Ricki Bobbi

It's offensive. They actually have a scene where a dumb, hick white farmer says to the hardworking under employed muslim woman: "Would it kill you Muslim gals to show a little cleavage now and then?" wtf is up with that? Yet another attack on the stupid ignorant white christian male. Any bets on this offensive piece of crap lasting past the original run of eight episodes?

It's the Order of Precdence and those are explicitly stated as being for ceremonial purposes only. They won a plurality of votes and seats in the election. What constitutes a mandate? 36% of the Canadian public voted Conservative in January. Why would some of them be *acting against* what Canadians believe. Is it majority rule all the time? Or only when the party you support is out of power? At the time SSM passed into law a majority of Canadians opposed it. Should that not have happened? Or is it majority rule only when the party you support is out of power?

Is it really that black and white? The rules changed within a year of the convention. Are you competent enough to interpret elections Canada law? I haven't heard one of the Harper-haters out there answer that question. The made an error in reporting financing laws that they admitted to and rectified within a year of filing the original return. They have corrected their error. No taxpayer money was involved in the error. No charges are being pressed. No one will go to jail. The Liberals stonewalled for more than five years. Leading to the need to call an $80 million judicial inquiry to uncover $1.14 million in taxpayer money illegally diverted to party organizers. Party organizers have gone to jail over this. The Conservatives didn't cover up for years over this. They didn't knowingly break any laws - according to the finds of Elections Canada. You may somehow see the two as equal. If the Liberals wanted to wage a campaign on this one issue in comparison to their malfeasance the Conservatives would do it in an instant. Yes the *volunteer* organizers made mistakes. Do I believe it was a concerted effort to illegally skirt the Elections Act? No. Why not? Because they could have dragged this out for years, and definitely past the next election. Fortunata here are two questions for you. Let's pretend the original errors were the same in the CPC Elections ad case and Adscam. Is that were culpability ends? Should the CPC be equally as guiltily even though they handled their malfeasance in a faster, and at far less expense to the taxpayers, than the Liberals did with Adscam? Fine, the *volunteers* were incompetent. Can't fire them. Can't afford to hire people to do the work due to the limitations of the Elections Act. What do you do? Divert taxpayer money to ensure you get the highest quality volunteers?

It is curious how the numbers he fnally did give ended up proving him wrong.

So the Government definitely should not have a say in election dates? Only the opposition party's in a minority siutation? Under the current situation.

But no other way under the current system?

Canada never had a Deputy PM before 1977. So you are alarmed about the history of the country for 110 years. Lawrence Cannon has a long and distinguished record in the private sector and with the party. He has done an admirable job as minister of transportation. Harper reached out to Quebec with the appointment of Cannon. What legal lines are you talking about? So designating Cannon as his number two is a sign of Harper's control issues. Nice analysis. You don't have a hate on for Harper or the Conservatives at all.

Readily? It's happened three times in the last 120 years. In one of the three Governments that have waited until a fifth year the governing party won a majority in the succeeding election. So if I get you correctly a majority Government of less than four years is self-serving, a majority Government of four years is self-serving and a majority Government of five years is self-serving. Is there any way for a majority Government not to be self-serving?

Hey, I've been pretty fair to the US throughout this thread but your last statement goes a little too far. The US dithered and debated for over two years while Canada was there from the get go. There are legitimate questions about when the US would have become involved if their hand wasn't forced by the Japanese. Eventually the US would have had to be involved on the Allied side. A defeat of the Allies would have meant the Axis occupying Canada ... which couldn't be justified. In a six year war the US sat on the sidelines for two of them. Doesn't it seem odd that somebody would respect a four-year effort as much as a six-year effort? Especially when the six-year effort was clearly a matter of choice and the four-year effort was a response to an attack?

The 1997, 2000 and 2004 elections were definitely for political advantage. But going back to 84, 88 and 93 those governments had all run a reasonable length of time. Calling an election at the four year mark a move for political advantage is pretty weak. The four year standard exists for a number of reasons. That is why Harper proposed four years.

The whole football crazy argument doesn't really play into things at all. The GTA has 5 million people. They could support an NFL team if it is run well. Depth of love of the game? Agreed but it could be done at the same time. If the league expanded from 32 teams to 36 you *could* see LA - Mexico City - Toronto and some random fourth city. I don't think the US will go to Europe anytime soon. Travel would be an incredible nightmare. The poor draw thing isn't a factor. Good Canadian teams draw well. NFL teams only play 8 home games a year as opposed ot 41 in the NHL and 81 in MLB. There are very few cities in the league where it is even possible to walk up and buy tickets on game day. So the draw of a team isn't really consideration. The effect of an NFL team in Toronto on the CFL might be a consideration. But the Argos are clearly one of the weakest links in the league (now that Ottawa is kaput again). The few hardcore Argos fans would still go see them play in Mississauga or elsewhere in the GTA. But a stadium remains the one huge stumbling block which I can't see somebody overcoming.

Speaking purely non-partisanly that isn't true. The timing of the January election was not cut short by the Liberals to try and secure a political advantage. The Conservatives haven't done that in a long, long time. Given that four years is the benchmark for a normal majority Parliament. (As set out in Prime Minister Harper's proposed reforms aimed at fixed election dates.) Despite conspiracy theories about Joe Clark "engineering" his defeat in 1980 over the budget, it clearly was not a mandate cut short by the PCs to secure political advantage. The last Conservative who could be accused of that ploy was Diefenbaker in calling the 1958 election. So to say cutting short their mandate to secure a political advantage is a policy the Conservatives haven't employed in nearly 50 years.

If the Economist information makes it difficult to verify my claims how do you already know what the Economist posted as therir Big Mac PPP? Seriously, look at the contradiction. I am trying to debate and all you can provide is an insult about my *ridiculous* behaviour? There is nothing *false* about my claims. In your last post you just state that US health care costs are 70% more than Canada and the BM PPP is 1.10. Using that inflated PPP figure you have US health care costs being 58% higher than Canada. That 12% difference represents $18 Billion CAD annually. Now don't get angry. Don't insult me. Just look at the *facts* you stated and deal with my refutation.

How have I lost credibility? You claimed US health care costs are 60% higher than Canada's. I said they weren't. You dumped a bunch of random figures, insulted me then finally waded through the data to try and *prove* your point. I elegantly refuted your point using the figures you provided. Please explain what the level of *debate* necessary is. Seems like I lost credibility because I questioned your unproven fact.

I am definitely one of those guys for a simple reason. It is better period. The athletes are better without question. When I watch baseball I watch the Major Leagues, not AAA. When I watch hockey I watch the NHL, not the AHL. When I watch footbal I prefer to watch the NFL, not the CFL. I go to the odd CFL game, but that's more for a night out than anything else.

Sorry. I love Canada, but that comment did make us all laugh. No need to be sorry. I really think that Canadians who display the flag with such *pride* when they travel are far, far more likely to be rabid America-bashers. This behaviour is infantile and comes from a sense of deep self-loathing. The US is the world power right now, although watch out for China. Our clothes come from the US, our TV, music and movies. The US is our most important poltical and economic ally bar none. As Canadians we should embrace the US. It offers many good things. I tend to get along quite well with Americans when I travel. I think it's because I'm not the typical wannabe Canadian with the flag plastered everywhere. I also think it is a matter of respect. I have witnessed far too many Canadians, Brits, Aussies and Kiwis who start attacking Americans about whatever as soon as they meet them. Maybe it's just me but when if I meet a guy hanging out at a tourist bar in Bangkok I'm guessing that he probably isn't a member of senior staff at the State Department or the White House.

He needs approval from both houses, and he only has two years left. I doubt he want's to go into Iran. As well if a country is going to be behind Iran instead of the US then that country is f%$ked. That's like saying your supporting Nazi Germany over Great Britian because Britian is too much of an empire. CB very good points. I believe that Bush has done some might crappy things as President. However, the poster you reply to clearly doesn't understand the US system at all. A Canadian Prime Minister with a majority in the House and Senate has far, far more power than a US President will ever have. But it is easer to spout rhetoric and attack. Of course it is only rational to support the US over Iran.

The 2000 Federal election cost the taxpayers over 200 million. That doesn't cover the cost to the country of legislation that died the day the election was called and the cost of not having a government until a new one is formed. I don't imagine it has got less expensive since then. For what, other than political advantage? Bring on fixed election dates. Wilber, very good points but... You are wasting your effort. The Liberals know that part of the reason they lost last January was their fiscal irresponsibility and blatant theft via Adscam. So the less-analytical types, like Topaz, turn into *attack on money* mode. Your logic and reason are lost on them.

Your respectful tone in referring to a cabinet minister is telling. Minister Baird turns it around on the Liberals because the Liberals were corrupted and wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. C'mon Liberals lets make the next election about corruption. Puh lease.

Yes, and your cheerleading for the Liberals is telling. You have the minister of Finance go to the G8, minister of International cooperation. Imagine that, having the Minister actually responsible for a file represent the country at important international meetings related to the file. The Liberals were in power for 13 years. Of course most of the Conservative MPs had no experience as Ministers. What would have been wise? Get Liberal cabinet ministers to experience to cross the floor? Something tells me you didn't approve of Emerson doing just that.

I can't see Toronto supporting an NFL team. The SkyDome isn't big enough to support the NFL. Don't see there being enough support to build a new stadium.

No, I'm here to debate. You aren't. I do applaud you for the school house argument "I know you are but what am I." You sir are a true scholar! Happy new year!

Shhh CB. Catchme is here to vent and attack. Your logic and rationality aren't welcome.

If you were here to debate you'd clarify. But you are just here to insult and put people down. Have fun and a happy new year!

Just go to the Economist web site. No link, it's a paysite...