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

Last time I checked I live on Canada not the US but I will look at a map again.

I am for getting out and not spending money in a country which is not our own. I know you love to spend all of Canada's money in other countries but I think my tax dollars should be spent here.

As for being prudent what does your prudency say how much money should we spend per budget on the Military, RCMP, and CISI 1% 2%? What? It is easy to say "WE DON'T SPEND enough" what is enough? What about health care, education, infrastructure? See that is where we differ the NDP knows there isn't a limitless supply of money the Conservatives don't. Sometimes it is guns or butter, I always pick butter.

Yes, I know the NDP doesn't really think Canada needs a military that can adequately respond to national disaster, an intelligence agency to find out threats to lets say the Jewish community in Montreal, or the RCMP to ensure that people in rural areas can have law enforcement.

That's why you seem to think that Canadian's money is better spent on art projects instead of border guards, or daycare for residents of Toronto instead of let's say ensuring that extremists don't bomb residents of Toronto.

However I do agree, the NDP does know that their isn't a limitless supply of money. That's why they want to raise taxes on business and individuals which will merely chase said businesses and individuals out of the country. Sure we'll be mediocre, but atleast we have Young People F*cking.

But let me remind you that it was the military that took out the Nazis, not a crappy film funded by the government.

[Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.]

I am not 'using' languqage to demonize anyone. Simply calling what they are called. If it serves you better, then yes , lets use your monikers.

So, how does that change the way you demonize those who would not want to agree?

I am not, and neither are you, in the camps far fringes. However, I support the choice for a woman. So, am I one of those who stridently tries to shout you down? No, but your blanket statement said as much.

Well you certainly don't speak up against those who attempt to shut debate down which makes you just as culpable. I've provided a cite and you have yet to show any concern that the pro-choice lobby now seems to believe that the right to oppose abortion should be considered hate propaganda.

If you dislike the blanket statement, then perhaps you would note the quote I gave you and oppose that position which is seeking to criminalize freedom of speech in the name of human rights.

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

I've heard Canadian like peace. If only Canada can save some hundred Canadian soldier's life from the war and from involving in any war in any place of the world and save several hundred tax dollars each year for everyone.

Smile to others is better than go to other's home with a gun, especially when you feel need to talk to him again.

History doesn't agree with that considering the record of the Canadian Forces in the Medak Pocket, Korea, and Europe in both World Wars.

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

You prefer to take 18 billion from Canadians and spend it in Afghanistan right? Seems like that money might be better spent in this country.

I love the "putting the country at risk" line who do we have to fear? The peace dividend is half the reason why our government and that of the US did so well in the 90's.

So you're not so much in favour of negotiation as you are for a total pullout with no regard for the consequences now?

As for the US never being at risk, I hope you're joking. America was constantly targeted in the 90's, ever hear of the Embassy bombings, the WTC explosion, or for that matter the USS Cole incident.

But lets say this, I wouldn't want to disband all of modes of defence, that is unless you believe that we should be completely defenceless if an attack or situation were to arise. I'm far more prudent than you and far more observant that the world is still somewhat dangerous.

[Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.]

If the confidence the house has vested in him is on shaky ground, then Harper must either stabilise it or loose it. Period. It is not up to the Crown to shore up his position, nor is our parliamentary system of responsible government there for him to disassemble in his favour.

Actually, it was in this case. Most people noted that the Governor General would have the power to allow an election, prorogue Parliament, or allow a confidence vote. That is the system and that's how it works.

But it became somewhat obvious early on that this coalition really wasn't about altruism as much as many on the left liked to believe. However I think the coalition should have been allowed to go through, it would have self-destructed within a couple of months. Nobody is so foolish as to believe that the promises of conniving politicians is worth much in the House of Commons.

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

Yah while you were fighting Harper was yelling "We will never give up, until there is a stable democracy" and now look who he thinks he should talk to. Glade to see he has lost your vote and you will be moving to the side who saw this two years ago.

No, the difference is that I didn't argue we should first pullout of Afghanistan and give the Taliban the position of strength during negotiations. For NATO to pullout, let the Taliban take power, and then negotiate is idiotic at best. What would we have to negotiate about exactly if NATO pulled out, probably nothing. The NDP position back then and now is to be in a position of weakness.

As well I won't be going to your side, why would I want to put the country at risk of an attack by gutting the budgets of the Canadian Forces, RCMP, and CSIS.

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

They look pretty stuipd reading their posts now. Does Jack get to keep the name "Taliban Jack"? Or do we give it to Harper now?

Yes, especially that guy who actually served in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban while you were back here in Canada typing your opinions of world affairs.

[Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.]

There is pro choice and anti abortionists. Is there another group(s) I am unaware of?

Wouldn't it be more accurate too say that their are only people who favour legal abortion and those who oppose it. You're then using langauge to demonize the otherside, after all nobody wants to be considered "anti-choice" or "anti-life." That would be suicide by semantics.

But the other group are students unions who boycott pro-life groups. Not to mention the fact that Joyce Arthur a prominent pro-choice spokesperson has attacked civil libertarians for arguing that pro-life groups should be allowed to organize on campuses.

Finally, here is a link to a speech I gave at the University of Victoria in 2005, in support of a vote by the student council to not give an anti-choice group club status. This explains a human-rights rationale for the argument that anti-choice groups should not have the right to host events or displays at a university at all, at least not with the support or permission of the administration or student council. The viewpoints promoted by anti-choice groups are anti-democratic, anti-human rights, sexist, and discriminatory. Their events and propaganda amount to hate propaganda against women and minorities (such as in GAP displays), and can even constitute harassment of women. Most universities and student councils/unions have policies against discrimination and harassment, so they have no obligation to extend freedom of speech, let alone funding and logistical support, to anti-choice groups.

So yes, I'd say it's a safe bet that many pro-choice groups want to restrict freedom of speech in Canada when it comes to abortion in the guise of "human rights." Needless to say I've been of the opinion that freedom of speech is a human right, but it's become less apparent in Canada. If we were to follow her rationale opposition to abortion would be illegal because it would be hate propaganda.

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

Might I also point out the Just War principle set forward by Constantine as being an example of when it's excusable to go to war. Pacifism is a dangerous ideology soley because it is willing to waver in the fact of totalitarianism and would allow men and women to be enslaved without a fight by the state.

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

Don't really remember reading about abortion in the Bible so we have no idea whether or not he would like women to go to butchers or risk their lives ending an unwanted pregnancy, instead of allowing doctors to use their God given talents to provide a safe and healthy alternative.

Here's how I see it, I ask myself whether Jesus would have supported the Eugenics movement from an ethical standpoint, chances are he wouldn't have.

If this has a religous base at all, then anti-abortionists need to rethink their strategy. Make it easier for young girls to talk to their families about pregnancy. However, the stand is always that she should not have had sex, so often fear makes her turn to abortion rather than face the wrath or disappointment of her parents.

I'll be quite honest, if I had a 12 year old daughter I wouldn't want her to have sex. I guess that makes me a bad person. However the Church I go to has counselling and groups setup for unwed mothers.

As far as other abortions go, and I don't promote abortion on demand, if a woman is determined to do this, she will do it. Her body, her choice. Inspire, council, but don't dictate or judge.

Why don't you promote it, do you find something unethical about abortion, if you do what is it?

I think if these pro-lifers would take some of their passion and protest brutal wars that kill thousands of children, it might be a different world, and just maybe more people would listen to them. Muslim children have a right to life too.

Which wars in particular. The problem is that sometimes in the world people will be killed during wartime. Just look at World War 2 and how many civilians were killed on all sides, it doesn't mean we should have given up all of continental Europe to the Nazis. It's easy to sound off about how one is for nonviolence and pacifism in the safety of the west where men are more than willing to engage in acts of violence to ensure you sleep safely in your bed.

By the way, often times those Muslim kids will be involved in the fighting, or perhaps killing one another depending on their tribe.

Like I said, he was a Jew from the Middle East who supported revolutionary action and radical change. He was a socialist because he believed in sharing the wealth. He abhored the rich (money changers) and would never support war.

Not to beat a dead horse here, but wasn't Jesus about voluntary action. Christianity is largely based around the individual and not the collective, so being loving and compassionate is an act for the individual and not the collective, correct?

If he was Canadian and alive today, he would be voting NDP and I would have to debate him on this board, asking him to give Michael Ignatieff a chance. (and maybe smite his enemies if he wasn't too busy)

Doubt it, do you really think Jesus Christ would have sided with the Optimates, Populares, or Liberatores?

I don't consider this to be sacrilegious, because being sacrilegious would mean using his name to justify war, intolerance and hatred.

It is if you're forcing people to be compassionate by the barrel of a gun. Christianity is largely based on the individual relation to God and not the collectives relationship with said God. Even in Acts where they describe what seems like a socialist community, said community operates as a purely voluntary institution.

I'd say that the people who live like Jesus would have wanted would be Hutterites, Mennonites, and Anabaptists in general. However none of these communities believe in using the state to force people to live as they do, it would be immoral. That's why I think it's absurd to say that Jesus Christ would be a New Democrat.

[MacKay to NATO: consider all candidates]

How can McKay negotiate with Russia after that cheap stunt for attention?

Are you talking about how CF-18's were scrambled to protect our airspace. As well if you read the article you'd note that Sikorski is fiercely anti-Russian, thus putting Mackay in a positive light despite the fact he has this crazy idea that Canada's national airspace should be protected.

But one thing to know about diplomacy is that you want someone who is firm, not some weak kneed individual who would bow down to any demands given by a hostile state. Reagan was able to discuss issues with Gorbachev even though Reagan called the USSR an evil empire, which it was if you ever bothered to read the Gulag Archipelago.

[Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.]

Had he admitted to himself that he was the leader of a minority government, holding his office at the whim of the elected commons, and backed down from the outset, he would never have found himself sitting on a sofa in Rideau Hall while the Governor General decided his fate.

He did back down on the party funding. However the coalition was still going ahead.

I certainly hope not , much like your blanket statement.

I was talking about the pro-choice lobby in particular.

And what about the Almighty? Ever heard of spontaneous abortion?

Yes I have, however I've also heard of people succumbing to diseases, injury, and in many cases by the hand of other human beings. Just because someone is dead it doesn't mean they no longer have any human qualities, to argue so would be foolish. Besides one does not need to believe in an almighty to be opposed to abortion, have you ever heard of Nat Hentoff?

Positives:

1. He's not a professor but an author and journalist who was invited to teach.

2. I've always admired journalists who go into dangerous places so that we can get the real news.

3. He has a Harvard PhD

4. He's not Stephen Harper.

I hear that PJ O'Rourke and Geraldo Riviera faced a great deal of danger in the Persian Gulf, perhaps they should run for office. As for having a PhD, I recall Woodrow Wilson was considered the most educated President, yet he was a war monger, racist, shredded the Constitution and Bill of Rights, jailed anti-war protestors, and centralized the US government. Michael Ignatieff is somewhat similar to Harper, in that they're both extremely boring, come off as unemotional, and aren't all that populist.

Negatives:

1. He liked Ronald Reagan

2. He didn't like the coalition.

3. He's a Liberal.

4. He's too tall.

Yeah, I disliked Reagan too, what with his defeating of double digit inflation and malaise. But I like your point about him being tall, the only people you can trust with government power are midget NDP wrestlers who hate Ronald Reagan and like the coalition.

[Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.]

You lump people that are "pro-US" "'holocaust deniers, racists and bigots'" as well as those with "excessively militarist sentiments"?

Huh?

Apparently if you ever showed sympathy with the United States, had a "Support the Troops" magnet, or questioned the ethics of abortion, you are no different from David Irving and Ernst Zundel.

[Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.]

So get all your 'we we's' out now before it becomes law. Do you realize how sill that is, when he was writing a paper for the American people?

About as silly as people who state that Harper is a separatist for writing a paper telling Albertan's not to separate but to find constitutional and legal venues to become more independent of a hostile federal government.

Anyone who has read Harpers history before he gave up his classical liberal principles will know that he was supportive of a federation where the provinces were granted more control over their areas of jurisdiction and the federal government would butt out.

By the way it's not comparable to the separatism that is called for by Gilles Duceppe and Baker. Those two just feel entitled to other peoples money and that's about it.

Do you think Canadians care now? We like Obama and are looking to America as a welcome partner during this economic crisis.

Yep, we should only have cordial relations with our neighbour if a Democrat's in charge. Ironically enough John McCain would have likely been better in terms of our relationship because he wasn't a protectionist and even stated that Canada and America both benefit from free trade.

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

The only parties really opposed to the War in Afghanistan are the Bloc and NDP. As kind of modern Socialists, the NDP belong to the religous left who are pacifists in war, like the founder, Jesus of Nazareth.

Yeah, but Jesus was also pro-life which means that he would be automatically expelled from the NDP. As I've said before, if Jesus was a politician he'd likely be Dorothy Day. Anti-statist, pacifist, and a distributist.

[Religious Right in Canada]

So Eyeball you just want anti-drug groups to be banned and for the police to never mention the Charter of Rights ever again.

By the way, theirs a difference between a libertarian and a pothead/paranoid conspiracy nut.

[Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.]

Jeepers, Blue! For someone who so often asks for a cite, you sure throw out a lot of doubtable statements!

BUT... even you have to admit that Reform, no matter how many good ideas it carried, also had quite a burden of 'holocaust deniers, racists and bigots', and the Conservative Party still provides a welcoming home for anti-abortion, pro-US, and excessively militarist sentiments.

I don't recall ever needing the LPC to point out any of those things, since Reform and CP displayed them well enough all on their own... but feel free to provide cites to confirm the assertions.

No, I have no problem with allowing people that are pro-life the ability to speak freely. I'm not really into the thought control aspect that the left preaches. As for being pro-United States, I really have no clue what that means, outside of perhaps not having a blind hatred of everything American. As for militarism, theirs a large difference between saying the military should be given the tools it requires to do a job, and treating our soldiers like sh*t as the LPC did.

With the abortion debate, I hold to the maxim that those who are neutral should be sent to the hottest part of hell once they die. I'll be quite frank I find pro-choicers to be far more despicable, simply because they don't even engage in a debate. Their main goal is to use the state to shutup people who disagree with them.

But their weren't many holocaust deniers, racists, or bigots, in the Canadian Alliance or the Reform Party. The holocaust deniers is fairly moot since the CPC is strongly supportive of Israel. Usually it would be isolated statements that were taken out of context by the media. However I will say this, atleast you don't see Conservatives marching under Hezbollah and Tamil Tiger flags.

Now I will admit that most conservatives [small c] find holocaust deniers to be fairly despicable. The difference is that we don't think you should be able to jail people for opinions that are deemed offensive by Liberals. I don't believe the government owns a persons tongue like you and Progressive Tory do, nor do I think government bureaucrats should become the defacto thought police in Canada and attempt to punish journalists and newsmagazines for voicing a difference of opinion.

[Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.]

First off, I was quoting MacLean's Magazine and I don't care what he was doing when he said it. I assume MacLeans has fact checkers so take it up with them. He's for Alberta first, we get it.

Yes, you just didn't know when it was said or in what context.

Could I have a cite for when an election campaign bashed Alberta. That's news to me.

Ever hear of Jean Chretien's quip about how westerners are "different types." Or for that matter pretty well every policy the Liberal from absurd gun control policies, the CWB, to ignoring Senate Elections. As well I still recall all the shreiking from the opposition about how big oil would destroy the nation.

Harper - "Withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan ... permit a province to run its own plan, as Quebec has done from the beginning. If Quebec can do it, why not Alberta?"

"Collect our own revenue from personal income tax, as we already do for corporate income tax. Any incremental cost of collecting our own personal income tax would be far outweighed by the policy flexibility that Alberta would gain, as Quebec’s experience has shown."

Start preparing now to let the contract with the RCMP run out in 2012 Like the other major provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

So you're saying that Alberta can't do any of these things, even though both Ontario and Quebec have similar policies.

"Resume provincial responsibility for health-care policy. If Ottawa objects to provincial policy, fight in the courts. If we lose, we can afford the financial penalties that Ottawa may try to impose under the Canada Health Act. ... replace Canada Health and Social Transfer cash with tax points as Quebec has argued for many years.

Use section 88 of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Quebec Secession Reference to force Senate reform back onto the national agenda.

Which isn't calling for western separatism, but instead stating that Alberta should be granted some independence from Ottawa and attempt to get more clout in Ottawa. To think that this is separatism is idiotic at best.

He is not wanting to take Ontario's Money, but just wants Ottawa to respect the terms of the Atlantic Accord and like Harper, uses Quebec as the guide.

Actually, he does want Ontario's money. That's why Newfoundland has stated they should still be entitled to equalization despite being a have province.

All this proves to me is that you think it's fine and dandy if Quebec [and Ontario with the OPP] have put in place all these measures, yet if Alberta does your up in arms.

You do realize that even the colonies are provinces right?

Listen Progressive Tory, just because some people don't want to constantly get rear ended by Ottawa it doesn't automatically make them separatists.

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

I'll be honest, I'm not scared by Ignatieff. I don't think he'll do that much damage to the country [because every Prime Minister seems to do some damage] however I don't think he'll be the deity that the Liberal supporters are making him out to be.

By the way reading a newspaper won't give you a good idea of local issues. Just because I read the BBC, it doesn't mean I know what it's like to pay egregious taxes, live in a nanny/police state, and duck when another Islamic extremist blows up a bus while the Labour Party is making excuses for said extremists and banning politicians who criticize said extremists.

That being said it's a shame Ignatieff is wasting his talents running for Prime Minister of Canada. Everyone knows that the PMO destroys what would otherwise be decent and principled individuals.

[Religious Right in Canada]

Let's have some fun PT, do the test and see where you line up. I'll even do it to show what my score is:

YOUR SCORE

Your scored 2.5 on Moral Order and -7 on Moral Rules.

The following categories best match your score (multiple responses are possible):

System: Conservatism

Ideology: Conservative NeoLiberalism, Ultra Capitalism

Party: Republican Party

Presidents: Ronald Reagan

04' Election: George W. Bush

08' Election: Ron Paul

PS: I'm not surprised to be close to Ron Paul since I'm more of a paleo-conservative/libertarian.

[Religious Right in Canada]

Calling right-wing conservatives radicals, as I'm doing, is not being very politically correct. Social conservatives wanting to reverse a century of social progress is not conservative, it's revolutionary.

No, it's reactionary. Define your terms.

If you want the country to return to what you call Christian values, inspire Canadians. I mentioned that I grew up in a poor rough neighborhood, and local churches ran programs to help keep us off the streets. They kept their Bibles in the drawer and found a better way to do God's work. I went to Catholic School, played soccer for the Anglicans, belonged to a youth group sponsored by the Baptists and attended Lutheran dances. Not one single person tried to convert me, and yet maybe all a hand in saving me.

Don't worry, I'm sure that soon enough bureaucrats will take over all of those activities. By the way this might come as a shock to you but their were plenty of people in my community who voted Conservative yet were charitable. Apparently compassion isn't restricted to filing taxes with those Christian Conservatives.

Are you a hybrid of two beers Canadian Blue?

No, I prefer Sleemans. My name is my nationality and then what colour my political affiliations usually lie.

No, they seem to have spent more time reporting to the public about how the police complain that the Charter is preventing them from engineering the type of society they want.

Is this another one of your fictitious facts.

Is it even legal for police in their capacity as officials of the state to be discussing getting rid of the Charter in public? This almost sounds like sedition. Perhaps I should bring it to the attention of the HRC.

Funny that you talk about how much you respect the Charter, yet then say those who have issues with the Charter shouldn't have freedom of speech. But then again you probably don't see the irony in that.

[Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.]

He's often described as icily unemotional. But how does that square with his more impulsive gestures, such as his op-ed outbursts after the 2000 election, in which he essentially declared himself for Alberta first, the rest of Canada a distant second -- a recklessly hotheaded move for a man with national aspirations?

Which wasn't when he was an MP, he served as Reform Party MP from 1993-1997. Before that he was one of the strongest voices that supported the Reform Party expanding into eastern Canada and dropping populism. Once again, research your facts.

In the firewall letter, he advises Ralph Klein to opt out of federal programs, and build a wall around Alberta (figurative) to protect them. Sounds very much like what the Newfoundland senator is saying. Different speech, same sentiment.

Not really, the difference is that Newfoundland feels entitled to Ontario's money, Alberta simply stated that if the Liberals were going to go out of their way to scapegoat Alberta during the election they shouldn't expect said provinces where they described individuals as holocaust deniers, racists, bigots, and xenophobes, to prop up their election promises.

Just out of curiosity if you're apparently for national unity, then why do you have this odd belief that it's perfectly acceptable for the Liberals to bash western Canada during an election to pick up votes in the east. After all even Liberal MP's stated that the carbon tax was a way to shift wealth from Alberta and Saskatchewan to Ontario and Quebec.

[Religious Right in Canada]

So you see, I am a conservative because I stand on tradition while supporting evolving social culture, that changes as needs dictate.

Yes, you just abandoned pretty well every single tradition in the name of political correctness, how courageous.

A conservative is not for radical change. Ideals of the Religous Right or social conservatives are for radical changes. Things like intolerance, equal marriage and pro-choice evolved over time. So-cons want an immediate end to all that, so in fact are not conservatives but revolutionaries.

So what you're saying is that a conservative is just a Trudeau Liberal then, correct? By the way Edmund Burke was actually taking a position that wasn't in the mainstream at the time, all you're saying is that you will take any position that is popular. So, once again, you are not a conservative.

Stop calling yourself a conservative Progressive Tory, especially since you're an advocate of handing over freedom of speech to bureaucrats, support abortion on demand, and also oppose tradition. All you've proven to me is that you never really have views that are outside of the politically correct mainsteam and will abandon your principles whenever the mainstream media tells you.

I'm wondering how much more bastardized Progressive Tory can make conservatism. By her definition Joseph Stalin would be considered a conservative in Russia instead Aleksandr Solzhenytsen.

[Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.]

Conservative thoughtless, shameless name-calling, as a substitute for thought and conversation, is one of the reasons I've come to so wish us rid of them.

It's a schoolyard bully game, not governance.

Hold on, weren't members of the Canadian Alliance called holocaust deniers, racists, and bigots, by the Liberals in 2000, or in 2004 when people were warned that the CPC would be anti-abortion and pro-US, or in 2006 when the Liberals stated that the Conservatives would have soldiers in our cities, with guns.

Exactly. When he first won his seat as MP in Calgary, in his victory speech he said "I'm for Alberta first and Canada a distant second. A distant second?

Mind getting a cite for that.

Provinces threatening to leave is like a kid saying they're going to run away from home if they don't get their own way. It's posturing. Quebec has just done it best, because they are the kid who went out and got their own apartment to prove they weren't kidding.

Actually it was meant to support provincial rights against a central government which has no concern for the provinces outside of Ontario and Quebec.

He then proceeded to drag the Crown - the very body it is his job to advise and guide - into the political fray and placed the non-partisan governor general in a very awkward situation.

You mean, the opposition dragged her down. After all they were the ones who started this whole mess since they can only survive off the tit of the taxpayer.

If Harper wants to call the Bloc 'separatists' that's one thing, but why wasn't he calling them 'separatists' in 2004 when he needed them to make up a majority in his coalition to oust Paul Martin and become Prime Minister?

Probably because most people actually knew they were separatists, something which wasn't known by the left leaning posters on this board.

There's Newfoundland resentments, and there's PQ sovereigntists... and then there's the Alberta firewall.

In order for Harper worshipers to legitimately call anyone else a separatist, then Harper must personally wear that label, too.

Actually, the firewall isn't a separatist agenda. You've obviously never actually read the document. All it states is that if the Liberals attempt to steal the wealth of western Canada to buy votes we should become more independent of the government in Ottawa.

[Time For a New Party]

The idea of Parliament isn't consensus, however allowing MP's more independence will allow them to take more principled stands, the exact opposite of consensus. I want a debating chamber, not an echo chamber.