Alexandra

Were you at the convention? The priority was abortion? Really? I don't recall abortion being in any way, shape or form, a priority. With respect to Section 13 of the Human Rights Commission Act madam. Where have you been for the past year or so? Does Mark Steyn, Mcleans', Ezra Levant, various members of an Ontario-based message board, etc., etc., ring any bells in your belfry? No? Of course not. Try expanding your horizons rather than rushing here there and everywhere looking for any criticism no matter authored by the most 'progressive' such as the first url you presented which was from the 'reddest' blog imaginable. Credibility or integrity is obviously not of importance in your quest to smear S. Harper/conservative party. The fact you are new here (from where by the way - rabble?) does not excuse in any way your posting urls from articles which have no bearing whatsoever on your contention that the conservative party members are planning on ousting S. Harper as leader of the party. As a matter of fact madam if you had actually read the article re the 'mysterious new websites' you posted as definitive proof of the imminent departure of S. Harper you would have realized that the whole thing was a farce. As is your statement that 'abortion' was clearly revealed to you as a priority at the Winnipeg convention. With all of this disinformation you are busily spreading about a party you obviously know absolutely nothing about your motives are patently clear. `

This reminds me of Dancer's 'talking toasters' when referring to one of Topaz's comments. We have Progressive Tory citing three 'sources' for her unblemished truther that the Tory's will deep six S. Harper. One source was from a blog in New Brunswick which cited as it's sources for this profound truth. Sources from within the Conservative party. Right, it's those un-named 'sources' again. The second source cited by Ms. P. Tory was an article on Ed Broadbent expounding on the 'separatist Bloc' and, this third source referred to 'two mysterious Conservative websites' which were set up to rid the party of S. Harper and suggesting Jim Prentice for leadership. Well. If you read the actual websites one startling discovery was that David Higginbottom wrote re the two 'mysterious guys who set up the websites", as follows: "November 30, 2008 11:28 AM David Higginbottom said... As Jim Prentice’s riding president and campaign manager in the recent federal election, I feel it necessary to make several points to those who are posting on this blog as well as the architects of this site. First and foremost is the fact that this site is neither endorsed, supported nor in any way encouraged by Mr. Prentice, nor any of the people who work or volunteer for him – in fact quite the opposite is true. It is unfortunate that at a time when conservatives need to be working together to prevent what is a desperate power play by the opposition to seize control of our democratically elected government, that a site like this would be created. All conservatives and any Canadians who believe in democracy and the importance of stability during this time of economic crisis should follow Mr. Prentice’s unwavering support of and loyalty to our leader and our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. David Higginbottom President, Calgary Centre North Conservative EDA November 30, 2008 12:07 PM" In all probability these websites were set up by the --"Progressives of the Liberal-NDP parties" and of course those with the only intent on posting this type of trash on this board is to maliciously smear the object of their dislike or hatred. `

Topaz. Please cite your source for this statement from M. Harper. When and where did you hear, see or read "it doesn't matter to him being a child soldier? As a matter of fact Topaz, wouldn't this Khadr kid have to be in a country's "army" to be classified as a child "soldier"? Which country's army was this Khadr kid a soldier of -- Pakistan? Afghanistan? Iran? Syria? -- a very broad hint for you to google for the 'actual' statement. I think Dancer has the right attitude -- it's all about toasters! `

August, the 'fuddle duddling' comment was used in this context from the earlier post not in it's proper context and, I do not recall how Trudeau did use it -- in the House in answer to an opposition member? "The West's "vast oil reserves" are the West's vast oil reserves and should Ignatieff, Layton or Duceppe (all 3 of whom are/have been Quebecers) even suggest fuddle-duddling with the West's 'energy resources' then, Madam, any 'coalition or otherwise government in Ottawa' would be hard pressed to remain in office for long." `

Obviously one must spell slowly exactly what "fuddle duddle" referred to. As in National Energy Policy. Try Google for further enlightenment. Since Mr. Harper has not inferred or discussed or even hinted at or how the "west's vast energy resources" would be utilized by Canada to heat the East or/either to enhance Canada's (which may or may not include the separatists in Quebec) big stick with foreign states, however, should Mr. Harper do so then rest assured he would receive the exact same treatment as Layton, Duceppe and Ignatieff. Insofar as the "single nation" statement. Good luck with selling that to the Bloc Quebecois, the Parti Quebecois(?), et al. `

Excuse me, madam. Since when were B.C., Saskatchewan and Alberta's resources gifted to the rest of Canada? There is nothing more infuriating than the arrogance of an glib, shallow, know-it-all partisan political hack. The West's "vast oil reserves" are the West's vast oil reserves and should Ignatieff, Layton or Duceppe (all 3 of whom are/have been Quebecers) even suggest fuddle-duddling with the West's 'energy resources' then, Madam, any 'coalition or otherwise government in Ottawa' would be hard pressed to remain in office for long. There are those who should take a long vacation from the constant yada yada with respect to such simpering hero worship on message boards! `

This was a non-binding motion issued by Mrs. Olivia Chow. It has no effect other than as a sop to the anti-war resisters and personal interest groups Mrs. Chow/Layton is historically in sympathy with and has historically represented in her political career. [from wikipedia] ...... "A non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion. This type of resolution is often used to express the body's approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on,[1] due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution. An example would be a resolution of support for a nation's troops in battle, which carries no legal weight, but is adopted for moral support....." Not quite what Mrs. Chow intended was the snickering of her liberal counterparts over her insistence on the overly dramatic description {conscientious observer} of these hundred or so American deserters from their country's armed forces. Not one of the stories by these so-called 'refugees' of their experiences in the branch of armed service (mainly army) they served in have been proven to the satisfaction of those investigators in Canada's Dept. of Immigration. The reason these deserters have given for coming to Canada is that they were 'promised' by the various anti-war, et al. groups, including a couple of the Vietnam war era deserters now acting as their defence lawyers, one in particular who promises these deserters, free legal defence and aid and comfort during their 'stay' in Canada. There is nothing more than the usual motives of these anti-war, anarchist anti-everythings together with the 'paid' organizers of the anti-everythings than to garner as much attention as possible for their causes, which includes much needed publicity for Mrs. Olivia Chow's/Layton's political career. Canada has attempted to shut the door to any 'refugees' fleeing across the borders from the U.S. -- without much success unfortunately. `

TOUCHE, Dancer. `

Newbie? July 2006 is considered by you to be a new poster? Speaking of insults. I agree. Insulting one's intelligence should be considered a grievous assault on one's intelligence quotient. Happens quite frequently though when those who claim I.Q.'s of 146 or so appear to lack the necessary means to back up their claim and resort to below average, pedestrian, nattering. `

CARP? For Retired Persons? Sorry to disappoint Margrace. There is at least 35 years before retirement in my case. If you choose to ignore the fact that your good buddy, R-Remind is notorious throughout the blogosphere for being more than slightly mad, fine. The woman has been booted from every board except for that liberal-conservative hate site she rants on where even the most militant feminist posters at times take offence at her anti-man vitriol, etc. Back to the topic. What is your opinion of the Steckle Bill C-338? And, your opinion of the difference between the Steckle and the Epp Bills. Have you read these Bills? If so, which Bill do you think would be more harmful to women with respect to their freedom of choice re abortion? Instead of the one-liner jabs how about discussing why you think the Epp Bill is more 'sneaky' than the Steckle Bill? Will be waiting for your discussion. `

Which sneaky government are you referring to Margrace, Liberal or Conservative. Which Bill have you read, Steckle's or Epps? Or, did you again just repeat the hyerbolic-manic rantings of your friend, Rita-Remind, the fanatical feminist from that 'other' conservative - liberal hating site? Read Steckles' and Epp's Bills and then comment on what and who women need to pay attention to. Better yet, ask Rita-Remind for her opinion on BOTH Bills then post her-your comments here. Ignorance is never an excuse is it. `

So, Bill C-338 which criminalizes abortion, presented by Liberal MP Paul Steckle having passed it's first reading in October 2007, is a "policy of (the) Liberal party on abortion", you claim at 3:50 PM but at 5:40 PM, you claim this Bill doesn't speak to a policy of the Liberal party, Now you're claiming this Steckle Bill which could subject a woman to 5 years in prison is nothing more than proof the Liberal party "clearly expresses it's social issues policy"? The Epp Bill, which may or may not have it's first reading, speaks to dealing with the perpetrator of the murder/harm of a pregnant woman/child under the Criminal Code; it does not speak to jailing a woman who has procured an abortion as does Steckle's Bill. Perhaps you fail to understand the difference between these Bills and what the difference means to women! To place politics above a woman's choice is typically the domain of the self-important, pompous, ass.

The Liberal MP, Paul Steckle, must be sneaking in an even more frightening Bill which actually advocates criminalizing women and doctors who have/perform abortions after 20 or so weeks of pregnancy. Would this Bill be considered in the best tradition of M. Dion's sneaky Liberalism? Since Steckle believes a woman and doctor should be jailed if performing an abortion after X weeks I would suggest that this Bill of the Liberal MP from Ontario, Paul Steckle, is far more intimidating and frightening to women than the Epp Bill. http://www.womennet.ca/news.php?show&4433 `

Would you please provide a link to the clause you are referring to? Where within Bill C484 does it deal with what you are claiming Margrace? This Bill deals exclusively with charging a suspect with the death of the fetus as well as with the death of the mother, as in the "White" case in Alberta. This Bill has nothing to do with abortion. It is inconceivable that this Bill-C484 could be misconstrued to such an extent as to state that women seeking/having abortions in Canada would be charged under the criminal code with murder. Except, of course, if a poster is so politically partisan and does not understand how such a blatant distortion of the truth damages the true intent of this Bill or any Bill dealing with the murder/death of a pregnant woman and her child. FYI Margrace: http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2...16/4727834.html

Should the various NATO countries fail to step up to the challenge with the usual excuses believing S. Harper will back down they will be in for a bit of a shock. ` http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...mp;refer=canada

Being an obvious unsophisticated world markets person with a bias and cherry picking whatever negative anti-American quotes to be found is truly pathetic. A mere glance through the closing market reports from Friday, January 25 refutes all of the trash talk in all of the Kuzzad posts. For instance: and, http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews...20080127?rpc=44 The most sensational news to affect all of the Euro attendees at Davos in fact was the Societe Generale bank fraud of over $7Billion by one of their traders. You must have missed all of that NEWS about the French Bank Kuzzadd in your 'perusal' of the financial news! Too busy giggling over whatever negative items on the U.S. markets you could possibly find? Try studying the world markets on a daily basis. You just might learn something about the world outside of your own small tent! `

You don't know who Denny Green is? Obviously you aren't an NFL fan. As well, to be a 'submariner' in the U.S. Navy I doubt very much a Canadian would be accepted as an Officer on a boat unless he became a U.S. citizen? `

Here we go again, Joan/Jennie aka Saga, Grannie, etc., etc. who accuses EVERYONE on every Canadian board, even on babble (as Saga), of being a white supremacist if they have the chutzpah to disagree with her manic obsession with Aboriginals. How many incarnations should you be allowed Joan/Jenny/Saga on MLW in an attempt to (~ laugh out loud ~) educate the members of this board to your boring and repetitive ramblings? `

Despite the prominence of his esteemed visitors Hamid Karzai didn't mince words when discussing Monsieur Dion and Mr. Igniateff's opinions of what Canada's role should be in Afghanistan's war with the Taliban/al Queda terrorists: Focusing on diplomacy must mean Canadians staying within the safety of a base while the U.S. troopers protect the perimeter: Been where? A heavily protected convoy to an FOB reportedly secure? An overnight march up to the tribal area of Pakistan in order to see for themselves the possibility of 'pacifying' this area of Pakistan by NATO forces (excluding Canada)? Of course, that must have been the itinerary specified by M. Dion and Mr. Igniateff according to M. Dion's opinion of what NATO should now do as stated to the press in Quebec on his return. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=237432

Monsieur Dion is even more insistent than the U.S. that more aqgressive operations be conducted against Pakistan: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=242249

This statement about the entry of the U.S. into WWII is used by various Canadian college profs., notably types like Haroon Siddiqqi in the east and the Michael Byers in the west, in what seems to be an effort to induct students into their cleverly constructed web of ideological antipathies toward everything American prior to and since the Second World War. It is noted that Siddiqqui's first language is Urdu, not english, and he frequently makes the same mistake as Kengss in the use of American when referring to America! Just an observation. For whatever reason you, Kengss, prefer to believe the types like Siddiqqi (who absolutely loathe the Americans), that the U.S. was hiding under a bush in 1939, do some research on your own, like some of us had to do; maybe start with reading the following link. http://millercenter.virginia.edu/academic/...ays/biography/5

The irony of your claim to freedom of speech to -- express your contempt for another poster and to attempt to limit his freedom of speech -- appears to be lost on you. Rue. `

A personal opinion of Akin's, however, interesting: http://politicsblog.ctv.ca/blog/Federalpol.../4/3447435.html

This is NOT about the Tory backroom people, no matter how you attempt to divert the subject of the articles I have posted. This is NOT true. Again, this is just more of the fabrications of your overly active partisan imagination. If you had paid attention you would have known that Senator Smith did not make any offers, never mind offer an 'olive branch" to David Orchard. This is what Senator Smith is quoted as saying: Why do you always attempt to insult one's intelligence by attempting to divert and to always have the last word on a discussion or post on the Liberal party which does not suit your obvious blindly loyal opinion. And, I have carefully avoided answering your attempts to one-up the posts on this thread and replies to others on this subject rather than getting into the usual sometimes juvenile and insulting responses you deliberately invite. Ciao. `

To get back on topic from all of the blabbing from a Vancouver (probably from North Surrey where murders and abuse of Indo-Canadian women are common-place) Indo-Canadian racist, anti-American ignoramus, it is surprising that Ontario actually came so close to legislating the Islamic Sharia Law as proposed by an NDP woman MPP. Apparently it took this woman, Homa Arjomand and thousands of Canadian women getting in McGuinty's face for him to finally say NO to this LAW: http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx...CA-4BFC-9A4F-59