Alexandra

Where and when did the ..."PM say they would receive what is reasonable"? Or, is this another statement made by that un-named someone or source you heard on television or on radio or read in a newspaper or on-line? In order to back up your numerous 'hearsay' comments it's about time you provided links for all of your posts which in some cases seem to be nothing more than a stretch of imagination on your part. And, try citing the Hansard when posting what you think/thought you heard, saw or read re the House, etc. FYI, nowhere could be found the PM saying the families would "receive what is reasonable..." Where is your proof of your statement? Harper said in Parliament today when he was asked about the problems within the department of Defense. Topaz. When did S. Harper say the families would "receive what is reasonable ..." in the House today? By now saying he made that comment re the 'problems within the D.O.D.' you are obviously being obtuse. Trying to provide a smoke screen now about what was actually discussed in the House today by once again playing fast and loose with the truth doesn't cut it. It is time you stuck to the facts instead of the fanciful. Harper was not referring to the families of the fallen soldiers or the injured in the context you deliberately posted here, in the House today. You know that. `

Where and when did the ..."PM say they would receive what is reasonable"? Or, is this another statement made by that un-named someone or source you heard on television or on radio or read in a newspaper or on-line? In order to back up your numerous 'hearsay' comments it's about time you provided links for all of your posts which in some cases seem to be nothing more than a stretch of imagination on your part. And, try citing the Hansard when posting what you think/thought you heard, saw or read re the House, etc. FYI, nowhere could be found the PM saying the families would "receive what is reasonable..." Where is your proof of your statement?

The anti-scab Bill, etc., seems to be an issue with Buzz, his union and the Government workers unions. They must have expected Dion to come up with billions of dollars of solutions to all of their woes. After all he has claimed to be the most influential or some such person to lead the Official Opposition party -- ever. How disappointing for the unionists though and showing such disrespect for M. Dion is so helpful to their cause. Typical. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Pag...-dion-booed0530

I think what I am saying is that claims get complicated for a variety of reasons. How does your saying now that claims get complicated when in fact in your first comment you equated B.C. with Ontario's caledonia mismanagement by blaming Harper's government for the Caledonia-hagersville-etc.,-etc. ONTARIO Liberal government incompetence. The Ontario blockades, standoffs, terrorism have been ongoing forever it seems. What has the Ontario government accomplished to date in any of these native actions? Complicated for a variety of reasons? Absolutely. So the B.C. government has handled the native land claims on an equitable and different basis. Obviously the Ontario government doesn't have the competence to handle all of its' native situations. McGuinty & Co. run away whining and blame the Federal government (would it matter if the feds were the NDP or Liberal?) for his government's lack of management skill. What exactly is your concern again with whom and what the federal government appoints to any job it believes should be handled in a more competent manner with perhaps more competent people even if they are not liberals or ndp? `

Sort of how federal negotiators appointed by Harper have walked out of talks this past week over Caledonia? Why would you equate the B.C. tribal council land claims negotiations with the Caledonia mess? Negotiations have been stalled for upwards of 5 years and in one tribal council, 8 years in B.C. because the liberal federal government refused to engage in discussions. Have you witnessed any of the B.C. tribal bands terrorizing whole cities and towns as those outlaw natives in Caledonia? Luckily for us the Bands in B.C. are more interested in constructive demands. No matter who or what is the Federal/Provincial government of the day. Your attempt to make a comparison between B.C. and the Ontario Liberal government's mismanagement of it's land claims is really inane. `

As mentioned by Sue Bailey some of the B.C. tribal council negotiations have been going on and off for years. Maybe now with new negotiators like Fitch talks will be re-started and continue without some 'liberal' poobah pulling a hissy fit and walking out.

Truly ingenious of you Figleaf. Describes Pierre Trudeau to a tee. (Chretien was merely a chip off the Trudeau block).

I don't see Karzai's name mentioned. You are contradicting yourself, again. First it was last year Taliban Jack was suggesting negotiating and now it is only last week the subject arose by Karzai? If Karzai's government has been discussing this topic for a few years are you saying Karzai is not privy to the discussions by his own government? It is also noted you RitRem have failed to 'spin' the following: `

As a Remind-er, why cross post from the Rabble-babble and ex-babblers, Skadl, BreadNRoses group to this board especially with all of these old comments and observations by the noted lefties, all of whom despise the conservative party in any form, past, present and future. How boring is that.

Jack Layton was actually talking about the discussions between the tribal leaders of the duly elected government in Kabul a couple of years or so ago. These discussions about talking with the Afghani Taliban (excluding all foreign arab insurgents, etc.) by the Kabul government have been going on since the first national election. Layton was late to that party, as usual. The only fool(s) appears to be Taliban Jack, who whipped his caucus to vote with the Conservative government to defeat the motion by the Libs and Bloc to withdraw the combat troops in 2009! How very brilliant was that? Right. Jack's rationale? It's all or nothing. These discussions by Karzai's government have nothing to do with any of the NATO countries involved in Afghanistan's conflict so the harping on Harper about not jumping in and demanding Taliban Jack be authorized to whip those Taliban Mullahs into agreeing to a sit down over a pot of tea to discuss how to settle this little conflict is, as usual, an exercise in ~babble~ `

If you are unable to see the irony in the above ramblings then so be it. Also. Since when have Jews/Israelis become a race? It is likely your racist comments re the Jews and Israelis are justified in your own mind, however, the Jews/Israelis are members of a religion just as the evangelical christian fanatics you display an inordinate dislike for are members of a religion. Neither religious faction are members of a Race. Ergo, you might then be considered more likely a Bigot if referring to the Christians and Jews/Israelis. So, since in my opinion you are considered a bigot (possibly a racist; depending on the race of course) give yourself another pat on the back. I, for one, am more than pleased that more people do not believe as you do. Without the 'sigh' of course.

The only play on words seems to be yours. What exactly are you trying to say? When did Harper promise to get rid of the GST on the price of gas? If that is what you are stating, that is. ?

Just as Trudeau 'introduced' the O.F.A. in 1969, a Prime Minister in the future may introduce an Act to cancel the O.F.L., should Quebec decide to separate or, more than likely, the West will have become the economic engine with the likelihood of an increase of population greater than Quebec and the Maritimes combined ensuring that any future Prime Minister/Government will be forced to pander to --- the West. Speculation, however, it speaks to the question of whether Quebec's seeming problems with the OFL will be in future and is today, moot. Whether it is S. Harper's government or a Liberal government appointing a non-Quebecer to a government sinecure or not it would be a slap in the face to all of the Bloc MPs' and most Quebecers. `

On May 6th 2001 Stephen Harper was wrong when he stated "It has led to no fairness, produced no unity and cost Canadian taxpayers untold millions ....." What he should have stated is: that it has led to no fairness, produced no unity and cost Canadian taxpayers untold Billions ... And, that was in 2001.

" Gung -ho on torture". To begin with, that is utter crap. If this issue had never come up would you be in favour of continuing this mission? You know you wouldn't. Of course he wouldn't. To date no one on this board or on ANY of the Opposition benches in the House or Michael (look at me - look at me - Byers) has ever asked this question: HOW MANY TALIBAN or AL QUEDA or --- Afghanis' have our Canadian troops taken prisoner since 2003? How many -- 50 -- 60 -- 100 --? How many have our Canadian troopers turned over to the Afghanis? Not once has anyone, especially the G&M twit Graeme Smith, asked the question. Smith claims the 'detainees' claiming to be tortured knew they were taken prisoner by the Canadians because of their military VEHICLES. Well. Imagine that. Not that the troopers wore a MAPLE LEAF on their shoulders or that the troopers ensured the prisoners knew they had been captured by Canadians ......... just that these prisoners knew they were Canadians because of the vehicles they drove ! How many did our Special Forces (JTF2) guys hand over to the Americans in 2003 and 2004 and right up to May 3 2007? How many times did Jack Layton screech at Chretien and the Liberals about how disgusting it was for our Canadian Sp. Forces guys and then our regular Army troopers to be handing over the al Quedas or the Talibans to the AMERICANS? The media went berserk with front page pics. of our sneaky pete JTf2 guys handing over the taliban, et al, to the American paratroopers. The media frenzy and Layton's acreeching went on and on and on. Sound familiar? The anti-war Layton NDP'ers and the Liberal anti-American red hats howled long and loud enough for Chretien to do an about face and arrange for any Taliban, et al. to be handed over to the AFGHANIS'. Make up your mind (Dobbin, etc.) wouldn't you rather our troopers take NO prisoners/al Queda's, Taliban? Wouldn't you rather Layton, Duceppe, Iggy and Dion cancel the mission and bring all of the combat troopers home now? Well, maybe you all would rather Canada hands over ALL 'prisoners' to the Americans again?

Is this a serious question? If so, discounting the Islamist (al Queda/splinter groups) Spain, London, Bali, et al. bombings with significant losses of civilian life is also a remarkable achievement on the part of anyone advocating for the Islamists. Such as Blackdog. Or, a selective memory?

What you are insinuating Margrace is that your son claims the company he works for got rid of all of the Albertans and hired All Maritimers because these Maritimers were willing to work whereas the Albertans were not and the Maritimers were much more pleasant to work with than the Albertans. Your son also claimed in his call to you that the Maritimers appreciate having a job and do not have time to complain and back-stab ---- like the Albertans do. Is that what you or, your son, meant? If so, this is nothing new. Many of the transplants from other provinces (Ontario) have a habit of whining about Albertans.

What utter nonsense you write. Really, August. Whatever gave you the impression ScottSA was referring to you as "a feminized man"?

What is especially delicious is that neither Israel nor Reagan had resorted to an illegal arms deal with any country to facilitate the release of the U.S. Embassy employees held hostage by Iran for 144 days during Jimmy Carter's presidency. Presumably it would suit the purpose of certain people who believe Israel should not exist in its' past, present or future form to deliberately misrepresent Israel's role, which was non-existent, in the actual U.S. Embassy hostage release negotiated by Reagan. Carter lost a second term because he had lost the confidence of the American voters overall not, as stated by Higgly, because of the 'Iran hostage crisis' which he had bungled from the very beginning. Such as rushing an unprepared military into the so-called Desert One hostage rescue which failed miserably. Perhaps this botched attempt at hostage rescue by the Carter admin. could be blamed on Israel though. It appears everything else wrong in the Middle East is, was, and will be Israel's fault.

O'Connor was correct. The Int'l. Red Cross stated it does monitor the handling of prisoners. What was not correct, which O'Connor apologised for mis-stating, is the Int'l. Red Cross does not report back to any country's military command on its' findings. As an aside, it may be more honest to quote the various editorials one is paraphrasing, hiti. From a CBC article: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/01/...dog-070301.html The Kandahar office of Afghanistan's human rights commission has agreed to act as a watchdog for detainees captured by Canadians to ensure that valid complaints of abuse are investigated, the Canadian Press has learned. Canadians respect human rights very well," Abdul Quadar Noorzai, the Kandahar manager of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, said in an interview. He was eager to trumpet the agreement signed last Friday with Brig.-Gen. Tim Grant, commander of Canadian troops in Afghanistan. "It is one of the greatest acts taken by them and I really appreciate it from the core of my heart," said a beaming Noorzai, who said he has been working for a year to carve out such an arrangement. and, Canada is the only NATO country to strike such an arrangement so far. The Afghan commission hopes other alliance members will do the same. The negotiations were started almost a year ago when Nader Naderi, commissioner of the Afghan human rights commission based in Kabul, went to Canada and met with the minister of defence. Interesting that CBC picked this Canadian Press article off the wire and printed it in toto on their website.

Steffiane has also promised to have more women nominated. No doubt he will be appointing a dozen or more women, if he can coerce them to run, to all of the ridings where the Liberal MPs' have decided to quit the sinking ship. So much for the 'equality' thingie. No men need apply!

Why bother? Don't you think most people reading or posting to this board have simply IGNORED this person and the hilarious flights of fantasy (Hillier and O'Connell resigning, i.e.,?) or, the Int'l. Criminal Courts and Canada? Too funny. Pathetic, really. And, ideology has nothing to do with it!

Edited to read full article from G & M: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

Interesting. ] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

It appears Argus [don't know about his rightwing pals] is quite right and, you may have missed the following; ".....But a quartet of Supreme Court of Canada rulings, known collectively as the Ortega ruling, quickly derailed the "rubber stamp" approach. The Court said judges had a duty to protect the Charter rights of fugitives by questioning foreign evidence. It allows lawyers to put up all sorts of objections....." `