Canadian Blue

Polls will rarely show what how the election will turn out until the actual election. Norman, focus on the family does more then political activism. Should we not allow members of GLAAD to be involved in government because of their beliefs which are to the far left of the political spectrum. As well the appointment of a Green Party deputy to help with the Environmental policy in government shows that the government is taking a more bipartisan approach.

Once again that is the problem with democracy is the constant smear campaigns instead of actual debate. Lets take hate crime legislation for example. You can be opposed to any hate crime laws based on libertarian principles. These include freedom of thought, speech, religion, and expression. You might not be a racist, yet you will be pinned with labels like homophobe, racist, xenophobe, anti-semite, etc. All because you were more libertarian on that issue.

I noticed the protests got worse once Harper got in. It's all purely hypocritical, what Harper is doing in Afghanistan right now would have been the same as what Martin would have done. The only difference is Harper is putting more money into defence so we have better equipment.

Lets see RB and GH, both who have been guilty of partisan trolling. GH, pretty well everything you post has something to do with you hating Stephen Harper, and RB, well he just plain hates you. So your both trolls.

How are we going to keep our Kyoto targets, alot of the other developed nation's have also said they will have trouble meeting Kyoto targets. By the way who was in power for 13 years yet failed to really do much on the environment??? Lets see, we have a guy that was out of the country for most of his life, another who was a failed premier of Ontario. Wow great options.

What are you talking about GH, I don't remember once the leader of the country threatning us with "non-support". This might come as quite a shock to you, but check out army.ca under the Canadian politics section and you'll see how many soldiers view Jack Layton and the Liberals.

Canada has never been a peacekeeping nation, we will engage in peacekeeping from time to time but that is not our main overall objective. We have been involved in combat mission's in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Korea, Europe, etc. In some cases peacekeeping has proven to be a failure [Rwanda]. The CF is in place to defend Canadian interests, at home and abroad. If you hear any politician refer to our proud peacekeeping heritage, be reminded he is full of BS. While we have preformed admirably with the UN, we have done just as many roles with NATO, and have constantly shown that we have a well disciplined fighting force. Who is Shrub? Why is Shrub worshipping Bush?

Isn't their allready a topic on this.

Norman, I think that the Harper bashing is just getting really old. As for Alberta opting out of the Alberta Health Act. That wasn't a call for the death of medicare, as much as a sign that Ottawa should allow provinces to experiment with private care as long as people could still get full medical coverage. I think if Manning had stayed on course with what the originial Reform platform was the party would have been much more successful. It got too mired in social conservatism, which didn't help the cause of the party. I wonder what would have happened if Harper had run for the PC's in 98 as many were hoping he would do.

As well as a large proportion of democrats. I love how whenever somebody sees somebody they disagree with, all they have to say is "that policy mirrors George W Bush and the Republicans". Even though the Republican party has various factions that disagree on policy, same as any other political party. I also think that it is once again state jurisdiction as to whether or not people can smoke dope, something that is out of Bush's hands. As well we can't jump the gun on marijuana until other issues are cleared up so their is a smooth transition. I stand by my stance that Harper is more libertarian then social conservative. As well its also considered libertarian to support freedom of speech, expression, and religion. A Libertarian can be either conservative or liberal, Bill C-250 would be considered more totalitarian then libertarian since it restricts freedom of speech. Personally, any hate speech law is an outdated method for combatting hate crime. If you want to combat racism and homophobia the best way to do that is through freedom of speech and expression.

Once again, here was Harper's position when he was running for the Alliance. Would an avid religious extremist listen to Anti Christ Devil Child Once again, it is odd that somebody who had shown opposition to religion and social conservatism being at the core of party politics would have a sudden change of heart.

Once again, we have gone over this many times. Harper's not a religous extremist, and never has been. Look at his past record, he was more of a libertarian then he ever was a social conservative. All you can really pin on Harper is the fact that he might go to church, and was opposed to C-250 based on possible negative implications for freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. None of those actions makes a person a religous zealot, homophobe, xenophobe, bigot, etc.

Same with civil libertarians, and the ACLU, who all make people want to kill gays apparently . Here is what Bill C-250 would do, it would restrict "hate speech" against homosexuals. Harper isn't making people hate you. Bill C-250 could also trample on freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!! THEIR ARE CURRENTLY 24 STATES WHICH HAVE HATE CRIMES LEGISLATION WHICH INCLUDES ATTACKING A PERSON BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION A HATE CRIME. What, isn't it State jurisdiction for what is considered a "hate crime". Allright Norman, the problem was with freedom of speech. The fear was that freedom of speech would be trampled on in favor of political correctness. Even down in the states the ACLU whom are staunch civil libertarian's are against hate speech laws. The reason why, because it infringes on right garaunteed by the Constitution. http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/index.html Listen I'm in favor of SSM after alot of thought on the issue, and am in favor of Gay couples adopting. However I am opposed to legislation which could undermine freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and the religious freedoms.

People, I just found a video linking Canada to the invasion of Iraq, and I'm certain Harper has something to gain from it. http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/in...?ml_video=12631 Pretty scary stuff, I think we need a full inquiry into the actions of Harper during this time, and what links he has to this man who profited off the war in Iraq. Harpo-Oprah, yet another link to Harper's secret relationship with the States.

But didn't Labour fully support Bush in Iraq. I'd think Dean would imagine himself much more at home with the Liberal Democrats if he opposes the war in Iraq.

Well they'd would need troops to go along with it, especially if they need personel and support at these "camps". A totalitarian regime which has just democratically elected a democratic majority to both houses who would oppose many of the policies of the current administration. Which includes the use of torture which John McCain had opposed. I looked up HR 6166 myself, I wasn't too distressed by it. I don't think it mean's were living in a fascist totalitarian regime. Hell Canada's had much worse then that, remember the October Crisis.

I voted for FDR. If I had to say who were in the top category I would put the following: Best: Roosevelt Eisenhower Reagan Clinton Worst: Truman George W Bush LBJ Nixon

So basically rumours then? Harper isn't nearly as Social Conservative as you like to believe, hell the Social Conservatives rallied around Day because they knew Harper didn't care much about the social conservative side due to his pro-choice positions. One of the reason's Harper left the Reform party was because he felt it became to Socially Conservative. Whether you believe it or not the Cons aren't really social conservative, not even close to the same as many politician's south of the border. From the article you gave us a link to.

Another question is how united will the Liberal party be after the convention. Kennedy would be a good candidate, however I think we might see him be chosen leader a few years down the road. The Liberals have to sit the next few years out so that they can lose the ignorance that comes with over a decade of ruling the country. As well the sky isn't falling, and Canadian's aren't screaming for a change in government.

Why is it the Liberals always go for speakers who don't live in, have ever spent a substantial amount of time in Canada???

19,500 American troops. Mostly concentrated in the South along with the Brits, Dutch, Danish, and Canadian's. Whats needed is troops from more European countries who have had a limited combat role. Norman, you were talking about how Canadian's would become the "major target" in Afghanistan and that would hopefully would knock Harper out of power. I'm not sure about you but that sounds like pretty wishful thinking as to the benefits of more deaths in Afghanistan. Once again that is your own statement, and you can explain yourself clearly if you feel the need to. Once again you implied that more Canadian's would be killed which would hopefully bring about knocking Harper out of power. I'm not sure were you got the idea that the Brits and American's would pull out of Afghanistan since both countries do see the need for that mission unlike Iraq which is a different case.

Norman the problem with the bill was that they were afraid religous rights could be trampled on. Once again, stop with this whole smear campaign. Honestly, Harper doesn't support killing gays, gay bashing, or bigotry against gays. I'm sure that even the ACLU would be opposed to the bill due to the fact freedom of speech could be trampled on.

Why would the provinces support the agreement then??? As well on appointments by the Harper government, is anybody really complaining right now about Harper appointing a senior member of the Green Party to help with environmental policy. The sky isn't falling people.

Kennedy would make a good PM, but I doubt the Liberal's would ever elect him leader. Him and Martha Hall Findlay are the only ones who I've been impressed with, but it seems the Libs would prefer either a failed premier, or a candidate that lived outside of the country for most of his adult life.