scribblet

Goes with the terroritory LOL

Wow, the oppositions must be really running scared to be digging out old stories to run as smear jobs LOL I`d like to hear the whole thing and the context also. Really though, how many of us have said something in the past that they regret now, or no longer subscribe to the views expressed then. It was over 16 years ago, what is the value of making this an issue with in now other than to get into some mud slinging. IMHO, it makes the NDP look pretty bad too.

None of which has anything to do with the topic at hand, purely infantile rhetoric. The gov't is making an honest effort to help, and are trying to fast track the court case. Even Liberal MP Dan McTeague, (consular affairs critic) , said he was given similar assurances given to the CPC, by Mexican officials four weeks ago. "It's clear that the same guarantees that were given to me were given to Kenney five weeks later,'' he said. The Mexican gov't isn't going to be swayed by either party, unless maybe they want to fork over a large enough bribe, the only thing that seems to matter in Mexico.

Spouses and dependant children are and should be allowed in, but no other family members should be allowed in under the family re-unification. They should have to apply annd qualify on their own merit. Good point about contracting foreign workers, maybe part of the reason for not using them more is that many of them would stay and not go home, then we would have a much larger illegal immigration problem.

It seems that some Quebec Grits are threatening to yank Dion's membership if he doesn't resign - they can do this? By MATHIEU BELANGER, SUN MEDIA The Ottawa Sun

If they bring the gov't down on the immigration bill then lose, it will give them the opportunity to boot Dion and call a leadership convention. Might as well get it over with if Dion won't quit voluntarily.

I tend to agree, although this is really a game of poker all the time. It's hard to get anything done with a minority gov't and an obstructionist opposition so if the Liberals really believe what they say or mean, they'll put their money where their mouths are and get it over with. The point really was about the MPs not doing their jobs and being invisible to the extent that it seems to be without precedent, the opposition might as well not exist.

BTW, this bill is a confidence matter - so will the Liberals stay away or let it pass

Except they are not voting against the gov't, they are choosing to sit out the votes and not put their money where their mouths are. They obviously can't and are afraid to walk the talk so they just sit it out - dock their pays for non attendance !!!

Wrong - I sure don't fit that description, neither do any of the other members I've known for years, neither does Harper for sure. You have a twisted perception of who and what conservatives are, most of us are middle class and only want a good future for Canada and Canadians. Trudea would fit that description though LOL

Too bad we don't have parliamentary truant officers - some of these Liberal MPs need detentions LOL or maybe MPs should have their pay deducted for missed time from work. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=402188 OTTAWA - Liberal MPs are casting votes in Parliament at a rate lower than the turnout of Canadian voters who made it to the ballot box in the last federal election. By choosing to sit out confidence motions that could topple the minority government, Liberal MPs on average participated in only 64% of recorded votes in the House this parliamentary session -- just below the 64.7% of eligible voters who cast valid ballots in the 2006 general election, a Canwest News Service analysis shows. When they did show up for votes, more often than not, the Liberals voted in line with the Harper government. More than 60% of votes by Liberals on bills, amendments and motions were in step with the Conservatives. The official Opposition supported the government on extending the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, on its centrepiece crime bill, and on other parliamentary business, such as a bill regarding the settlement of international investment disputes. By contrast, Bloc Quebecois MPs cast 41% of their votes with the Tories while New Democrats voted with the government only 26% of the time. cont....

I think we are in agreement for the most part, but there will never be a 'r eal' debate unless the Harper haters are willing to look at the issue in terms of what is good for Canada and not whether or not the Liberals are the 'natural party for new Canadians' and only they can implement good immigration policy etc. etc. The Frazer report quoted an Australian academic as "We are in awe at the ineptitude of the Canadian immigration selection process." It is time to get past Harper Derangement Syndrome and discuss immigration rationally along terms of what is best for Canada, not what is best for the Liberal party, or the immigrant.

The totally inept vote buying-Liberals used immigration as a tool to bolster their own ranks, therefore, they mand immigration advocates would not accept any changes to the act that would reduce their chances of recruiting ethnic votes when they eventually get back in office in the distant future. Then there's the big problem of politicians too afraid to reform or even debate policies because the immigration and refugee industry -- mostly lawyers and ethnic leaders paid by government grants -- label all critics and criticism as racist. This is a step in the right direction towards standing up to these people porking at the immigrant trough. The opposition and those suffering from HDS (Harper derangement syndrom) would never agree to anything put forward by the CPC, no matter how good it might be for the country. The current point system rewards a year of studies at Imperial College in London, or a year at Harvard, with the same points as a year at a third-rate school in Pakistan [or some other Third World country, the whole system needs reforming, as we need to tie our economy and needed job skills to the those applying for immigration.

Wed, March 26, 2008 Dion faces ouster Quebec Grits say they'll yank his membership if he doesn't resign http://www.ottawasun.com/News/National/200...103291-sun.html Looks like Dion isn't going to be around for the next federal election, I would have thought that they would have let him go through one election.... By MATHIEU BELANGER, SUN MEDIA MONTREAL -- Federal Liberals from Quebec will move to show Stephane Dion the door if he doesn't give up leadership of the party on his own, Sun Media has learned. Former Liberal candidate Pierre-Luc Bellerose, who ran for the party in Joliette, northeast of Montreal, said dissatisfied members will begin the process to revoke Dion's party membership if he doesn't quit as Liberal leader. He said his strategy is supported by a number of influential members of the party, along with a dozen riding association presidents and a few elected MPs from across Quebec. Bellerose said he is convinced Dion has lost control over the party in Quebec and the organization is no longer following its leader. The results of the March 17 byelections did nothing to appease discontent with Dion, he added. Click to learn more...

Actually it does, developing countries are especially damaged from the loss of skilled workers, they lose their brightest and the best. That doesn't translate into all right wingers are against immigration. It's not hard to figure out that if we have high unemployment at home, that it might be best to concentrate on upgrading our own unemployed first, and cut back on immigration for a while. Even at that, it is really the family re-unification program that needs to be cut back. Not to mention letting in people with HIV and the drain on our health system. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/03...058141-sun.html Canada welcomes HIV immigrants Sun learns thousands who have the virus causing AIDS allowed to come to Canada By BILL KAUFMANN, SUN MEDIA The Calgary Sun Thousands of immigrants who tested positive for HIV before entering Canada have been allowed into the country, the Sun has learned. Of 2,567 immigration hopefuls who tested positive for the disease that leads to AIDS from January 2002 -- when Ottawa first began screening -- to December 2006, only 126 were refused, said Lorraine Lavallee, spokeswoman for Citizenship and Immigration Canada. For the most part, such applicants aren't considered a public health risk nor an excessive burden on the medical system, she said. "It's not passed by casual contact," said Lavallee, adding the medical cost considered during a five to 10-year period generally isn't considered untoward. cont...

JDobbin says: "I'm saying that the right wing is against immigration. Period. If not, stop blowing hot air." Nonsense, that is a ridiculous statement with no basis in fact;, right wingers and any other sensible people only want skilled immigrants, or people who will add and contribute to our economy. It is about what is best for Canada, not what is best for the immigrant.

Spurioser and spurioser, there is nothing in that piece to indicate conservatives did it, you'd better have some thing to back that up.

Okay, I haven't read the whole thread as I'm behind my news and now on lousy dialup for a couple of weeks, so sorry if this has allready been said, but this is my take. The interesting news is the collapse of the NDP vote, the Conservative win in Saskatchewan and the very tight race in the riding of Vancouver-Quadra, which I don't think the media has made much of. ( I only get my Canuck news on line for now so correct me if I'm wrong) P:)- Jack Layton and the NDP will have to be careful, they could lose more to the Greens. Dion is crowing about his wins which were allready Liberals, not much of a victory. So, Let us hope he is equally successful in the next Federal election - let me see ..... a 25% loss from 101 seats equals 76 Liberals - 25% gain from 126 seats equals 157 Conservative seats - hmmm majority government. May Mr. Dion always be so victorious. Interesting to note that only one more vote in each of the polls would have given the CPC a victory in Quadra... maybe a recount is in order! Any bets on Bob Rae replacing Dion in the not too distant future?

Specious arguments indeed - yesterday's immigrants didn't get the handouts and help they get now, they came, stood on their own two feet and worked their buns off. Family re-unification should be for dependant children only, if you don't want to leave everyone else behind, don't come here. Family-class immigration and the votes it garners for the Liberals has been a core Liberal policy. Never mind that these people (family reunification) are free from official-language requirements and completely outside the points system imposed on economic-class immigrants. The CPC is only wanting to see immigration conform to our labour market needs. Recent immigrants and low-skilled workers are facing now the toughest wage pressures from this mass immigration. It's one thing to allow in skilled workers who meet our needs and pass the points test, it's another to bring in millions more unskilled and dependent on their relatives. According to census figures, 1980 Canadian immigrants who had been in the country for 10 years enjoyed full wage parity with the Canadian-born. The same measurement in 1990 showed that they were earning 90% as much as natives. In the year 2000 it was 80%. Do the math, we need to fix the problem, and now. Then again, there is of course the pressure all of these people put on the environment you know, more people, more pollution etc.

I agree with this, the family reunification program should be limited to dependant children only. I remember reading some time ago that for every qualified immigrant, there where 15 in the reunification class who would never qualify on their own. http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/colu...6c-71030d433c97

Thanks, it makes sense. I'm inclined to believe that Hillary has a better chance to be President than Obama, when it comes down to it, if Obama wins the dems. many will go over to McCain. If Hillary wins, they'll stick to the dems. I only watched Hagee once or twice, to me he's a nutjob, but hasn't spouted as much hate as Obama's pastor. I doubt that he believes the aids virus is a whiteman's attempt to kill blacks either, or that the U.S. deserved 9/11. I too believe this can hurt Obama, but I wonder how many voters understand how much he wants to raise taxes, to pay for his very large increases in government spending; for me that would be the real killer.

She is correct, according to this it is less than 8% http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm so using the term 'evangelical America' is just plain wrong. A much higher percentage has a belief system, but not evangelical, that is only a small part. Just because you want to believe most of the U.S. is evangelical, doesn't make it so. "...evangelicals remain just 7% of the adult population. That number has not changed since the Barna Group began measuring the size of the evangelical public in 1994"

The following is penned by a young Army Reserve Sergeant currently in Afghanistan, his mother has given permission to post this here for you all to read. And no, it is not an email chain letter. It's been a long while since my last update. I've started writing three times, and stopped myself three times. I did some reviewing and realized that I generally write in three veins; the personal, the political, and the philosophic. Unfortunately, for those who were expecting a personal update, telling folks how I'm doing and what's going on, well, all I can say is that there have been so many changes that I can't keep up. This isn't going to be a breezy, nor short update, sorry. Plus, there's an elephant in the room I absolutely must address...Three suicide bombs in three days. Over a hundred civilians dead. Some in Canada have again sounded a call to retreat. What are we doing here in Afghanistan? This is a valid question, and one that I've devoted a lot of time to considering. Most of the guys here think about this a lot, too. There is a common misconception amongst some civilians that NATO soldiers (particularly American, but Canadian and European as well) are either mindless robots who don't question their orders, naïve jingoists, unfortunate dupes, right-wing ideologues, religious nuts or money-grubbing opportunists. That's not the case at all. While I can't speak for Iraq, the general consensus amongst the soldiers I know from various nationalities is that we came to Afghanistan for one reason, but are staying for another. Ultimately, the rationale in both cases are argued both for and against in two dimensions; the pragmatic versus the principled. So, let's break this down… We came here to oust the Taliban and rout Al Qaeda; what were our reasons? Well, as far as the principled / moral reasons go, the Taliban were a thoroughly shit regime that treated the Afghans like dogs (and their women and girls as worse than dogs). It was incumbent on us to do something, and some believe that it was a critical failing on our part that we did not act sooner. With this in mind, critics may lament that if we actually cared about the morality of the issue, we would have acted sooner, or we would also engage in morally based intervention elsewhere. However, there are tens of thousands of moral outrages unaddressed on our planet, and we cannot rectify them all; there are limits to the power of the Western states. The way we can pare these crises and injustices down is to try to address issues that present a pragmatic benefit to us, but prioritize them and address only the ones that pass a moral filter (commonly defined in Thomas Aquinas' conception of Jus Ad Bellum). So our pragmatic reasons? Of these there are many, but I consider one to be of primordial importance; after 9/11 we were compelled to prove the terrible consequences of attacking a NATO nation. To fail to do so would have encouraged future attacks. This was a fundamental threat to future deterrence. Thus, this overwhelming pragmatic compulsion to act brought a long-simmering moral issue to the fore. There were legitimate moral arguments against our intervention, but the question is whether our pragmatic and principled justifications to intervene overrode the moral arguments against acting. What right did we have to invade the sovereignty of another nation when it was non-state actors that provoked our action? What would be the human cost of our invasion in terms of collateral damage? Ultimately, I think that by deterring future attacks on the West and disrupting the organization that blew up embassies in Africa as well as office buildings in the United States, we saved more lives in the long run. So, that's the invasion in a nutshell. We could have sat back and exclaimed that we were done, that we had met our requirements, but now we have another kettle of fish; once we have removed a regime from power, what is our moral responsibility to shepherd that society through the chaos that will inevitably follow? Well, I think this issue is a little more clear in terms of morality, but less so in terms of pragmatism. The clear moral reason is twofold; not only did we prevent future violence on a greater scale through reinforcing the deterrent value of attacking a NATO nation, we also removed a truly vile regime from the backs of these poor people here. OK, but why are we still here then? Simple; we shattered the institutions of government in this country, and to do nothing to avert complete chaos in a power vacuum would be the height of immorality. (As an aside, for most opposed to our mission, their criticism of our initial invasion was that it was wrong to attack; a moral argument. Despite this, their opposition to our current mission is that it is futile, that it is impossible to succeed; a pragmatic argument. This is some impressive intellectual gymnastics to twist one's position so thoroughly.) Our pragmatic reasons however, are at this point generally not brought up in any debate that I have seen back in Canada; and this is the crux of what I see as the problem in the dialog that we see amongst our parliamentarians and pundits; nobody is debating the rational, clinically cold benefits versus the costs of staying here and fighting on. The debate is fraught with morality-based arguments (and accusations). But nobody is really debating the realpolitik of what we're doing here, and it's greater strategic impact on the globe. Most of the anti-war crowd have currently attached themselves to a limited pragmatic argument; that no matter how moral our continuing presence may or may not be, they claim that it is not practical to stay here as we have no chance of success and that the expense in terms of money or Canadian lives is not worth any possible benefit. Most soldiers I know feel that we have a realistic chance of success, even when constrained to fight in a moral manner (in general accordance with Aquinas' conception of Jus In Bello), even though our enemies are under no such constraints. As I've written extensively on that subject before, I won't get into it again. However, we as a society have have not investigated that benefit of our action in practical terms, and less so the heavy costs of not continuing to support the people of Afghanistan. We are at a turning point in History. There is a fundamental development underway that is larger than the growth of Islamic radicalism. Right now, the West has what is probably our absolute last chance to prove decisively that insurgency can be defeated. This again speaks to deterrence, and our actions in the next couple of years will determine the future trends of world conflict. There are examples of successful counter-insurgency; The British successes in Malaysia and Oman stand out as some examples, but they are fading in memory. Today, insurgency and terrorism is seen as a very viable tactic; one that with enough patience will inevitably win against any technically or numerically superior foe. Afghanistan is probably the closest we have come since Malaysia or Oman to a successful counter-insurgency campaign, rooted in development of governance, infrastructure, education, reconstruction and combat. To put it bluntly, the Taliban are broken and barely hanging on, fractured with infighting and lashing out in desperate attacks against civilians, further separating them from any potential base of popular support. Today, we are at the cusp of deterring insurgencies across the globe; And it's not just Islamic radicalism that is watching us… The FARC in Columbia, Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, and other non-muslim insurgencies are paying close attention to the strategy, tactics, and fortunes of our action in Afghanistan. Doing likewse are the tribal militias in Kenya, the Janjaweed in Sudan, and any number of villains with an AK-47, some explosives and a nihilistic ideology. Further, they are looking closely at the people's and government's resolve within all NATO nations. Ultimately, what will be the course of history from this point? Will we validate insurgency as a viable tactic by quitting now, despite the fact that the insurgency here in Afghanistan is virtually crippled and sustained only on the hope that we in the West lose interest? Or will we be able to deter insurgencies across the globe in the future, preventing even more bloodshed in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East and Africa? What about the growing radicalism (both of the right wing fascist and jihadist varities) in Europe; what will they think of our failure to show resolve in the face of such a test? Do they smell an opportunity? What will they think about the validity of using violence to achieve their political objectives? What about the few violent or lawless aboriginal bands or groups in Canada and the United States? Will they graduate to a higher form of "resistance" than roadblocks and land occupation? Are we willing to run from Afghanistan only to encourage an insurgency in Canada? The West has made mistakes in our history. I am very quick to admit that. We have caused a great deal of suffering in the world, but honestly no less than any other great civilization... But we have much more to be proud of. We created the concepts of personal liberty, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the free market. We facilitated the return of democracy to the modern age, dramatically lengthened the human lifespan across the globe, pushed the boundaries of science, and created mass communication. Of all civilizations across the globe, we best demonstrate meritocracy and have the least corrupt governance. Our society was the first of the great civilizations to concieve of and implement female emancipation, abolition of slavery, and the notion that all races are equal. Of course we have a long way to go, but at least we are on that journey; The civilizations with which we compete are not even there yet. Only where we can exert a positive influence can conditions improve. Unfortunately, Western influence on global affairs is fragile. If we cannot demonstrate capability and resolve, even when we have both the moral high-ground and the pragmatic motivation to succeed, we invalidate our entire value system... And we will not only lose Afghanistan, we will also lose the 21st century to global chaos. So, back to Kandahar; most of the soldiers I know understand what's at stake in our fight. Maybe they all haven't verbalized it to the same degree as I just have, but there is a general perception that Canadians don't quite realize just how much is at stake. We fear that they will throw away our gains and sacrifice our future security for immediate comfort and smug self-righteousness. To be honest, that fickleness scares the hell out of us more than the Taliban do.

Just a comment about Hannity and Colmes - that would be a better show if Colmes had a stronger personality, he seems unable to stand up to Hannity. They need a stronger democrat on that show IMO.

He's trying to, and has repudiated those statements, he says he wasn't at those meetings. It is hard to believe though, that Obama wasn't aware of this pastor's views, my goodness, he (the Pastor) actually believes that Aids is white man's virus designed to kill blacks.. This could undermine Obama, as America seemed to be ready for a black president, but not one who appears to have condoned the type of hatred from his Pastor; not sure they are ready to embrace a wife who comes across as angry and bitter, while she has attained education and privilege, other people only long for. Funny thing how most of the left wing media are refusing to show the clips or even talk about it, another example of how Obama is being given kid glove treatment. As for Hillary, I don't understand why so many people do hate her - why ?