Figleaf

To answer your questions again....... Whats the strategy? Strategy is to help keep Afghanistan secure and from tearing itself apart while the country grows into a new DEMOCRATIC nation, which we will help to influence while we are there. I think Canadian values are pretty good gift to the Afghanis. Ummm... that's not a strategy, it's a goal. A strategy is the method and plan for attaining the goal. So, what are the milestones? How will we know when it's finished? No, sorry, I guess I'm not being clear. I mean: Why should it be us who does it?

Interesting ... the series of polls shows a steady, though slight, decline in support for the Conservatives. But none of these polls is very informative until the Liberals pick a leader.

I've definitely noticed that -- for example, it's surprising how many CPC supporters came to the defence of Peter Mackay after he baldly lied in Parliament. It's also surprising how CPC supporters came to the defence of Harper breaking his promise. And what, other than misbegotten ideology, could explain the CPC position on SSM? Clouded judgement writ large. Did he ignore them, or antagonize them? Or do you mean he didn't act like a lapdog for them?

I don't get why those issues are particularly concerning to Albertans any more than other Canadians. Different culture. There is more a cultural difference Calgary-Toronto than Toronto-Montreal... yet they are a nation? Sorry, I phrased my comment inaptly. I mean, why are those issues perceived by some Albertans as being something that is of particular concern to them AS ALBERTANS?

You should ask the UN. They are the one's that asked us to go there. What do you think they'd say? Would you believe them?

If the soil can support poppies and cannabis couldn't it also support some food and cash crops? Maybe. Marijuana and poppies can grow in quite infertile conditions. But it's probably not economical to try food and other crops ... drugs are one of the few agricultural products in which third world countries don't face unfavorable trading practices from the wealthier countries.

You mean like in a pipe?

Jeez. It's hard to believe so many people would be willing to force women into childbirth.

Yay! but isn't CNN a bit over the top, ya thank the 55% but what did CNN have to say about it this time? Ummm... CNN reported the vote's outcome, that's all.

Okay

It'd have to be a pretty dramatic reform to have much national traction. Telling me I only need to wait 6 weeks instead of 8 to get my hip replaced is doing nothing for me. (Not that I need a hip replacement). I don't see the problem with waiting 6-8 weeks for a hip replacement. It would take most people that long to arrange their schedules and their homes for the rehab period. I think it would be much worse being told you only had a short time to prepare. Of course waiting any substantial length of time for cancer or heart treatment would definitely be a problem.

You think that any criticism of Harper is 'bashing'. I'm sure you'd prefer critics to hold their tongues, but guess what! Canada is a liberal democracy -- dissent and criticism are allowed here. It's getting really boring having you jump in with one-liner crap to disrupt every almost every thread on the Federal Politics forum. Give it a rest.

If continuing the Afghanistan mission is to be justified on humanitarian grounds, there are a couple of questions that we need to ask: -Why Afghanistan instead of other places? Darfur could use our help too. So could Myanmar. -Can Afghanistan be helped? Does building schools in a place where they are murdering teachers and kidnapping students and preventing girls from attending make sense? Will any of our aid be lasting?

Ok... so when do we address that we unfairly compensate our lumber industry with ridiculously low stumpage fees? The point is, we don't unfairly compensate our lumber industry with low stumpage fees. That's what this court and the NAFTA tribunals decided. If you hope to re-argue that issue, you should at least put some argument behind it.

Come off it! The NAFTA tribunals said it was illegal, Canada's legal advisors said it was illegal. He didn't NEED ESP, he just needed some guts, or a concept of wanting to serve the interests of his country.

Qualification? I tought you purported to be interested in discussion rather than merely (mistaken) efforts to belittle the people behind comments. The decision on income trusts was bad because: -it went back on a promise that people had relied on and resulted in financial damages to them; -it will undermine confidence in the reliability of our capital markets; and -was not urgent, give our fiscal surpluses. ??? Cameron, you should be very careful when you put quotes around something. I think I said 'FROM' America. Arming border guards is going to cost ten times what the tories originally said. And for what? Where is the threat? Why do we need to be protected from people crossing from the United States? Well, my dear fellow, you've made a lot of mistakes there. (1) Nothing Paul Martin did around SSM has been unconstitutional, and it is certainly not unconstitutional to have whipped votes in Parliament. I'd recommend that if you don't really grasp what is constitutional and not, that you avoid assertions on the topic. (2) It was not a whipped vote. It was a free vote. Parliamentary tradition is fairly clear that it's entirely inappropriate for Cabinet ministers to vote against the government and so their votes aren't considered 'whipped'. The are part of the government doing the whipping. Any member of Martin's cabinet was free to vote his/her conscience as a private member, but they cannot continue to stay in the cabinet that advises the Crown if they don't agree with the direction of her government. A cabinet member who votes against his government is honour bound to resign from that government ... the PM has no real input into the question. (3) The problem with bringing it before the house for a vote is that it would be stupid. Several provincial supreme courts have agreed that it would be unconstitutional, and its a virtual certainty that the SCC would agree. Therefore its a moot effort, therefore wasteful, therefore stupid. It's also stupid on principle: the notion of taking equal rights away from people ought to be abhorent to any responsible political party. (1)They caved by accepting a deal that was less than what the NAFTA tribunals awarded us. (2) Your fixation on qualifications is ludicrous. Who here tenders their qualifications in order to carry on a discussion?? No-one, that's who. What are you're qualifications? (3) Discuss it with me if you want to, or don't. But don't imagine I give a sweet #$%&. Yes, Emerson's move was much more disgraceful. Are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing with me? Oh, shurely I'm not 'qualified' to provide links to someone of your extreme expertise.

Right on. Figleaf you are cheering somebody on about not stalking people? Would you like me to post a link to the seven straight threads you stalked me on in a one hour span yesterday? Do you really want to re-initiate an exchange with me? You lost pretty badly last time.

They're closing the barn door after the election horse has run. They're closing the barn door after the Iraq horse has run.

Is a specific type of PR not on the referendum? If so, what ype? If not, is it not true that list candidates could be a feature of a system chosen? It seems like you're trying to silence my concerns. I've explained clearly that list candidates would make that worse, since they represent no-one, even in theory. I've explained clearly that since MPs currently choose their party over their constituents, the fact that list MPs would at least provide the correct amount of representation is preferable to our current situation. Which totally fails to meet my point. Also, they would provide a different distribution of representation, not the correct distribution. I certainly agree with that! !! You quoted my reply just above -- I said: Because they're fringe voters. If they can't muster enough support to elect a person against other persons, I see no reason to indulge them. Pump any ridiculous belief into a search engine and you'll find a lunatic fringe supporting it. Personally I don't think indulging fringe interests with legislature seats is useful. The examples said nothing that related to my comments, so I didn't see a need to react to them. That's not a "problem", it's a strength... makes people take their vote seriously.

Yep, you really cornered me on that one. Israel started it. So, Israel should have waited until it was starved into submission, to be on the moral side of history? 1. Well, they could have made peace. 2. Israel was not substantially dependent on shipping through the strait of Tiran.

CNN reports that South Dakota voters have soundly (55:45%) rejected a proposal to institute forced childbirth and overturn Roe v. Wade. Thank God for 55% of S.Dakota voters!

Let's hope this is the beginning of restoration of democracy in the United States.

If fair-minded and true to their principles condemn the comment. As sexist? Are you aware that both Steve Harper's and Toronto mayor David Miller's hair have been the subject of comment? http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=I...=cr%3DcountryCA http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=I...=cr%3DcountryCA

Strange comment. I wonder what people on the left are supposed to be doing about this.

Odd that I "always come back" to the topic of the thread? I've explained clearly that list candidates would make that worse, since they represent no-one, even in theory. !! You quoted my reply just above -- I said: Because they're fringe voters. If they can't muster enough support to elect a person against other persons, I see no reason to indulge them. Pump any ridiculous belief into a search engine and you'll find a lunatic fringe supporting it. Personally I don't think indulging fringe interests with legislature seats is useful. Yes, and?