watching&waiting

Here this I got simply by google with "Dutch Casualties in Afghanistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_cas..._in_Afghanistan

No Gerry it is you who is being dishonest, or is it that you just do not want to hear clear easy explantions about your 3 worded out of context position. I have explained this more then enough for the normal minded. But there are always the slow learners (Liberals) in my own view. Tell me Gerry are you not proud of the way your parties leadership hopefuls are teraing each other apart and driving the party into camps more looking for revenge then mending a party? You must be very proud of them. That is the same way you try and make something out of nothing here. I will stop ther as I am probably pushing the line I drew a week or so back, about not picking on you so much. It is just you seem to invite it. I will stop now and I wish you and your leadership hopefuls all the luck they seach for. After this weekend though I am not so sure that any of them look too favourably on the party as a whole, but that is my take on it.

I already told you where to look. You have to go to the NATO site and do your own research of the number. The Dutch have been called in many times to help out the Canadian on the battlefront because they have helicopter support. Also yes I know casualties also include the wounded. This is a NATO mission and if you want the real stst on what is and is not going on that is where to start. I how quoted nato in posts before, but I do not still have the link, but you should not have a tough time finding it on their site.

Ricki It si only because they know they are losing the debate and that is why the name and the put downs are coming. Yes I will proabbly hold my own in that but I would rather not have to. As usual the Libs are agin breaking apart. Just go see them at their own leadship debates and you will see them turning on each other like jackels. Not a pretty site.

Figleaf get a life we knee jerking Cons know how to analyse the sentence and what it by rules of english grammar means. You libs just do not has those skills I guess, Mackay never said the word dog and since the Libs were inquiring about the well being of that dog, they go the answer to go ask Stronach ( might as well have the the implied person in here), you have her. Now since Stronach is familiar with tha said dog, then why is it so hard to believe that he said to go ask her. You have her, is quite truthful the libs do have her. So go ask her, you have her. Also yes Stroanch knew whos dog it was and that is why the Libs knew that bit. So yes she did know the dog and its owner. I would imagine from the time she spent down there when she was with Peter

Well I personally would love to see an election call. I have no doubt that when the electorate is pushed to make the tough decisions they will give a CPC majority. No more of the petty poles but the hard true questions, and who has and has not done what they say they would. Who has fought tooth and nail to do exactly as he promised even when a Lib loaded senate tried at every turn to make it not be so. The Libs would not have had their leader and the NDP will have to pull the many feet out of Laytons mouth, and see if he has anythig left now that they will have lost the unions. Yep the only ones who would possibly come out ahead might to the Bloq, but I would not bet on that as well. The CPC would probably get a majority. Personally I think it is all postering, as they would not want to risk an election now.

Even with that wording the fact that even the lib said that Mackay said Go ask her, you have her. would still mean go ask Stonach, you have her. Where is there a inferred insult even. Since Stronach knows the dog in question and it owner and she does belong to the libs.

No I did not fail. That is exactly what went on and even the record show the end of 'She on you now" Even the Lib said he said go ask her (meaning Stronach), so how is this wrong ?

Enough of this stupid bickering. First off even if women were finding it hard to be CPC, it would definitely not be to join Liberals, as they already had a poll before where women found the Liberal to be liars and cheats, so Maybe they will go Green. Who knows for sure. As for the insult question, the answer Mackay gave was " go ask her ( motioning to her empty seat), she with your side now. This was in answer to how is your dog. The answer to go ask stronach, she is with your side now. So if this is to be taken at its true face meaning. it would be go ask Stronach about my dog, she is with your side now. Stronach knew of the dog and its owner, so how is this something bad? It is only an insult if you bastardize the english language to make it so.

Figleaf you did not Like the reference to Trudeaus fuddle duddle, So how about "pour me a tequila Shelia and lie down and love me again" This is stupid first off lets say he said Ask her(meaning Stronach, she one of yours now" That could very easily mean if you want to ask about that dog ask Stronach she knows the dog and its owner. That would fit very easily into everything said. Just how does it mean that he was calling her a dog. He never said Dog and told you to ask her. What is there about that that translates into an insult. It is only in the minds of Liberals and others who use their minds very little, that this is even an issue. So when things get taken out of context we then revert to the rules of english language. Question how is your dog doing with this plan etc. Answer Ask her (motioning to empty chair), she is with you now. The subject of the question is the dog and the intent to see how it was doing. The answer ask Stronach, she is with you now. Meaning go ask her about the dog, she is with your side now. This has taken a whole weekend of yipping and yapping and it is just going way too far. By the laws of the english language there was no insult. But lLiberals only speak deciet and deception. They do not speak english. Time for people to get a life.

It seems that only Canadians, Americans and Brits are dying in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, inadvertently defending the right of the Karzai government to execute Christians who convert to Islam. Why do you suppose that Harper has thrown in his lot with Bush and Blair rather than the vast majority of NATO countries whose leaders have shown more foresight? Surely the quagmire that is Iraq should be a lesson to Canadians. At one time, most Americans supported the war in Iraq. Now they don't. Likewise, Canadians now support involvement in Afghanistan. Soon they won't. Once again you are wrong. There have been Dutch casualties and I am sure there have been German and French as well. It is not reported here as it is not news to our masses. But if you take the time and check with Nato there will be a list of all casualties from all contributing Nato countries. The front line casualties at this moment are mostly Canadian as yes, they are right where the action is. There are just as of last month 12,000 USA troops now under Natos command as well. Since this is not a Canadain only thing, but is Nato controlled and lead, we need to go to Nato if you want anything to know about the whole mission. Here we only get the National News etc and it is designed to be as shocking as possible. That is just the way the News services work. We need to start realizing that, instead of taking it at their own hyped values.

Hell I spell Liberals Corrupt, Lies , Cheats and theives. Never honest, or truthful, or never deserve to serve as government. if you know what is meant then it was communicated. Hence the word communicate. We seldom here have to need for such specifics

What is a dog? Is he or she not mans best friend ? Also the only person to say the word dog was a liberal. So just how can Mackay be the one charged with uttering this against an empty chair? The liberals are just so desperate that they try to take things like this and make issues out of them. They know that they will never be able to compete with the records of even this minority government, that their liberal dominated senate has tried its best to make everything that much harder to pass. But this minority did mange to pass things and are still fighting to get others past, and people know that they have lived up to their words. Which is something Liberals can not say. They talk one way and then do things another. This has been proven time after time. There are many times I look at this site and certain posters and I think that there only purpose here is to cause trouble. If and when taken to task they do not talke heat very well. But every site needs to have all sides and types, if they are going to really debate the things that come our way. I have no doubt about what MacKay meant when he looked at the empty chair and said "ask her, you hav her now", but is that calling her a dog? Could he not have meant to ask her about my dog as she could tell you about that, as she knew the dogs owner and the dog? There are just so many things that do not add up in this, that I wonder if the liberals are not trying to smoke screen the Montreal debates where they are trying to eat each other and where it shows the huge rifts in the party. The liberal have a record of doing such things and they can not come off with I am better then that. Remember "Get me some Tequila Shelia and lie down and love me again" ? Not to mention the time of Kim Campbell. But that is all in the past right. The Libberals have changed right? Not likely and if anything the corruption and deciet is running far deeper into their ranks then ever before. Just look at the tactics they are using in this whole thing. It was made and given birth to by Liberals and is being pushed by Liberals, and remember it was a liberal that said dog, not any CPC or any other. Only Liberals say they heard MacKay but the record shows no such reference etc. So who would anyone trust in this. Surely not a Liberal. I will wait and hear what Mackay has to say on this when he is good and ready, because I believe, it will end up showing just how low and pittiful the Liberals have again sunk. Their credibility is already below curb level, I guess the sewers are the next playing field, but by the actions of the Montreal debates this weekend, I think they already found the sewers.

Now that is just palin so wrong that I wonder how you can say that without a smilie behind it. Harper does not care about SSM the way people have said. He promised a true free vote in the house on this topic to end all the arguments once and for all. If it stands he will live with it, if it falls he will live with that as well. He has said many times that the MP's should be allowed to vote the way their electorate wants them to, so we can finally have it done by fair impartial vote. So what is wrong with that? The Liberal rammed it thru knowing full well that many of they members were not wanting to support it. There will be CPC members who also will support it, and the same with NDP. But it should be an open and honest vote. So if that is scarey then you have big problems As far as Marijuauna laws go, the way to proceed is to have a law that is based in proper ledgislation to address the fact that there are many uses that should be made legal, while still making the dealing etc illegal. It is no biggy. The CPC has said open and free votes on these and many others. Does democracy really scare the liberal that much?

The only way to address smog is to have all 3 levels of government do things together. The Federal can address the air quality coming from outside sources and the provincial can set the level for their industries and the Local governments will have to do proper planning for the tall buildings and how they are poistions to allow the air currents to help clean out the smog and distribute it so it will not have toxic values. Just trying to get one level of government on side is hard but all 3 will be like pulling teeth.

First off the record will never say that MacKay ever did say the word dog, and even the liberal few who say he inferred the word in his answer, can not say the word dog came out of MacKays lips. So there will never be a formal request by the house about this. If MacKay wants to he can apologise for not speaking more clearly so that it could be recorded for the record, and then say what je meant etc. That would end this and would not harm anyone. But it is too busy trying to grow legs and walk, but no thinking person will give it much thought. As for Belinda saying she wants an apology, she whould first have to have heard that comment about her being said by MacKay. Something you all know would not happen. For example Mackay could say he believed the liberal asked about his doll and he responded go ask her you now have her. Why not just see this for what it is a sad attempt by a sad party to try to get something on an honest and fair government.

Lets see now I have done a poll and it was very scientific. I took earth worms and asked them how they vote and then put them on a line where to the left was liberal and the right was conservative. The majority of earth worms moved awy to the left. So that must mean that the Liberal get more support of earth worms then Conservatives. This is just about as useful as this present poll. It really doe s not make any sense and it will not make any difference because when it comes to election time, the issues of the day will be what will divide the voters, and we all know just how fluid that can be. There is not going to be an election any time soon and if and when there is, I have full confidence that women as a whole will take a look at the issues and make their own choices, regardless of what their husbands or fathers have told them. Just the very fact that this poll is even being brought up by Liberals at this point in time shows you just how sad the liberals are. Any women who would follow with her vote because of anything said about this pole, is not then the thinking and wise representative of her gender. When the time comes look at all things and then make a clear and thoughtful vote for the party who has your values in their actions if they were governing or by thei party position if they have never goeverned. I am more then a little appalled by the way both sides have looked at women during this thread. Personally it has come to how many points do I take away for each for their positions, not that this would gain any points. I apologise to any women, who has been made to feel less because of the views here.

People may try to remember Trudeau's foray with improper language. They even made a poem about it "Sing a song of fuddle duttle, Trudeau's found a broad to cuddle, NDP just stopped and stared, Stanfield crapped his underwear, All the world is in a muddle. All because of fuddle duddle" Now if my memory does not fail me, Trudeau never apologised for this or ever even acknowledged what he really said. This whole issue is more a political tool then anything, and MacKay can easily turn this back on the Libs. So I think we will just wait and see. If he really just wants to defuse it, he may well apologise, but not admit to ever having said it. Since it is not even on the record of being said and there are only a few who are saying he did. It really makes you wonder. Just as the voters will wonder as well. The Libs will soon realize the more you make people look at the CPC the more they are inclined to support them.

The one problem with age is we tend to remember things with less vigor then the actions were. I remember whenHurrican Hazel swept thru southern Ont and it did a lot of damage including ripping off factory roofs etc. This was what we liked to call a storm of the century back then. But today we have many more storms but they are not as bad, but if we look we will see that we nolonger have the wooded areas between farmers fields because the farmer need to plant all their land to make a living. This means winds will blow across these open fields and become much stronger then before. That is not climate change but the law of plain old physics. The areas of the greatest population are the ones that have this kind of thing playing out. This same thing is happening in cities but in reverse. All the all buildings stop the wind from moving thru these large cities and then we get the heat from the sun being bounced back and forth from the asphalt, and all the toxic gas emmissions from the cars and people, rise into a thick smog. Since there is little or no wind this just clings there like a bad odour. Had more and better planning been done of just where and how these giant buildings were built, then smog would not be the same problem as it is today. We all have to learn as we go along in all of this, as who would have thought 50 years ago that our cities would grow up so high that they in themselves would develope micro climates within them. The rise in average temperatures in the last 50 years is not that much maybe 3 degrees. That noramlly would be very hard for most people to feel let alone be upset about. That is why all the models for global warming have to be ovver 100 years because the nimbers do not begin to look like trouble until then. So what this is really all about is not Our Childrens time or their childrens time but their childrens, childrens, childrens time. That is a really long way off, and if you look at all the hype you see that the models say that it has to be exponentially growing for these 100 years to reach those figures. So if we do have the 65% reduction in greenhouse gas by the year 2050 as this new plan has said it would. Then not only will we have stopped the growth, but we would be working into the area of reversing the affects. That is unless some natural disaster like multiple volcano eruptions or major earthquakes do not happen and destroy the whol model with just one or two events.

You know I read all this and I have to say that some people are getting more then a little aggressive with their opiions and persoal views of what they see as the others short comings. It kind of distracts from what the thread is about. Now far from me to come down on anyone for lively debate, but I think I am seeing more personal debate on each other then on the thread itself. Maybe a cooling off is a wise thing?

I do not know why, but I find it hard to picture Belinda cooking supper for her hubby etc. She may welkl be able, but I just can not get it to form in my mind. She may be known for many things, but her recipies probably are not on the list.

Just as a quick note the Supreme court did rule about wait times etc as being a constitutional right extra. So yes, it was what put many of us on full alert. You will have to look it up at their site though.

I think most Canadians will see that this plan does many times more for the environment then the Liberals ever did all the time they were in power. So to that end it is a non starter if you try a comparison between them. It will be very hard for any scientist to poke holes in this plan because it is based on the very basics of science and what we know of the environment. Of course you will get those who will say that it does not go far enough fast enough, but if the environmentalist take this plan and all its targets as being met, then the 100 dom and gloom will be a 200-300 year doom and gloom. Kind of hard to find fault if it goes foward for the ten generations now isn't it. I will most certainly be dead and gone by that time and so will my childres childrens childrens...... Just how far ahead am I going to take responsibility for? The conservative only have to show the people that this makes those dire prediction a couple hundred more years away and I am sure they will get the voter support.

The Unclean Air Act is it. Well you tell me just how clean was the Kyoto act. Did it clean any air? Did it ever meet a target? Did it ever even start to make one cubic foot of air cleaner?. Now this clean air act has targets that are not only reachable but they are very much inline with the actual cause and effect issues on global warming. There is absolutely no rush to make things happen now because the models do not even give rise to dangers until tha later part of this century. So a 43 year plan has 2.5 times more speedier then needed, and it is within the abilities of technology today and the economies to be able to do it. Yes I would have liked to see more addressed to the pollution of todays environment, but since those issues are much more localized, it can be further worked on with the federal and oprovincial governments on an as needed basis. So you want to condemn a plan before it starts and for reasons that are purely political. If we even get to the 2010 starting targets, we will have done thousands of times more then the Liberals and Kyoto has ever done in the whole world. Kyoto and its whole issue with CO2 should die. It was based on bad science as we have saw by the actions. This is the environment and it is time to quit playing petty politics with it. Sorry to hijack the thread but I thought I would not want to let the unclean air act comment go by

Renegade, you said you were not there when the healthcare agreement went into effect. So maybe you should go back and do a little reading about who, why and when all this took place and then you will see just how stupid all this talk is. The same thing you are saying now were being brought up back then, and yes people were left dieing in pain, and no chance of hope. Canada can be proud of the way it went on this, and it was thought through very much so. It was then writen and designed to never allow the interferring that you are now talking about to happen. It would take almost a constitutional type change to make the changes you are talking about. If you want a system that is much like what you describe, the USA is the place for you to go. Their HMO type care is exactly like what you want. You pay very little until your sick then they drop you at the first chance, and then pay either huge fees or like many americans die with out the care they need.