Canadian Blue

Required America to fail at what exactly?

It doesn't help that the report was authored by John Kerry. Attempting to put the entire blame on George W Bush for not capturing Osama Bin Laden is infantile. When an operation like that occurs the President doesn't have control over what every soldier in region is doing, attempting to do so would result in a clusterf*ck. Do I think Donald Rumsfeld in particular was incompetent, without a doubt. That was due more to John Kerry than anything George W Bush did in the previous four years. The Democrats had every advantage in 2004 and lost it all because of a shitty campaign.

I've actually heard some people call Gen. Rick Hillier a war criminal. Then again those people are usually confined to the usual quacks who have no clue where Afghanistan is on a map.

All I'm saying is that to put all the blame on Bush would be incorrect. When it comes to an operation like that the errors come from many areas. In this case it seems the biggest offenders were Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks.

Death panels have existed for a long time in the United States Shady. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2009685301_harrop19.html What I love is reading the "pro-life" politicians who are opposed to any additional funding for healthcare. Despite going on about how government intervention is required to ensure women don't have abortions, they want no public funding available for parents to help cover the costs of health insurance. Therefore a child can die later in life and the GOP is fine with it, but if an abortion occurs it's a tragedy that requires immediate action.

Really, was Bush the one who told those American troops not to move faster to catch Osama. I'm not fan of George W Bush, in fact I think his Presidency was a complete failure. But you can't blame all of the problems in the world on him.

Oleg, you should really get back on the lithium.

Actually the federal government gave most civil servants a raise. I doubt you bitched about that. That's how it works with most federal employees. As a private I would have a hard time moving my entire family, buying a home, and eating, etc. if it all came out of my own pay. Especially when you're given the order to do training with only two days notice. We don't stay in the best hotels either, whenever I was sent to another base I stayed in single quarters and would often find myself with three other members in a room. Military families are separated for 6 to 9 months while on deployment. A friend of mine didn't get to be at the side of his wife for the birth of his first child due to deployment. If some Green Party supporter [Topaz] has a problem with it, then go bitch to the veterans at your local legion about how easy they had it in life compared to yourself. This is what I hate about the left. It used to be about helping the working man, the farmer, and the small businessman, now it's just some suburban marxist [Topaz] bitching about how the government should be spending money on her bullshit.

Let me explain to you how this works... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QjOI7bj5ks

So far corporate hegemony is far better than Taliban hegemony.

Is there any possibility that the Manitoba Liberals could win more support by finding a middle ground between the NDP and Tories?

I disagree, the BC Liberals are not just the old Socreds, they are a coalition of both conservatives and liberals. That's why it's not shocking to find members their party run for either the CPC or the LPC. If the Liberals wanted to govern, they would need to find a way to appeal to those on the right who favour the free market, civil liberties, and a welfare state. Agreed, when I was a member of the NDP I couldn't help but look in awe as the federal NDP seemed to ignore everything it's successful provincial counterparts were doing. It seems like economic illiteracy is a point of pride in the federal party. Often the stigma around the Liberals is that they seem like the lobby for public unions. The Liberals could make a platform devoted to diversifying the economy through more funding towards education and the trades. That could be a huge benefit in both urban and rural areas. It would also show the Liberals are more forward thinking than the current crop of PC's. But the Liberals shouldn't just take up the stock policies. I'd argue that the Liberals should argue for reform of the HRC's for example to ensure protection of freedom of speech and press. They should also be more prominent in the battle for elected senators, which would resonate with a large number of former Reformers. But once again, I haven't seen any of these moves made by the party. I was hoping for Dave Taylor since he had the best plan for modernising the existing Liberal Party. Unfortunately I haven't seen any real movement to make the party more palatable to the rest of Alberta. If the Liberals don't improve I'd just vote for whichever party was the most likely to gain the seat, whether it be NDP, Liberal, or [assuming Danielle Smith wins] Wildrose Alliance.

Difference being that flag burners aren't considered the "base" of the party. Sarah Palin who thinks Obama will personally execute old people and mentally handicapped children is the leading candidate for the Presidential primaries. The nutters have obviously taken over.

Then let private insurance come in to fill the void. We had the same fight in Alberta over delisting sex change surgery. I doubt the reason for the delisting is because the Manitoba NDP are a bunch of gay bashers.

I disagree, what needs to happen is the Alberta Liberals should follow the same model as the BC Liberals. Moving a little bit farther left won't get them anything except a couple more seats in Edmonton. The Liberals had a chance to become a force in Alberta and blew it by selecting David Swann over Dave Taylor. Dave Taylor's New Liberal initiative was exactly what was needed to renew the ALP. Now we're stuck in the same situation we found ourselves in a year ago, the Liberals have not made any changes to their party that would appeal to more Albertans. It seems like they prefer being a rump party with no chance at power instead of learning from what Laurence Decore did in the early 90's.

Alright hacks, lets get a couple things straight. The majority of provinces receive equalization payments, that doesn't mean said provinces might successfully run their economies to the point where they'll eventually become have-not provinces. I'd consider both Manitoba and New Brunswick to be success stories in that sense since they are aiming to eventually become have provinces. It doesn't matter whether you have a PC, Liberal, or NDP, government. What matters is how said government acts on things like taxations and regulation. As it happens the Manitoba NDP are far more competent than their federal counterparts since they are more concerned with pragmatism than blind idealism. If Alberta receives 4 billion in transfer payments, they still lose over 17 billion to the federal government. It hardly make the province dependent on Ottawa as some people like to claim. Equalization is obviously necessary in a country the size of Canada, I don't think any of us would want to see a province slip into semi third world status. That being said it has been politicized, look at Danny Williams.

Big difference is that being gay has no effect on the treasury. When I had glasses people called me four eyes, perhaps the government should fund all laser eye surgery.

With reference to the possibility of a CPC leadership race. The most important characteristic for any future leader is to maintain the big tent the CPC currently has. That requires a centre-right candidate who is as pragmatic as Harper [stop frothing at the mouth partisan hacks] has shown in government. The best candidate in my judgement would be Jean Charest. He probably wants to become Prime Minister and is currently running a centre-right Liberal government in Quebec. The biggest advantage for Charest would be the ability to win in Quebec and a relatively successful experience in government. While some might wonder what I've been smoking, I'll remind you that the CPC leadership is done proportionally by riding instead of one man one vote, thus giving Quebec an equivalent amount of sway as BC and Alberta. If Jean Charest doesn't run, the CPC would be better of with Peter Mackay, Jim Prentice, or Brad Wall.

How exactly is that pertinent to running a government? Qualifications is a largely abstract term. If we were to base this purely on political experience Harper would win hands down. Agreed, and I'm happy to see Ignatieff has largely eviscerated the myth of peacekeeping. Come on, what exactly is "anti-intellectual." This reminds me of when the Liberals warned that the Tories were going to bring in a "hidden agenda" which included two-tier American healthcare. Even though American's don't really have a two-tier system, but Australia and New Zealand do. If you think only the Tories play to ignorance you're blind to reality. What divide? The biggest policy difference is over EI payments, hardly the Naziesque picture you paint. Hell I even read a piece by the head of the Liberal Party in Alberta arguing that we should extend the mission in Afghanistan. The Conservatives and the Liberals have essentially become the same party with a few differences. We now essentially have two parties battling for the centre, one on the left, and the separatists. That being said I really doubt policy differences on senate reform, the three strikes law, or EI, will somehow result in the Kristallnacht.

Awe yes, the Republicans. I don't think we can find a party like it anywhere else in the world [unless you're a partisan hack who thinks every centre-right party is on the same wavelength as the GOP]. Aren't the Republicans just the party of Civil War re-enactors, religious fundamentalists, jingoists, and nutters. The fact that a woman who thinks Obama is setting up death panels to kill senior citizens and mentally handicapped children is the top candidate for their Presidential nomination should tell you they're delusional. The better question is whether the GOP will survive by adopting centrist stances or perhaps dissapear altogether.

Actually, William Wilberforce admitted that it was largely his Christianity that made him oppose slavery and that God created all men equal. He was also a fierce opponent of revolution and the cult of reason which saws tens of thousands murdered in France in the name of "enlightenment" values. I notice that theirs always this loose grasp on what religion is whenever people attempt to claim that some atheist who committed atrocities was really no different from some Baptist preacher. But it's not a surprise that whenever people are abolished of any form of punishment whether it be earthly or transcendent that they will act barbarically. This isn't to say all atheists are bad people, I was once an atheist, however their are many who give up on God not based on principle but so they can engage in destructive behavior. Yes, I've stated before that I find Ayn Rand's philosophy to be deplorable. But theirs not much difference between the most strident Objectivists and Marxists in that they're both materialistic and support a cult of reason. Needless to say I'm closer to traditional conservatism which values the community over this mass consumer culture which is supported by many on the right. He's now stated that he accepts the theory, and the only reason he didn't is because what is commonly done by Richard Dawkins and his ilk is to say that only true atheists can believe in the theory of evolution. But once again it's not the only issue, you have to take the good with the bad unfortunately.

No it wasn't. The Progressives never folded into the Tories, if anything more folded into the Liberals and CCF than they did into the Conservatives. As well the Progressives reached the height of their success in the 1920's, not the 1930's. If anything the Progressives were the prelude to the socialist CCF. Their was no merger between the two parties, if you have proof of this supposed merger I'd love to see it. But according to history the name change was due to the election of John Bracken as leader of the Party. That's not quite correct since the Social Gospel had a large effect on Canadian politics, which included the notable election of the CCF in Saskatchewan. That is unless the reasoning for the abortion isn't to your liking. Their are countless millions who have dedicated their lives in both small and large ways to improve this world. To write a list would be near impossible. So which supreme being in Ottawa do you trust to have full judgement over who is or isn't capable of being a representative. You would have thought that with all this talk of "progress" people would focus on what a person's individual policies are instead of personal religious beliefs. However if we were to base a politicians qualities around their religious beliefs without regard to anything else than Stalin [atheist] would be a better pick than William Wilberforce [Evangelical Christian] for not holding supernatural beliefs. Maybe people should simply butt out and listen to what politicians have to say instead of whether or not they believe in God.

Progressive Conservatism is an oxymoron. The only reason for the name "Progressive" Conservative was because the old Conservatives wanted a Progressive premier to run the party, the only way to do it at the time was change the name. Conservatism existed before Robert Stanfield. No it doesn't, social conservatism is a different philosophy than fiscal conservatism or neoliberalism. Their are plenty of political parties in Europe that are socially conservative yet support mixed economies. Then perhaps secular individuals should become more charitable instead of seeing a poor person and wishing that individual was aborted instead. This has already been refuted ad nauseum on here. As well their are plenty of examples of people giving their time to the poor, Dorothy Day being one example. Probably because the question would have never been asked. One thing I find hilarious is that people will always ask Christians these questions but would never ask a Jew, Hindu, Sikh, or Muslim, about their religion lest they be considered a bigot. It would be nice if all these people on the secular left who have far more in common with the Jacobins/Cult of Reason than Edmund Burke would stop attempting to call their philosophy "conservatism."

Yes, and Joe Clark never won a majority and proceeded to lose the government in the next election. I suppose by that logic he is nothing more than an extreme-right wing conservative. So does that make the federal Liberals extreme left wing and on the fringe since they haven't been able to get into power since 2006? What of the last election, were they as far to the left as the NDP visionseeker? Elections aren't about policies, they're about who has the best PR campaign. Robert Stanfield lost an election because he couldn't catch a football for example. Most American's support universal healthcare but neither party strongly supports such a program as they claim it would be "out of reach" and instead support small changes to the corrupt HMO's and put forward minor programs. Even Kim Campbell recognized that elections are no time to discuss politics and it's obvious that "spin" has more resonance on voters than the issues ever do. I can't think of a single policy that could be considered very "right-wing" under Harper, and usually if I am given examples it tends to gravitate around the presumption that a three strikes rule for violent criminals, cutting off funding to starving artists, and making a minor cut in the GST, are somehow ideas prevalent on the fringe of Canadian society. Despite the fact I haven't met many Canadian's who have a problem with jailing repeat offenders, loved paying taxes, or thought taxdollars should go towards Tal Bachmann's trip to Africa.

Yeah, Nickelback is also a Canadian band that makes tonnes of money, doesn't mean I want taxpayer funding going to all douchebag rockbands because it might create the odd job. If I had to choose between getting an extra police officer patrolling the block or having some bureaucrat fund a crappy artist that nobody likes, I would have to go with the police officer who is doing something productive in society. By productive I mean not merely inflating the egos of a few Liberal Party members. We would likely still have a film industry without said subsidies, not to mention that it wouldn't be relegated to movies about necrophilia, the poor man's American Pie, or for that matter Pearl Harbour part 2. Yes, and I'm sure we should have hired about a dozen bureaucrats earning six figures to do all the research required before giving said magazine $25,000. Wow, nice way to answer a question with a question. Yes, I'd like more, and they have to specifically stating that western separation should happen instead of articles where separatism is merely mentioned. Not this idiotic notion you have that any criticism of the Liberal Party or the coalition is akin to "fanning the flames of separatism." I heard their was nudity in it, you don't watch that kind of film for the dialogue or humour. The same effect comes across if you mute it. It wasn't that great, if David Duchovny was the star it would have been great though. I don't, I'm simply pointing out your hideous double standard in that you would never criticize such funding if a different political party of your liking was in power that's all. By the way taxdollars also go to the magazine "Alberta Views." A magazine with a notable left wing bent when it comes to how it reports the news. Here is the previous listing of magazines which got support from the government: http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/fcm-cmf/list0607-eng.cfm I don't feel the need to lie, just to point out that you're a blatant partisan hack who gets into a tiff over a piddly amount of money going to a magazine which mentioned "separatism" but then support taxdollars going to projects which are largely wastes of money that most Canadian's wouldn't support. It would be nice if you actually held consistent positions once in a while. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll drop all criticism of the government once the Liberal Party gets into power regardless of what they do. I can only hope that the money which has gone to the Report will go to something more worthwhile, a film about necrophilia perhaps.