Born Free

There is a timeslot in Parliament refered to as Question Period...where the opposition gets to ask embarassing questions of the government and get a bunch of non-answers (note the sarcasm) Its also TV show with the same name. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/show...d-Home/20060425

Sorry you feel that way.... Most voters are perhaps a suseptable to confusing what's in a party platform with its founding principles. Perhaps you dont understand that The Reform Party would never have become a national party based on its then governing principles/platform and leader. I assume that you can agree with what's in the list for the todays version of the party principles....perhaps you can elaborate on what should be added, changed or deleted..... I am being perfectly honest.... I hope you can be. The Conservative Party will be guided in its constitutional framework and its policy basis by the following principles: A balance between fiscal accountability, progressive social policy and individual rights and responsibilities; Build a national coalition of people who share these beliefs and who reflect the regional, cultural and socio-economic diversity of Canada; Develop this coalition, embracing our differences and respecting our traditions, yet honoring a concept of Canada as the greater sum of strong parts; The Conservative Party will operate in a manner accountable and responsive to its members; A belief in loyalty to a sovereign and united Canada governed in accordance with the Constitution of Canada, the supremacy of democratic parliamentary institutions and the rule of law; A belief in the equality of all Canadians; A belief in the freedom of the individual, including freedom of speech, worship and assembly; A belief in our constitutional monarchy, the institutions of Parliament and the democratic process; A belief in the federal system of government as the best expression of the diversity of our country, and in the desirability of strong provincial and territorial governments; A belief that English and French have equality of status, and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada; A belief that the best guarantors of the prosperity and well-being of the people of Canada are: The freedom of individual Canadians to pursue their enlightened and legitimate self-interest within a competitive economy; The freedom of individual Canadians to enjoy the fruits of their labour to the greatest possible extent; and The right to own property; A belief that a responsible government must be fiscally prudent and should be limited to those responsibilities which cannot be discharged reasonably by the individual or others; A belief that it is the responsibility of individuals to provide for themselves, their families and their dependents, while recognizing that government must respond to those who require assistance and compassion; A belief that the purpose of Canada as a nation state and its government, guided by reflective and prudent leadership, is to create a climate wherein individual initiative is rewarded, excellence is pursued, security and privacy of the individual is provided and prosperity is guaranteed by a free competitive market economy; A belief that the quality of the environment is a vital part of our heritage to be protected by each generation for the next; A belief that Canada should accept its obligations among the nations of the world; A belief that good and responsible government is attentive to the people it represents and has representatives who at all times conduct themselves in an ethical manner and display integrity, honesty and concern for the best interest of all; A belief that all Canadians should have reasonable access to quality health care regardless of their ability to pay; and A belief that the greatest potential for achieving social and economic objectives is under a global trading regime that is free and fair.

The Banks in Canada are strong because they are tightly regulated....never forget that. It's NOT because of conservative or frugal CEO's. The Banks in the US are (or perhaps were in deep doo doo) because of unethical CEO's.... a plague that seems to have pervaded Corporate America. I am quickly reminded of Enron and of course the tobacco giants in Canada that skirted their taxes to the tune of billions. Your finding some perverse pleasure as you watch your PM employ such blatant hypocricy is puzzling. Oh well... onward and upward....

Reform didnt have any principles (so to speak) nor does Harper..... unless of course you mean stuff like the concept of the non-starter platform item called an elected Senate. Harper runs the whole show from his office and sadly for him he has to do it while the party is in a minority position. Calling it a "separatist" coalition a month or so ago was a laugher for me when we all know that he was climbing into bed with the Bloc when he was the leader of the opposition. Harper's outright hypocricy kinda turns me off. "We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority...". -- Harper Sept 2004

Are you suggesting that the party leader isnt a Reform guy?

I was kinda focused on the topic of street racers. I would agree with a drunk driver losing his car for 6 months or a year on top of losing his license. Both idiot types should do jail time if they are caught driving during the period their license is revoked.

One week isnt nearly long enough........ 6 months or even a year might do the trick for most of the idiots out there.

Do you also speak like Archie Bunker? You certainly write like him........

I'll give you three guesses why and the first two are freebies...

You can be assured that no meat inspectors were laid off in Walkerton.

The street racing law is good but its not strict enough for my liking.

I'd vote for Sarah Palin any day. She will be a most refreshing image on the Sunday morning talk shows. I can hardly wait.

I recall a time in recent history when declaring publicly that one was against the war in Iraq was percieved as peeing on the troops as well. Today, most would likely agree that isnt really the case. Oh well. Such is life in the fast lane when running for President. Just dont inhale.

Perhaps I should have guessed your question was a rhetorical one...."So why are they getting "full voting rights" now when it means absolutely nothing?"... I simply gave you a rational explanation for that decision as indicated by the story link. ie.... an attempt to heal party wounds. I also voiced an opinion re the state Dems having changed their primary date and thereby flagrantly ignoring the rules as established by the DNC. They all got what they deserved. The voters could/should have boycotted the primaries given what was clearly stated by the DNC as to what the consequences would be. Given all that, I would definitely say that you were trying to engage in some kind of argument. I had no idea that you werent at all interested in hearing the reason behind the decision to now count their votes.

Thanks. Regardless of what Kerry has claimed, I have been under the impression that there were wide scale atrocities committed by the US in Vietam that were sanctioned by the military &/OR the CIA.

What exactly did Kerry do to be accused of pissing on those that served? If it was about his harsh criticim of the Vietnam War, I dont see that as pissing on his fellow soldiers. I believe he was pissing on the two administrations who were running the war.

Dont know why you feel so argumentative about it. The real point of the story line is quite clear. My own opinion is that the voters in Michigan & Florida got their just desserts for being so flagrant with the rules.

Its not my point. Its the point being touted in the story line. Frankly, I dont give a damn. As mentioned before, the rules established by the DNC were quite clear on the matter. The State parties elected to ignore the rules and the DNC called their bluff. Would you expect the tail to wag the dog?

I'd say that the voters in Michigan & Florida got their just desserts for being so flagrant. Read your story link again. You might notice the likely reason behind the move. Democrats hope the gesture will strengthen their standing in two important battleground states while ending a contentious chapter of the nominating process. In other words, I'd say it's the fear of Democrats in those two states voting for McCain as a backlash/protest scenario.

However, lets not forget that they did break the primary rules........

Jack Layton is an excellent opposition leader. Lets hope he remains one as long as he's in Ottawa.