled...yep. The guy is second to none on policy...yep. The guy is from Alberta...SQUAWWWKKKK!!! WRONG ANSWER! Kick the sniveler outta here! Next? :angry:

Results to date of new online poll at CTV... http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/news/Canada.html With Mike Harris out of the running, who do you think is the best hope to lead the merged Conservative Party? Stephen Harper 106 votes (28 %) Peter MacKay 32 votes (9 %) Bernard Lord 66 votes (18 %) Ken Dryden 54 votes (14 %) Jim Prentice 12 votes (3 %) Scott Brison 16 votes (4 %) Tony Clement 17 votes (5 %) Jim Dinning 7 votes (2 %) Other 66 votes (18 %)

Read it for yourself... http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories I'd this, short of something totally unforseen, makes Stephen Harper just about a lock for the leadership! Exxxcellllllentttt!!!

Sirif... I notice that while the American economy was tanking, and thus dragging down our own... We went from 9th to 16th... And they went from 2nd...??? To...???...2nd...??? I can certainly see how this caused Canada's problems...??? Please elaborate.

Economic ranking puts Canada 16th Cynicism about politicians is new and should cause concern, expert says By HEATHER SCOFFIELD Thursday, October 30, 2003 - Page A4 OTTAWA -- Canada has plummeted to 16th place on the much-watched global competitiveness scale put together by the World Economic Forum. Canada was in third place in 2001, then dropped to ninth place in 2002 and 16th this year, and the Geneva-based forum points to government policies and red tape as the key culprits. Finland comes first, followed by the United States, Sweden and Denmark -- the same as last year. The annual ranking of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the world's leading economies is based on economic data and surveys of each country's business community. Canada's quick fall can be traced mainly to "a perceived decline in the quality of public institutions," the WEF said. As well, Canada fell to 24th this year from ninth last year on the forum's public institution sub-index, which compares countries based on how conducive to business competition their governments and other public institutions are. The new lower ranking is despite many years of the federal government strategizing on how to cut red tape, encourage innovation, promote Canada abroad and attract foreign investment. Since the deficit was eliminated in 1997, the Jean Chrétien government has put Canada's competitiveness at the top of its list of economic priorities. Notable competitive disadvantages that led to Canada's 16th place in the overall ranking include distortive government subsidies, favouritism in decisions on government policies, bureaucratic red tape, foreign ownership restrictions and taxes. On the other side of the ledger, the report lists some of Canada's competitive advantages as interest rates higher than those of the United States (which means interest-bearing investments can earn more money), the government surplus, Internet access in schools, collaboration between industry and universities for research, generous maternity leaves, and soundness of the banking system. A spokesman for John Manley said the Finance Minister would not comment until he had studied the index after it is released publicly today. Canada fared a bit better on the World Economic Forum's business competitive index, a ranking of countries' financial markets and business strategies, placing 12th, down from 10th a year earlier. Many companies worldwide use the annual ranking by the World Economic Forum, a think tank devoted to promoting global economics and business, in their business decisions, and countries use it to promote themselves as good places to invest. The Forum's Canadian partner played down the seriousness of this year's results. "There's less there than meets the eye," said James Milway, executive director of the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity. The survey researchers polled Canadian businesses in February, March and April, which was a tense time, he said. Toronto was dealing with severe acute respiratory syndrome, Ottawa was dithering about whether to support the U.S. military action in Iraq, pundits were musing about Mr. Chrétien quitting and Ontario's premier, Ernie Eves, was facing a hydro crisis. "There was a fair amount of angst among our business people," Mr. Milway said. "They took it out on public institutions." Still, Ottawa should take the survey seriously, he added. While the list of complaints from business people about federal involvement in business is hardly new, the cynicism about politicians is, he said. "Politicians need to make sure they're not eroding trust in public institutions," he said. Five cabinet ministers have acknowledged accepting hospitality from New Brunswick's powerful Irving family, and opposition politicians are demanding the resignation of Industry Minister Allan Rock, saying his vacation at the Irving fishing lodge placed him in a conflict. Even if nothing has changed materially in the way government is involved in business in the past few years, if the perception of institutions is deteriorating, it's bad news for business investment, Mr. Milway said. He said the fall to 12th from 10th on the business competitiveness index is more worrisome. That is because Canada has been slowly but steadily falling on that index and doesn't seem to be able to pull itself up. Canadian companies need to develop strategies to be unique, said Roger Martin, dean of the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management. Competitiveness Top 20 countries (2002 ranking in parentheses) 1-Finland (1) 2-United States (2) 3-Sweden (3) 4-Denmark (4) 5-Taiwan (6) 6-Singapore (7) 7-Switzerland (5) 8-Iceland (19-2) 9-Norway ( 10-Australia (10) 11-Japan (16) 12-Netherlands (13) 13-Germany (14) 14-New Zealand (15) 15-United Kingdom (11) 16-Canada (9) 17-Austria (1 18-Korea (25) 19-Malta (-) 20-Israel (17)

Sorry... I ain't that proud lately. Fact is, about the only time I do feel "patriotic" these days is when we win a hockey game. Big deal. A hockey game. How pathetic has it become to be a "Canadian". When I read poll after poll after poll that says the majority of Canadians would rather vote for what is the most horrible, corrupt, arrogant, useless bunch of liars, crooks, and assholes imaginable to run this country... Because they consider a western based party one of "extremists"... Well, frankly, I just don't much give a damn about whatever it is this country has come to represent.

Flipped through a bunch of articles this morning on polling results. Here's my conclusion: About 50% of Canadians are either sleepwalking through life, or are stupider than a sack of hammers. These are the ones who indicate that they will vote for what has become the most arrogant, corrupt, irresponsible, scandal ridden, useless, rotten, just plain f**king awful collection of clowns and outright assholes anyone can remember in our lifetimes... But won't vote for the CA or the new Conservative Party because it's too "extremist". Christ, I read this crap, and I think to myself; "What the hell has gone wrong with this country? And why in hell do I even care any more?" :angry: Anyway, now that I got that off my chest this morning... One thing did emerge, found in the Compas polling conducted by the National Post. Whether Harris or Harper or even MacKay is leading the party, the results are the same. About 29%, 28% for MacKay. Harris actually polls lower in Ontario than in the rest of the country. This is an indication that leadership is not so much an issue at this point as is desire for an alternative to the Libs. Or, IOW, about 30% of voters would vote Conservative, no matter who is leading the party. The relevant question emerging from this for us is this: Which potential leader has upside from here? And which one does not? It is obvious to me, from what I've seen lately, that Harris does not. Here's the difference between Harris and Harper: Harris is well known in Ontario...and Harper is not. Harris is very unlikely to increase his support in Ontario from these levels, there is no mystery in Ontario about Mike Harris. You either love him or you hate him, simple as that...and it appears considerably more Ontarians hate him. On the other hand, Harper remains a tad bit of a unknown quantity...which basically means that he still has potential upside to tap into. To me, considering Harper's thus far displayed remarkable talents, I have to assume that his support...as leader of the new party...will only grow in Ontario, as well as points east. The message thus being, if we want this thing to get anywhere beyond what is already a given...about 30%...in the near future, we'd be wise to elect Harper. And we'd be, bluntly putting it, crapping in our own cornflakes to elect Harris. *ahem* All of this, of course, is predicated upon the assumption that I still care any more as to what happens to this dumb-ass country. I'll now depart to return to my ongoing state of confliction within myself between my "patriotic Canadian" side and my "screw 'em, who needs this crap anyway, separatist" side.

Yes.

Let me add to your list... Trudeau steps down. Is replaced. His government goes down to defeat. Mulroney steps down. Is replaced. His government goes down to defeat. Soon to be added to this list... Chretien steps down. Is replaced. His government goes down to defeat. This is not a matter of people rejecting new leadership... But more likely leaders, upon reading the writing on the wall, jumping ship. The lesson being that, when the electorate gets in a mood for serious change, a new face on an old horse rarely, if ever, cuts it for voters. Anyone who thinks Martin...especially now in light of the emergence of a new conservative party...is a cakewalk for winning this next election, deffinitely has not being paying attention to Canadian political history. And deffinitely is ignoring the mood of a decidedly cranky electorate right now. A mood that has thus far, over the last couple years, seen incumbant governments swept out of office in BC, Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario, and Newfoundland...and it would appear, soon to be, Saskatchewan. Even the supposedly untouchable Bernard Lord had his own political "near death experience". A telling sign of what is coming is to watch for a sudden string of Liberals announcing their retirement, and/or a rash of MPs being appointed to either the Senate or cushy civil service jobs. All hell is about to break out on the federal political scene, kiddies. It's show time!

"Considering all that I have accomplished with the CA, if I made it look too easy for you..." Stephen Harper, roughly quoted, in response to Craig Oliver on Question Period when it was suggested that Harper doesn't display that burning desire for leadership. ______________________________________________ Following are the exact reasons why Stephen Harper should, and must, lead this new party...and therein why no one else can: There is this reality about human nature: people are inspired when they see someone take a supposed champion apart like a cheap puzzle. Paul Martin is the veritable Muhamed Ali of the Canadian political scene. Thus, like in a Rocky movie, whoever takes him apart is the undisputed champion, and thus worthy of the PMO. The leader of this new party has to be capable of exactly this, and no less. For any less simply will NOT cut it on election day. This coming election will be won by Martin by literal default...unless the Conservative Party puts forward a leader that can demonstrate that he is smarter and thus, more capable, than is Martin. Merely pulling even, at best, will result in a minority Liberal government. With this truth in mind, therefore... The leader of the Conservative Party must be, not just as smart, but SMARTER than Paul Martin. The leader of the CP must not be merely as good as Paul Martin, but BETTER than Martin. I want to see some leading who is, in the minimum, potentially as ruthless as need be in order to beat the Liberals at their own game. He must be relentless, he must be shrewd, he must be devistatingly acute and articulate. He must be fearless, and certain. He must know "conservative" policy and objectives inside out, forward and backward, and, if need be, able to recite them in his sleep. He must be, figuratively speaking, a master chess player, able to plan 6 moves in advance, yet flexible enough to alter his course on a moments notice and in immediate response to the moment at hand. He must be able to control his troops, having all of them reading off the same page as him throughout, allowing for no loose cannons misfiring into their own lines. He must be experienced with the ways of Ottawa, the eastern media, and federal politics. Being a "nice" guy simply will not cut it. The Liberals eat "nice" guys for breakfast, and crap them out again before lunch. Being able to mouth policy simply will not cut it. The Liberals will turn anyone not intimately solid on policy inside and out, and dump them on the roadside like so much garbage leftover from a Rotten Ronny's lunch. We do NOT have time for rookies. Whoever wins this race will, probably within two weeks, find themselves headlong into a federal election. There will be NO break-in period, no learning curve, no training wheels supplied with the job. This will not be a popularity contest...for if we are stupid enough to contest Martin on this ground, he will win a popularity contest in a blink, certainly against Mike Harris. This will be won by whoever can literally kick the crap out of Paul Martin on Paul Martin's intellectual level. Paul Martin will devour Mike Harris. He will spit out Prentice like ten minute old flavorless gum. He will humiliate MacKay with embarassing aplomb. There is only man in Canadian politics that can face Paul Martin at his level, and kick his sorry ass. There is only one man in Canadian politics that meets...and even exceeds...the criteria I have set out above. (No, Pell, it sure as hell ain't Jack Laydown. ) I predict that Harper will first decimate Mike Harris for the leadership of the new CP...if Harris even runs, which I propose is increasingly doubtful. He's got it far too good where he is now. And on election night, the talk will be about Stephen Harper... And how no one saw nor appreciated this man's remarkable and stunning political prowess and talent. And so it begins.

By comparison, both Harris and Martin are, at best, average. In my 35 years of watching federally politics, I can honestly say that I have not ever seen a more gifted leader than is this man. And if you're paying attention, you'll notice that some of the pundits are starting to realise just how smart and capable he really is. F'rinstance, check out Susan Riley's commentary in the Ottawa Citizen from yesterday. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Harper By STEPHEN HARPER From Tuesday's Globe and Mail Last week, federal Tory leader Peter MacKay and I signed an agreement in principle to create a new political party, the Conservative Party of Canada. The agreement fulfills a dream that has animated many conservatives for more than 35 years. In 1967, Alberta Social Credit premier Ernest Manning wrote a book called Political Realignment, the first thoughtful attempt to deal with an ineffective five-party system in federal politics. Premier Manning's proposal to merge the Progressive Conservatives and the federal Social Credit Party was largely forgotten after the latter party disappeared. Yet the failure to reconcile conservative divisions ensured their eventual resurgence in 1987 with the formation of the Reform Party of Canada. In the late 1990s, Reform leader Preston Manning, son of the former Alberta premier, tried to bring together conservatives from across the country. Although the process was not as successful as he had hoped, its accomplishments were far from trivial. A great many Ontario Tories, both federal and provincial, as well as disaffected Quebec federalists joined the ranks of the Canadian Alliance. This new agreement in principle reached between the Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives marks the final step. What are those divisions among conservatives that have taken so long to overcome? One is the well-known distinction between "fiscal conservatives," stressing market economics and individual freedom, and "social conservatives," emphasizing traditional values and personal responsibility. Such differences, however, exist in conservative parties all over the world without creating permanent rifts. Canada's constitutional disputes have been more divisive for conservatives but tend to arise only in certain eras, as they did during the Meech Lake and Charlottetown debates that raged from 1987 to 1992. That those debates are now in the past makes it easier for conservatives to get together in the present. In today's climate, the most persistent and relevant division pits the institutional loyalty and elitism of the Tory tradition against the grassroots populism of parties such as Social Credit and Reform. Being aware of these divisions, we were prepared to make significant compromises with the PCs, and we did. We made those compromises from a position of strength because we have rebuilt the Canadian Alliance in membership, organization, finances and caucus unity. What we have not compromised is our belief that the new party must be structured to ensure democratic accountability and grassroots control over the party's personnel and policies. Conservative values will always include the marketplace and business, family and faith, criminal justice and national defence. When these principles need to be tempered, it should be through the concerns of grassroots Canadians expressed in the democratic process, not through adoption of Liberal or New Democratic Party policies. Ultimately, more policies will unite than divide the new Conservative Party. Most Canadian conservatives, regardless of which party they have traditionally supported, are committed to free enterprise and free trade; fiscal responsibility, with lower taxes and aggressive debt repayment; social responsibility, with strong families and sustainable social programs and personal responsibility under the rule of law, with reform of the justice system. As well, most conservatives support international engagement with an emphasis on strong national defence, supporting our friends and allies, promoting democracy and human rights, and practical democratic reforms to give Canadians greater control of their government. Observers who would not support a conservative party in any case will undoubtedly argue that such ideas represent a "hard right" agenda. It has become the liberal norm to dismiss all conservatism as divisive and extreme. In spite of such nay-saying, Canadian politics have nevertheless undergone a remarkable shift in the past 15 years, when balanced budgets and tax cuts were seen as part of a "far right" agenda, to now, when they are generally accepted as common sense. In the short term, this agreement alters the political landscape for the next general election. It immediately puts an end to Liberal sweeps in Ontario -- the only basis on which they have won three consecutive majority governments. In the longer term, this agreement means that Canadian conservatives will finally have a single, principled national party to call home. I am genuinely excited by what Peter MacKay and I have set in motion. In this agreement, both parties win. But more importantly, so do the Canadian people. To my own party's membership, I say this: The Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance changed Canadian politics in a positive and remarkable fashion over the last decade and a half. Now, as a strong partner in the new Conservative Party of Canada, we are set to reform Canadian politics for the better once again. Stephen Harper is Leader of the Canadian AllianceParty.