[Time For a New Party]

Not a chance. US reps have a lot more freedom to vote according to principle but that the 'principle' is primarily determined by the lobby groups and/or noisy constituants. Party loyalty has its downsides but it is naive to think that any practical alternative will be better. In fact, I would say the strong fiscal position of the country today is a direct result of our system which requires MPs to support their leader. Without it we would be mired in red ink like the Americans.

Yes, their is no doubt in my mind that if all MP's are mere drones we'd all be better off.

Surely you jest. Have you taken a lot at the porkbarelling and disfunction that goes on in the US system because congressmen tend to think more locally than MPs? They even invented a word for the abuse: 'earmarks'.

Actually you've proven my point, Congressman tend to steal from other American's to bribe voters in their own constitutencies, much like when that Liberal MP stated the carbon tax was good policy because it would take money from one part of the country and be put to work in his riding.

If you bothered to read what I wrote you'd realize that I've supported limited government, what I mean by local is that if people want an initiative to be done at the local level, everything should be local. They shouldn't be crying to the bureaucracy in Ottawa looking for money from elsewhere.

[Time For a New Party]

Well, most politicians. The problem is that most politicians I like either don't get elected or don't last long when they do get elected. More or less because a politicians job involves bribery, extortion, creating conflict in order to achieve power, living outside of your means, taking credit for the work of others, and selling off the liberty of individuals to get votes. We teach our children not to act like politicians.

I'm currently reading "Look Homeward America" and in it the author details the lives of two Senators. While each one was respectable in one fashion or another, they both sold off their principles for expedients often. It's no surprise that working in the government is the first step to becoming an anti-statist.

But, I do believe that politics would be greatly improved if it was done at a far more local level.

[NDP- LAYTON "Invite Taliban to Peace Talks"]

I love this. In one post you talk about how the Contra don't matter becuase that is well in the past and in the very next sentence you talk about something that happened 25 years before the whole Contra thing. You are a hypocrite through and through my friend.

No, you previously stated that the west faced no threats since the 1940's. I corrected you, and then you proceeded to say that you really didn't know anything about the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Prove it.

You see after World War 2 this thing called the Iron Curtain descended across Europe. Now you likely would have been far more supportive of Stalin's regime since it provided free college education and butter at the cost of individual liberty....

....then Ronald Reagan funded the Afghan fighters in their battle against communism and produced a military build up, the Soviets could not match it and would eventually crumble under their own inefficient and immoral system.

Citation needed. Last time I checked your lovely US is a country made up of immigrants isn't that right?

The US requires it's immigrants to work, as well immigrating to the United States is much tougher than that of Europe.

Yet no Sharia law weird eh?

No I was talking about Europe, specifically those countries where artists, cartoonists, and politicians, often require bodyguards for speaking against extremism or honour killings.

Again saying something does not make it true.

Yes it does, especially if the demographics back it up. You cannot have a stable society built upon the pedestal of ethnic balkanization. If you do it'll breed internal conflict.

Yet in these tough economic times NS has lost almost no jobs and the government posted a surplus. Unlike Alberta.

Alberta also gives money to Nova Scotia in the form of equalization, weird how that works eh. But, let me remind you that one of the reasons for said deficit is because the government tampered with economy.

Accept many of those people weren't on the side of Osama. In fact they have released more prisoners from gitmo who had no connections with Osama then political prisoners in Cuba. So what you differentiate is those who are innocent with those who are innocent. One in the same. Funny they are both on Cuban soil.

All I can say is that they shouldn't have been in those terrorist camps or killed American medics.

I don't know if you have ever been to Cuba, but it is not like people wake up and yell CUBA IS GREAT then walk to work with out talking do their job for the state and go home.

Yes I have, I recall many Cubans had a dismal knowledge of their own history.

They live and have choice. I do no praise them for their oppression but it with 150-250 political prisoners I don't think you really understand what one has to do to land themselves in jail there. It could be a freer yes but then again the US could stop tapping peoples phones with out warrants too.

Yes, because their is absolutely no surveillance of citizens in a totalitarian country.

Cuba is no a communism country.

Yes, it is.

Cuba is a country which suffered under Spain, under Batesta and when farmers were given land were happy for it. They still talk about the revolution almost everyday.

How about all those people who were killed by Che, or for that matter those artists who were forced to flee Cuba after the glorious revolution that you so admire.

I mean Castro told everyone who wanted to go he would put them on a boat to the US no questions asked and he did that. He didn't torture them he didn't try to reeducate them he said "love it or leave it".

He also sent alot of violent criminals to the United States. But given your love affair with totalitarian dictatorships, I'll provide you with the following:

Cuba is ranked 169 in terms of press freedom:

http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/cl_en_2008.pdf

The internet is restricted:

http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/rapport_gb_md_1.pdf

Discussions of leaving Cuba can get you a six month prison sentence:

http://eprints.ccsu.edu/archive/00000279/03/KobayashiFT.pdf

The Black Book of Communism estimates 15,000 to 17,000 peope were executed in Cuba:

Black Book of Communism. p. 664.

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/english/docs/200...8/cuba12207.htm

Vaclev Havel on Cuba:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3668018.stm

One point though, you tout Cuba's low infant mortality rate and other apparent favorable traits. Have you ever considered what the system really is like in Cuba. You do know about the forced abortions and infanticide that is regularly happening.

http://www.iri.org/newsarchive/2003/2003-0...Herald-Cuba.asp

[Time For a New Party]

That's one opinion. On the other hand, the farce seems to have worked out quite well so far for our country. How come people who claim to be conservative always want to change our system?

I'd like to change the system so we can ensure the only legal whorehouse [House of Commons] in Canada can't do too much damage to the country. But I suppose I am being too harsh, I would never dare compare a whore to a politician, a whore has far better morals than a typical politician.

[Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.]

They all were playing a game. The prime Minister though, started the game. I still think that he was the best of the leaders available in October, but I didn't like what he did in the economic update because it didn't do anything except create division and ultimately a Parliamentary crisis.

Looking back at it I would have preferred division. Then we might have atleast one MP that would have argued against the deficit that'll chain our children to more debt.

[Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.]

Ah, there it is again: Harper was a victim. Well, you can of course believe that if you wish, but it doesn't make it true. Just like it isn't true that I never criticised the opposition for their part in the affair. But, hey, it's probably just easier and makes you feel better to call me irrational, right?

I haven't seen your criticism thus far of the opposition, and yes you are somewhat irrational if you don't think politicians on the left side of the spectrum play political games. I find it somewhat repetitive to remind people that politicians are in politics and will likely play political games. It's something I've had to repeat ad nauseum however it never seems to get through.

However I have no love for Stephen Harper, if anything I wish the coalition did go through just so he'd have some dignity while watching said coalition crumble apart a few months later due to the incompatibility of the Bloc, NDP, and Liberal Party.

But listen I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings by pointing out certain facts, like how the opposition was going to go through with the coalition regardless of what happened. I can't change history to meet your needs.

[Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.]

Pfft. I'm a Liberal, but I voted for the Prime Minister, and after some careful thought, I decided I didn't like the coalition (Dion), but even I could see the game that the Prime Minister played. He knew that he was poking the opposition....he just didn't expect them to bite him.

Oh, and there is no such thing as a rational side to the spectrum.

What I meant was rational side, are people that can look at a situation objectively and recognize that not everything is black and white. Yes, Stephen Harper played a political game [attempting to lure the NDP into voting for the update, thus destroying the LPC] and failed. However any person who thinks that politicians don't play political games just because of where they sit on the spectrum has no critical thinking skills whatsoever.

[Time For a New Party]

It's not really what we have since backbench MP's really have no power or say over the issues. I'm fairly certain that if the Conservative caucus were to vote on the budget a large proportion would have voted against the deficit, needless to say they couldn't due to their obligations to the party.

Our system is a farce because we don't really elect MP's in general, when people go to vote they'll always choose either the party or the leader. I've only known maybe a dozen candidates who I would vote for based soley on their qualifications with no regard to their party, which might I add would include Joe Anglin of the Green Party of Alberta.

[Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.]

And so what?

I'm just pointing out that unlike your previous assertion Harper really couldn't have done anything about it.

Is the house losing confidence in Harper some kind of affront to the natural order of the universe?

Yes, to any politician it is. Including shockingly enough politicians on the left whom are apparently angels on earth.

Only if that were so could the Prime Minister have been some kind of hapless victim, forced suddenly to protect from an inexplicably delirious opposition his popularly mandated, and thus totally incontestable, nearly divine, right to hold power. Of course, anyone who does understand the system knows that such a claim is absolutely false.

No, it isn't. The Governor General does hold that power.

This isn't about "lefties" or "righties" (actually, it seems you'd be surprised at where on the spectrum I sit);

If you were on the rational side of the political spectrum you would have recognized that the entire episode was a clusterf*ck of idiotic politicians from both the left and right whom had no concern about solving the problems the country was facing and only wished to either hold or attain power regardless of the consequences.

Harper took the situation beyond simple political partisanship when he started to machinate our very system of parliamentary democracy and our constitutional monarchy in order to save himself from something he started.

Really, so the coalition wasn't taking a situation beyond political partisanship, even after the government withdrew the contentious parts of the update that the opposition was pissed off about. So let me get this straight, you're saying that the coalition never went beyond political partisanship once, right?

[Religious Right in Canada]

Well I'm not surprised, considering that I've been debating with a suburban Marxist who's praised Communist Dictatorships because they provide "free college" I shouldn't be surprised at the nuts on here.

[NDP- LAYTON "Invite Taliban to Peace Talks"]

Maybe it is just me who sees you, the guy who keeps accusing me of not knowing history and the guy who keeps touting the states as the moral high ground, as being ironic here. Do you remember the US support for the Contras in Nicaragua? You know the guys who terrorized, kidnapped and bombed civilians?

I wasn't particularly fond of the Contra's or the Sandanista's. But this thread isn't about Nicaragua, you might as well point out the injustices of the War of 1812.

I've stated before that if I had to choose between war or free trade, I would always go with the latter. The difference is though that I don't think one should be foolish enough to not prepare for any future hostilities. Nor should a nation ignore attacks on it's citizens, if an attack happened on our soil I would expect a similar response along with aid from our allies.

K what? You haven't proved in anyway that Nukes in Cuba would have changed anything.

I've just proven that you're an apologist for communism. As well the fact you don't know the strategic problems that nukes pose to the North American continent from Cuba also showcases your ignorance, not to mention the fact was a hair away from nuclear war at the time. You do realize that Che Guevara wanted to nuke North American cities right, I'm guessing that doesn't really make much of a difference to you though.

Yep yet we still live with that everyday. Plenty of places could be whipped off the face of the earth yet I get up every morning and go to work with out fear.

Yes, thanks largely to the military and the United States.

It is called immigration and soon it will be a good friend to Canada.

Much like it's been a good friend to the suburbs of Paris, the streets of Amsterdam and Rotterdam, the London tube, and the Madrid train stations. Needless to say I'm looking forward to it considering the reaction to a couple of cartoons and the murder of Theo Van Gogh along with the calls for the implementation of Sharia law in Europe.

Besides, many immigrants will go onto the welfare roles so it might not be as much of a benefit as you'd like to think. Immigration is more based on politics than the needs of a country.

How misinformed are you? The richest nation the US is 12th on the list, Luxembuorg the country with highest income per capta even lower somewhere around 20. If you actually look at the list you will see the countries which provide for their people are the highest.

Yes, and they'll likely collapse after a generation. However most European nations also depend on the United States for national defence, much like Canada has, if we didn't have the US we likely wouldn't have those welfare states.

The community collages still get money from the government even if you refuse to accept this fact. Post secondary schools get money from the government. In fact the model for this would be NS where the collages get a lot of money from the government, degrees are cheep and 94% of those coming out of these school get jobs in their field of work.

Yet Nova Scotia is still largely a have-not province.

I am pointing out a fact. The US has more political prisoners being held on Cuban soil then Cuba does. Some of them are US citizens too. I am sure though that you don't care you only care about the Cubans right? I love your hypocrisy. It is in every post you make.

No, I make a differentiation between people who were on the side of Osama Bin Laden and those who criticized the government of Cuba.

Although unlike you with the US I believe they can do wrong and still be a country trying to do what is best for their people.

Yes, and they've turned their country into a veritable slave state, individualism is crushed, once you're born you're the property of the state, and you are denied certain basic rights, but I suppose it's worth it if they've got free college. This reminds me of the kind of rhetoric you would often hear that would praise the countries under the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe. Sure, they don't have any freedoms, are property of the government, and they can't think for themselves, but atleast everyones "equal."

It's not surprising that communism has killed well over a hundred million people yet you'll still hear apologists for it.

It's unfortunate that the children of the west still buy into such utopian bullshit. But then again I doubt western civilization will last for more than two generations given that we're in the decadent stage right now.

[NDP- LAYTON "Invite Taliban to Peace Talks"]

Better go fight a war with Malaysia now right? That is your justification for shooting people and trying to make them have your morals right? You can't make people change by telling them it is your way or the highway. It just doesn't work.

No, my justification is that if you give shelter to someone who was complicit in incinerating thousands of civilians in skyscrapers that you should get attacked.

Just cause you keep repeating does not make it true. I know about the Cuban Missile Crisis. The point I was making was that there are plenty of countries with Nukes yet the world hasn't fallin apart why do you think it would have if Cuba got a Nuke?

Yes, more or less because a Soviet submarine nearly launched a nuke during the Cuban Missile Crisis. As well with nuclear weapons that close to North America it would have impaired our ability to retaliate to such an attack.

In fact know what Canada has been trading partners with Cuba for a long time now and it seems to have worked out well. Cuba has never really had a problem with the US and has been open to negotiation with them for a long time it the US who wont sit at the table.

That doesn't mean it's acceptable that Miami could be incinerated within a minute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Life_Exp...ld_Factbook.PNG

Look at that map and tell me what countries have the longest life expectancy?

The country's that have an extremely low birthrate that won't be able to sustain their welfare system for more than a generation.

Yet our standard of living and HDI just keep going up. Maybe you should look at the HDI as well and see what you notice.

That the richer a country is the better it's HDI will be.

Well they go to train that pipe fitter on the riggs in Alberta as well or the plumber in Nova Scotia or the electrification in Ontario. See Post secondary just means after high school. There are plenty of education programs after high school. Some which I think you would even approve of. The engineer creating you missile systems even.

If theirs a demand then the employer will pay for them, as they have in Alberta.

There are less political prisoners in Cuba then terrorist suspects being held at Gitmo.

Gitmo's being shutdown. But I'm sure you'd find some way to justify jailing opponents of the Cuban regime. I've always found it hilarious how suburban Marxists such as yourself always praise some mediocre Marxist country yet then enjoy all the benefits of capitalism. You're like a modern day George Bernard Shaw:

http://www.georgetownbookshop.com/Georgetown/boobshawv.jpg

By the way I support trade with Cuba, much like I do with China. The difference is that I can support that policy yet also criticize China for it's atrocious record on Falun Gong, something you're likely incapable of.

[Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.]

The Crown is certainly not supposed to coddle a prime minister from the attacks of a parliament that very prime minister incessantly and very purposefully provoked. After being goaded one time too many, the opposition retaliated with a move from Harper's own play book. As proven by Martin's example in 2004, it wasn't necessary for Harper to go to Rideau Hall to seek a prorogation; he had other options available to him to solve what was still only a parliamentary dispute, not the least of which was show some humility and attempt to placate the opposition he'd relentlessly poked at.

Actually the opposition was clear that no matter what Stephen Harper did he wouldn't get the confidence of the house. Therefore he had to go to the Governor General.

But, as we all know, Harper's chosen tactic was to be a hypocrite, lie to the public about how he obtained his position, and then, with the media's spotlight turned squarely on him, run to the Governor General with the expectation that she, as merely an inconvenient formality in the exercise of his presidential powers, would immediately do as he said. That, to me anyway, shows that Harper has either completely forgotten that he's the Prime Minister of Canada and not the President of the United States, or that his own political well-being is more important that our central institutions of government. Either way, though, he sure got skool'd.

So you're saying that you really don't know how the system works either with regards to the Governor General's powers in Canada, correct?

But he sure did get "skool'd" according to you since he ensured his government survived while Stephane Dion left politics losing his one chance to become Prime Minister.

You know, I love how all the lefties like G here argue that Conservatives know nothing about Parliament and then showcase their even larger ignorance of the role of the GG. First of all, Harper did what you wanted since he brought forward a budget that was passed by the majority of the house, thus showcasing that the coalition wasn't needed.

But let's keep in mind this dispute was largely due to the fact that the Liberal Party and Bloc Quebecois can't survive because their supporters are evidently too lazy to sign a cheque.

[Religious Right in Canada]

Nope I don't want to ban these groups, I just don't think its appropriate for uniformed state officials to advise them that the Charter is all that stands between them and the moral society they'd all like to engineer. Its one thing for an off-duty cop to show up as Joe Public and spew venom at the same Charter that protects society from people like him/her but when they show up in uniform and do it they're crossing a line that borders on sedition.

So pointing out that a certain action that the community wants take would go against the Charter is seditious because?

What you're really pointing out is that the RCMP won't take an action because it's against the Charter, but since they mentioned that the reason they can't take action is due to the Charter, thus automatically making them critical of the Charter, even though they just pointed out the fact that they are suppose to follow the Charter.

Mind telling me how that's seditious eyeball.

[NDP- LAYTON "Invite Taliban to Peace Talks"]

Yah works great in the world doesn't it? I see you would prefer to shoot a brown guy then go to Africa to help out Aids orphans or are you writing from Africa.

What's the brown guy doing that would force me to shoot him? But it's more likely that said guy is throwing acid in a schoolgirls face.

Really? Next you will be telling me that the US, Russia and North Korea have Nuclear missiles as well that would terrify me.

So you don't know anything about the Cuban Missile Crisis. Son, if you're this ignorant of history I don't know what to tell you, other than letting you know that the public education system failed you.

Maybe it is just me but the life expectancy back then was about 15 years shorter then it is today. I would say it was becuase of War but from the time Medicare was established until now all in non real war times it has increased by 10 years. Sounds like they weren't taking care of each other with those charities back then. Oh wait literacy went up with school as well. Crazy how that works eh?

Actually the same progress also happened in capitalist countries as well. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that when a country produces more and has more capital people's lives will start to improve, to argue a correlation is absurd. The North Korean government owns just about the entire economy however the people their aren't better off than their Southern bretheren.

However I wouldn't be so foolish as to credit all progress to government bureaucrats. However some people such as yourself should be reminded that state worship is often unhealthy.

Who is stopping you Captain Crunch?

No, an anal cyst.

Seems I would rather increase the standard of living here then send people off to other countries to get killed. I PICK BUTTER. Now you say you pick guns please.

Well, I'd suggest you stop picking butter because it's bad for your heart.

You do know the Federal government transfers money to the province for healthcare right? You did know that? That a large part of the money comes from the feds?

Yes, and we've had moaning and complaining ever since.

As for Education Post secondary again a large amount of the funding is Transfered.

Trust me, I'm glad that my taxes are going to fund suburban Marxists hip hop dance instruction classes at Universities right across the country.

Funny I think the right wing in this country has the sameone it goes more like this though "love it or leave it"

The difference is that in the United States they tolerate differences of opinion, in Cuba they don't. But then again I suppose a suburban Marxist such as yourself doesn't mind while typing on the tyrannical keyboard that capitalism built.

[Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.]

Right....it's a switch that's turned on and off when most convenient.

Exactly.

[NDP- LAYTON "Invite Taliban to Peace Talks"]

If you don't know what I am talking about you can say so and I will make my post clear. Supply side is also know as trickle down. It is what you mean when you say cut taxes and everything will work out great.

It definitely will, as long as spending is cut as well. Unlike yourself I prefer compassion to be dealt with by individuals and voluntary institutions instead of government bureaucrats.

Really? Cuba?

Once again, your ignorance of history is showing. Did you know that at one time nuclear missiles were being stationed in Cuba? Probably not.

I think you will have to quote me on this one becuase I don't remembering saying that and I reread my post and I don't know where you got this from.

By all means:

I love the "putting the country at risk" line who do we have to fear?

Great I am glade to hear this. Although you can't care for the elderly, improve education, expand infrastructure, provide free health care, blah blah blah. You only have so much free time and I think that is where our priorities should lie as a country. Every

Well you see we used to have this thing way back in the day called charity. That was when compassion meant more than voting for your local idealistic socialist who promised to raise the wages of bureaucrats in the name of helping the poor.

I just don't believe you shot Osama Bin Laden.

If you give me a Colt .45 and a parachute I will.

Never said that what I said was our budget is only so large and I perfer to spend the lions share in other places. Everytime your guy Steve cuts taxes (I know you love him for it) but it should mean a spending cut too.

I agree, let's start with useless social programs and the welfare trap.

Well where do you want the cut? Underfunded Health Care? Education? Where.

Education and healthcare are provincial responsibilities.

There is a saying in Cuba "But the children need milk" I think that holds here too.

There is another saying in Cuba, if you dislike the government get on the next raft to Miami.

http://reason.tv/video/show/622.html

[If You Have Ever Voted Liberal, NOW Is The Time]

I can say beyond a doubt that Jesus would not support any war. Children get dragged into war all the time. I remember reading a story about an 8 year old French boy who was part of the resistance, and won a medal for killing 3 Germans. WWI was a family feud. WWII was caused by WWI because if the treaty hadn't been so harsh to Germany, Hitler would never have been more than a gutter rat.

Jesus was for sharing the wealth and abhored the rich and greedy. Sounds like Jack Layton to me.

He would vote NDP.

Yes, World War 1 was a clusterf*ck, however that doesn't mean that fighting Hitler wasn't worth it. You keep on arguing about how this is for the children, well guess what, even if the west doesn't get involved in any conflicts children will still die. Children died under the rule of Saddam Hussein, children died under the Taliban, and children will always die under tyrannical regimes. Stop pretending that children only die if Canadian soldiers are on the ground, because no member of NATO purposely murders innocent civilians, if they do they'll be charged.

As for Jesus talking about sharing the wealth and attacking the greedy, yes he did do that. But you've obviously never read the New Testament, if you did you'd realize that Jesus argued that INDIVIDUALS should be compassionate, not Ceasar.

You're using this simplistic formula that says if someone is rich or greedy they must be a Conservative. You make the first mistake of thinking that New Democrats are without sin and will not be corrupt if they are in a position of power, as we all know politics is corrupting, regardless of where a politicians allegiance is.

In addition, if you actually believe what you do then you must think that all Conservative voters are uncompassionate, greedy, or rich. This is absurd. In my old riding most of those Conservatives were rural folk who farmed for a living, went to Church, grew their own food, were volunteer firefighters, were charitable with their own money, and would help out in their community. Yet the vast majority were by definition conservative.

Once again, theirs a large difference between being compassionate in a voluntary sense and being compassionate at the ballot box.

Do you honestly believe that Jesus Christ ever advocated that people should be forced by the Roman Empire to be compassionate? One thing you'll notice in the NT is that Jesus gives his followers a choice in whether to follow him or not, let's make the clear, he gave them a CHOICE. What you're saying is that people shouldn't be given a choice in whether or not they're compassionate, but they should be forced by the government.

[MacKay to NATO: consider all candidates]

According to Norad, the Russian planes were performing routine exercises, as they had 20 times before over the last two years. It was a week later when Mackay started looking for headlines so made this out to be a 'national threat'. Our military did their job, just as they had the 20 times before, by letting them know they were there and making sure they didn't invade our airspace. They had it covered and Russia knew the boundaries. They were quite surprised at the sham suggesting they didn't.

Actually, the media reported on it because it happened while Obama was in Ottawa. Russia has been doing this often despite the complaints are country has had.

By the way, here is what Peter Mackay said which is hardly what you made it out to be:

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_32473.aspx

"At no time did Russian planes enter Canadian airspace," Defence Minister Peter MacKay told a news conference Friday. "But within 24 hours of the president's visit to Canada last week we did scramble two F-18 fighter planes.

"They met. The Russian aircraft was approaching Canadian airspace and, as they have done on previous occasions, (the Canadians) sent very clear signals that were understood: that aircraft was to turn tail and head back to its own airspace. Which it did."

Their is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be more firm with Russia in defending our airspace, I realize you don't think much of the military but sometimes we can't just get on our knee's for any hostile government. The Canadian government has always told the Russian government to respect our boundaries, they have not in recent years.

Any person who is more willing to side with Putin over Peter Mackay is a moron.

[Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.]

I'm talking about the desperation of planning an attack on the word 'we'. It's irrelevant.

Yet you're up in arms because Harper referred to the separatist Bloc as 'separatists.'

[Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.]

So you're saying we should discount events relevant to Ignatieff that occurred during Dubya's presidency. I wonder, would you extend your reasoning to Harper related events?

Dude, that's like asking Tom Cruise if he's critical of Ron Hubbard's dishonourable military service.

It's obvious that Progressive Tory's entire world is defined like this:

Stephen Harper = Evil king of darkness mixed with Adolf Hitler

Michael Ignatieff = Reincarnation of Jesus Christ and Buddha

[Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.]

Progressive Tory, you never answered my question about Ignatieffs support for the war in Iraq and torture? Do you think Ignatieff deserves a spot in hell along with George W Bush for supporting that venture?

I know that sometimes cults don't like to criticize the leader, but criticism is healthy once in a while.

[Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.]

My comments were tongue in cheek. However, you can call Ignatieff whatever you like, but never say he's anything like Harper, who is cold, petty and a snivelling coward.

Don't worry, I won'd ad hominem attack Ignatieff like you did Harper. But listen I understand, you really hate Stephen Harper. I hear that kind of hatred come from the left all the time, it's normal.

Ignatieff may bore you, but thanks to conservative criticism, I started reading his books, and he is anything but boring. I can see why they won so many awards and such high praise. We should be proud of our accomplished Canadians but because of partisan politics, some would rather he be from another country, because God forbid we should lay claim to one of the most accomplished and brightest scholars of the day.

Most scholars are typically boring, which is a good thing. By the way it's hard not to play partisan politics with the opposition leader, since, you know, he's apparently in politics. That is unless you think it's abhorrent that a politician would be criticized.

Why aspire to that when we can settle for bohunk and mathematical wizards who think 4 + 5 = 30?

Considering that Ignatieff is in favour of the deficit, but I won't try to hit you to much on your little cult built around a politician.

So I assume these pro-life groups want an immediate end to all wars?

Of course not, otherwise all of the Jews would have been exterminated in Europe.

He only backed down on public funding because he knew it was a mistake to end it in the first place. Flaherty was quoted in our newspaper right after the Cons' fiscal update, challenging the Opposition with "bring it on", saying they wouldn't back down. The Opposition "brought it" and guess who peed in his pants?

Actually, Flahrety stated that it would be in the next election that the CPC would abolish said funding. But then again it's really not a surprise that the parties of left require taxpayer dollars to survive.

[NDP- LAYTON "Invite Taliban to Peace Talks"]

Keep preaching the supply side BS maybe someone will buy in 30 years after we all forget it got us into this mess.

Osama Bin Laden?

It isn't fighting Nazis or making films, we don;t live in the 40's and you really need a reality check.

Agreed, their has been no country on earth since the 1940's which could have threatened the west. [with the exception of that dustup in Cuba]

It however is about spending 17 billion in a country which isn't our own all the time claiming "We wont leave until we win this thing" then pulling in 2011 regardless. Heck we could have pulled out 2 years ago if that was the case and saved 5 billion to spend here in this country.

Well you need to have some knowledge of history though, which you obviously don't have since you think the United States was never targeted in the 1990's.

I know you would rather spend the money on bullets to shoot brown people then to provide care to our elderly but some of us have different priorities.

I do care for the elderly, it's just that my compassion isn't confined to paying taxes. Caring for the elderly isn't really a priority, if it was you'd do it on your own time. My compassion extends beyond the ballot box my friend, I can assure you of that.

However I don't mind shooting at Osama Bin Laden or any person who wishes to destroy innocent life. I'm certain that you shrug when seeing this, but I don't:

But yes, you're 100% right. We don't require any soldiers, police officers, intelligence officers, border guards, etc. to ensure our country is safe.

[Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.]

I don't believe Harper is a separatist anymore than I believe Baker is a separatist. They both were and are just fighting to get what's best for their province. Both brought up the Quebec situation as a perceived threat to get what they want(ed).

As to McCain, I liked him but when he brought Sarah Palin on board, he shot himself in the foot. As to Obama, all polls indicate that Canadians love him - something like 82% I think.

Accusing Ignatieff of loving Americans with the word 'we', is just plain ridiculous. It might have meant something when Bush was in power, but not anymore. Canadians are now saying 'we'.

Yes, you're a 100% correct, Obama is reaching Putinesque levels of popularity amongst Canadian's. But that's largely because most Canadian's never bothered to actually look at Obama's policies. The reality is that Bill Richardson would have been the best candidate to have in the White House for Canada, but I suppose charisma is a good substitute for substance.

By the way, Ignatieff did make the comment about "we American's" when George W Bush was actually in power. At the time he was also supportive of the war in Iraq and torture.

Actually I've got a question, since you think George W Bush deserves a spot in hell for Iraq and you routinely attack the right for "killing Muslim children" in Iraq, would you then have any criticism of Michael Ignatieff for taking the same position?

In other words, does Michael Ignatieff enjoy seeing Muslim children killed in Iraq due to his support of the invasion?