Ricki Bobbi

How much money will be saved by getting rid of the free energy audits??? Nobody has seen the program, how do you know it was "pretty much intact"?

Pragmatic. Defintion: of or pertaining to a practical point of view or practical consideration The practical consideration here is winning a majority. Not necessarily *at all costs*. You might appear a little more educated if you learn the definition of words before questioning them? So it's worth it to you to move to another country for $225 to $300? Or that's the point at where you start making false threats about it. You still haven't stated the economic value, in terms of domestic and international confidence in the economy, of a zero or minimal threat of Quebec separation. Or is there any?

It's a plan that replaced energuide. So of course there are some elements of the plan. Founded on? What does that mean? Doubtful there would have been much actual jobs lost over this. The strength of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and all. My guess is that the free energy audits, which drove a lot of the costs of Energuide, won't be a feature of the new program. Has it been founded on energuide or has the program been rebuilt? Get your timing right. Energuide was cancelled with the last budgets. 10 months is a lot more than one or two..

But there is no value, ever, in giving money to Quebec? So you are a pragmatist when it suits you, but you vent your anger at the Conservatives anytime they act in a pragmatic manner? This is the first time I can remember you making that distinction. So you aren't going to move to *threaten* moving to another country because of Katimavik?

So the Conservatives have announced another part of their environmental plan. Link. The Liberals are stuck between lame jokes and crying *they are robbing our ideas.* The latter was the whine du jour of the divided right IIRC. Here's the lame joke of the day. Baird = bare. BAH, get the joke! Actually Bob you are the joke...

You can get shitty poutine anywhere in Canada. The chicken sauce poutine in Montreal is phenomenal. Not very good for the gut though...

Yeah it has rebounded. btw for the longest time lacrosse was the National sport of Canada. Now it is the National summer sport of Canada. One guess as to the National winter sport.

Our economic relationship with the United States doesn't translate into having to agree with what every President of the US does. Harper hasn't agreed with everything Bush has done. We are not, and will not be, part of the Iraq war. We have expressed our concerns over the Northern passage. Bush did not get *everything* he wanted in the softwood lumber deal. Trudeau got chastised for implementing FIRA. FIRA rarely blocked any takeovers or asset transfers. All it accomplished was to create a lot of noise about "protecting Canada" and pissing off the Americans. Trudeau got chasitised for implementing the NEP. It was designed to promote energy self-sufficiency for Canada. It took $100 Billion out of the Alberta economy and ensured that Alberta was the province hardest hit by the worst recession since the Great Depression. Trudeau's policies on economic nationalism were a nightmare that accomplished nothing. Due to the nature of our trade and geograpy no degree of diversification could replace the US as our most important trading partner. Due to the relative size of our economies Canada will also be the secondary member of the partnership. Instead of just attacking Conservatives, why not explain how we could diversify?

The safest parts to transport nuclear weapons, i.e. those with actual roads, are guarded. The portions of the US - Mexico border without fences have significant geographical hazards. Be it the Rio Grande, mountains or huge stretches of desert. Which physically makes it tougher to just load up a truck. Do you want to drive a nuclear warhead through a mountainous area in a truck? Second, Mexico is not a declared, or suspected, nuclear power. Where would this nuke come from. What is it that you do not understand about this?

Sort of like the Liberals legalizing SSM without saying they were going to do so in the election?

Would BC leave as well or would Canada no longer be contiguous?

Which one Barney, Spot or Millie?

Very well said. I just don't get the arrogance. Do people actually buy that bullsh*t about Canada's Natural Governing Party??? IIRC we didn't hear that term for about 9 years. i.e. 1948 to 1993. Here's hoping we have another streatch of that.

Well, that was well thought out analysis. Ricki? You got on me for attacking a group of voters. SICK EM! SICK EM! Horatio the correct word in that situation would be sic. i.e. sic 'em. Your misuse of a word with a completely different meaning proves argus' pont.

Let's look at the absolute numbers. Here's the link. Hmmm, by slicing it that way Canada is behind a couple European countries and Russia. The self-evidential nature of your facts are simply wrong and open to interpretation.

After making that statement, you say ... The lack of logic in your first statment is pretty obvious.

Canada is better of without Alberta? Are you f*cking serious? Would Canada have been better off without Ontario in the early 1900s when manufacturing was king and the Golden Triangle's proximity to American markets gave them a *bad attitude*?

There is the rub. Harper isn't cozying up to Bush. He is just treating him with the respect the leader of our most important ally and trading partner deserves. You haven't seen members of Harper's caucus stomping on GW Bush dolls. You haven't heard senior Conservative staffers calling White House staffers a**holes. You haven't seen the Harper Government making announcements on policy changes affecting the Americans, without informing the Americans first. That stuff was ignorant and just wrong. Harper has stated his objections to Bush on a number of issues. You are mistaking professionalism with "cozying up". Not blaming anybody. We are the Government. We are doing the best we can given the restrictions of a minority Parliament. Their isn't a *problem* with our polices. We haven't only seen one Federal Government elected with a majority of the votes cast since 1962. Are you saying that there has been a *problem* with all but one of the Government's we have had since 1962?

Yet another discrepancy from Geoff. There is no way a "true" Conservative Government of the type you favour, and keep complaining that the current Government isn't, would keep on funding Katimavik. Care to explain yourself?

Too dumb to make a minority situation work? Where does that come from? What has he done that hasn't "made the minority situatiion work"? He has served for almost a year. There is no election in the offing. He hasn't gone on National television beggin for more time in office. What do you consider making "a minority situation work"?

It's a youth service program. Probably the closest American equivalent would be Americorps.

No party should be in power for 13 years. Harper could win two massive majorities and would still not reach that mark. He'd retire on his own. The healthiest thing for Canada is to majorities for one party followed by two majorities for the other, and so on and so on...

At what cost to meet Kyoto? Do you favour buying emission credits if it is found that we can't meet the targets without seriously hurting the economy, if we can meet them at all? If Dion says he will definitely not buy credits, under any circumstances, that could win him a lot of votes. Yes I saw an inconvenient truth. Yes, I believe global warming exists. Yes, I think the Conservatives are taking steps in the right direction. No, I don't think Kyoto is the right way to go. No I don't care what Dion named his dog.

Do you honestly feel that we would be running budget surpluses now if there had never been small-c conservatives in the House during the Chretien era? Do you believe that the Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA have been bad things for Canada? Do you realize that the accords with the US on acid rain were passed by a Conservative Prime Minsiter? btw, have you really taken a look at the Green Party platform?

He hasn't submitted a plan yet. So he gets a pass for now. But as long as he says he plans to meet the Kyoto targets then qutoes like the following are misleading and totally unrealistic. We don't have time for emissions to be reduced fairly under Kyoto.