scribblet

IMO know it doesn't, that org. lost its credibility a long time ago when it became too radicalized, they have lost their usefulness. They are simply putting forward a self serving agenda of extreme feminists. Maybe shutting down this and more lobby groups will help put more discretionary income back into the pockets of Canadians. If you support taxpayer funded lobby groups and feel they are important to you, then you should pay for these groups to exist. Did you ever really occur to anyone that many women are quite happy and don't want or need the help of org. like the Status of Women.

Agreed, but some people use 'revisionist history' actually I nearly fell off my chair when I read that bit about Stockwell Day being a social moderate compared to Stephen Harper. There is absolutely no evidence for that but I guess it is in the category of, if you say something often enough, people start to believe it.

My point in the other thread, anything we do as a nation is irrelevant, the earth is changing as it has many times before, man cannot stop it.

further to this, an excellent editorial by L. Goldstein http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...10/3276397.html Having had a chance to do some research into the Kyoto accord, I have a question for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal Leader Stephane Dion. Why do you support a bizarre United Nations treaty that is mainly concerned with transferring billions of dollars from the First World (i.e. us) to the Third World over a period of decades, without any guarantees this will lower the man-made greenhouse gas emissions you say are the main cause of global warming? Start delving into the Kyoto accord and you'll quickly discover it has very little to do with sensible things like practising meaningful energy conservation here in Canada, or reducing our heavy reliance on non-renewable fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal. And plenty to do with having "Annex I" countries (like us) ship big bags full of our money to undeveloped and underdeveloped nations who may, or may not, use said funds to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions. Whatever they do, Kyoto contains no provisions to compel those nations to live up to their word when Canadians and others, either as taxpayers or consumers, bankroll projects abroad to reduce greenhouse gases. In terms of emission targets, Kyoto rewards notorious polluters like Russia and other former Eastern bloc nations (can you say "Chernobyl"?) for the fact their already inefficient economies collapsed in the early 1990s, after the Soviet Union fell apart. -snip- As for Harper, why do you now support a treaty which you surely must know is a mess and why are you ready to have (shudder) NDP leader Jack Layton make things even worse? Other than getting yourself re-elected, that is.

I'm not advocating doing nothing, we obviously need to clean up our act, but what do especially on only a national level will not halt any global climate change. The earth's climate changed before man was on earth, and when first man was on earth, not likely he contributed to climate change, now is it? from the BBC China is the world's second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, but as a developing country is not yet required to reduce its emissions. hmmm Developing countries like India are not obliged to make any cuts in greenhouse emissions under Kyoto. But as they raise living standards their emissions will increase. India's emissions are estimated to have risen by more than 50% in the 1990s, although the country has only submitted emissions figures to the UN for one year, 1994. Developing countries like India are not obliged to make any cuts in greenhouse emissions under Kyoto. But as they raise living standards their emissions will increase. India's emissions are estimated to have risen by more than 50% in the 1990s, although the country has only submitted emissions figures to the UN for one year, 1994. But with India's economy and population, like China's, continuing to grow, it is clear that the thorny issue of developing country emissions commitments will have to be tackled soon in future rounds of negotiations. As I said, ALL countries have to do something now, otherwise it is useless, and even if ALL countries did something it would not stop the earth's climate change, only slow down the inevitable. Climate change cannot be stopped, so we need adapt and and adopt policies that will slow it down, including conserving water etc. and - reducing the population - otherwise !! There is certainly no consensus on any of it . http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2341516,00.html one of many THE world must be more realistic about the chances of preventing climate change and prepare for the inevitability of global warming, the head of one of Britain’s foremost scientific societies will urge today. Politicians and environmentalists have failed to understand how difficult it will be to curb global warming and are overlooking the importance of adapting to the hotter world it will bring, according to Frances Cairncross, the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. While measures to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming are essential, they have been emphasised over and above the equally vital need to develop ways of coping with climate change, Ms Cairncross will say.The “ineffectual” Kyoto Treaty will not stop temperatures rising, as the US and large developing nations such as China and India are not involved, and even if a global agreement to limit carbon dioxide emissions is reached, a significant degree of warming is still likely........

The earth has been cycling for years, and more climate change is an inevitable reality, if you are presumptios enough to think that man can change it, go for it. In order to effect any change, which would be minor, there would have to be a mass global change of life styles. In fact, a major change would b e no lifestyle, kill off a few hundred million people, go back to a pre-industrialized age, and you might lesson or slow down the changes We cannot stop the inevitable no matter what we do. Its all political, nothing more and any major attempts on a national scale would be suicidal. In other words there is absolutely no point in doing anything unless every major or developing industrial nation signs on - and guess what China and India are not on board - two of the largest carbon emitters Two years ago, Canada was already almost 35% above the emissions target to which the Liberals agreed (6% below 1990 levels by 2008-12). .Even if we were to achieve the goals, the impact on global climate change would be zero.

Probably because the producer/star and the CTV execs who made it happen are all westerners....too bad you fufill the stereotype of an ignorant hick so wonderfully or you would have caught that The producer is Zarqa Nawaz, a muslim, born in Liverpool England. Maybe she'll really get brave and show clips of a young girl being hanged for killing a rapist. That should get some good reviews.

Havn't read the whole thread so apologies if this is a repeat. Don't forget that OAP is clawed back at a certain income level, so well off seniors don't get it. Also, the only time workers actually paid a separate tax for OAP was in the 60s, and only for about 3 years, now it comes from general revenues.

When the banking isn't right on a highway its called a reverse camber, I wonder why they build the that way, why not with the correct camber...hmmmm

He broke confidentiality, don't know what the media is still reporting. Garth Turner seems to have a penchant for fabricating stories: NEWS RELEASE Nov27, 2006 Dr Charles McVety said Garth Turner "fabricated" the “quote” for CP story. Canada Family Action Coalition president and Senior Director of Defend Marriage Coalition, Dr. Charles McVety is calling a quote attributed to him by MP Garth Turner "a figment of his imagination." The alleged statement, reported in a Canadian Press story November 26, was supposed to have been made during a televised debate between McVety and Turner. ( Host of the TV show Michael Coren says he has no recollection of that statement being made either.) According to the CP story, Turner related that McVety looked at him and said “You know what? I can pick up the phone and call Harper and I can get him in two minutes. It’s going to take you a month.” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home "I never made this statement" said McVety. "It's a complete fabrication by Mr. Turner from start to finish. It's really quite sad." McVety also expressed surprise that a respected journalist and news service would see fit to publish quotes attributed to him without verifying their authenticity. "I've been interviewed by John Ward before as well as many of his colleagues at Canadian Press so they must have my cell phone number somewhere," said McVety. "It is unprofessional for a journalist to not have interviewed me before reporting Mr. Turner's yarn as fact. It seems a bit incautious.” So much for the media factually reporting.

Actually I feel they should sit as an independant, or have a by-election, but a full blown election isn't too far off so sitting as an independant would be proper. As for him working with the CPC, it is a minority gov't and it appears to have been a co-operative working relationship with another party, all working nicely together for the good of the country. Well, I can dream.

Imagine switching parties like that - no one should be allowed to cross the floor, unless she is a liberal friendly auto parts heiress. Or better still, gets a decent cabinet seat in return. It's disgusting I say, disgusting.

NO! THere is NO proof he was tortured, no visible scars, red cross said he had no signs, and he didn't admit to it till the 7th visit. There is much more evidence that stacks against his case than for his case. Either way, he is working on becoming a million air off our tax dollars. Last I heard he still has his Syrian citizenship, if he was treated so badly there, why hang on to it.

Is there any actual proof that Arar was tortured, we only have his word that he was? And really, he knew the people he was hanging with were on the FBI, M15 (et al) watch list, his activities were on the suspicious side to say the least. I'm not so sure he's completely innocent, but I guess we can call him the 36m man huh...

This is all quite hilarious, there is so little to find fault with the CPC that it is a hoot watching all this and reading the spin on it no one else seems to be that worried LOL When the Lib's started haranguing about the Conservatives hiding donations the MP's are able to reply that the Liberals actually get help for their convention fees from taxpayers by using their Convention fees as a political donation. Guess they (Libs) think the only way to do things is to fleece the taxpayer as much as you can.

What part of - the party proceeded on legal advice, re recent change of rules and what they did was not a deliberate act of evasion but a simple act of interpretation of new rules - don't you understand. All of which has amounted to 3 people being over donated due to the change of rules. Any transfers from ridings under the same process has been rectified. If I remember some of what went on before the Tory convention, there was a difference of opinion as to what the new guidelines from Elections Canada where to be interpreted and after consultation with lawyers, accountants and whoever, the decision was made to proceed as they did. Obviously they made the wrong decision. The only reason the media got a hold of this is because the CPC willingly told about it - and again has willingly rectified all of it. Interesting how a little spin deflects questions about why nobody is in jail yet over Adscam that deliberate and wilful theft of public funds, which has yet to be rectified.

What millions, please explain and provide sources.

Partisan ideology will of course determine that Liberals will always believe the worst, and spin any story to fit their own needs as most of these comments show. There were NO corporate 'donations', some observers may have used corporate cards to pay the fees, not a donation. The CPC were in fact trying to save the taxpayers money, when, on professional advice that the actions where legal, they proceeded to let 3 members over donate by a few hundred $. All money has been returned, and accounting corrected. The Liberals still owe 40-million bucks to the Canadian taxpayer. Not a cent has been paid. Elections Canada has in fact, revealed even under the new interpretation of convention fees as donations, a mere three delegates at the Tory policy convention had to be refunded for over-donating. And guess what, only three people were at or near the maximum donation amount and also attended the convention that year. One of whom was Stephen Harper,r likely becauswe he had allready made the maximum donation prior to the convention fee issue. The Conservatives had not considered the fees to be donations in part because of their position that political conventions should not be subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer. The PMO has expressed that while they do not agree with Elections Canada's decision, they will comply with it. They also underscore that it has always been their position that whatever the decision rendered by Elections Canada, they would comply with it. Spin it anyway you like, it is a far cry from the exaggerations on here.

There were no corporate sponsorship donations; it is the Liberals who are maintaining that the convention payments paid by outside observers constitute corporate donations. If you know of something else please provide a source. Interesting isn't it that it is the Liberals like to deduct their convention fees for a tax deduction,fleecing the taxpayer, while the CPC method cost the taxpayer nothing. A revised accounting practice of course now means that the fees will become political contributions and will cost the taxpayer.

This isn't adscam. This is their own scam; the CPC name is new but the players are old. Organizers either were aware of the existing rules and thought they could get away with it or they were completely incompetent by not doing their research. And I love the rationale for all things CPC ... the Liberals. I may be corrupt but not as corrupt as "the Liberals." Is corrupt not corrupt because it wasn't as corrupt? Is being a little dishonest not really dishonest because you believe someone was more dishonest? There is no scam. The party as it has always done, considered the fee for convention attendance as just that--a means of covering the cost of the convention. No one was issued a receipt for a donation for tax purposes for their amount of fee. the problem is simply one of accounting. Whereas, the recent Liberal convention gave a tax receipt for the large convention fees, so it is considered a donation to the party--BUT it means that those who attended get a kick back in the form of a tax benefit for supporting a political party. Big difference, one which is blown entirely out of proportion, obviously by Liberals who seek to gain from any smears they can get away with.

The Canadian Alliance, Reform and Progressive Conservative parties all considered convention fees donations. This is a recent development, they have always considered fees a donation, this is a problem that Kingsley has recently come up (he's resigned now btw). This is not a simple case of illegal donations as some would wish it to be and present it as. "However, we have recently been advised that Elections Canada takes the position that the amount of a convention fee paid by a delegate, less the value of certain 'tangible benefits' received such as meals, are to be treated as a political contribution by that delegate.'' The Liberal MSM is all over Harper for a minor infraction , a difference in accounting practices. Meanwile why are they not talking about family loans that financed the Liberal leadership debate. Not to mention that no tax receipts were issued so in fact the taxpayers were actually saved money. Somewhat different to the Adscam, where hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money was funneled to the party,and laundered, then discovered by the A.G. Whereas the CPC revealed this voluntarily and has admited to a disagreement with Elections Canada - and - will abide by the law if they lose the argument.

Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, Happy holidays or whatever turns you on.... I'm off to Hawaii Aloha

Holland is one of my favourite countries....Aside from the dutch mountains, the netherlands is in my top 5 nopn english speaking nations to relocate to. A lot of people are leaving Holland these days, it is having problems as many other European countgries are. (another topic I suppose) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...11/wneth111.xml For years Holland was celebrated as a symbol of racial tolerance. But two high-profile murders have changed all that, reports Ambrose Evans-Pritchard Escaping the stress of clogged roads, street violence and loss of faith in Holland's once celebrated way of life, the Dutch middle classes are leaving the country in droves for the first time in living memory. The new wave of educated migrants are quietly voting with their feet against a multicultural experiment long touted as a model for the world, but increasingly a warning of how good intentions can go wrong.

Now your confusing me, I always thought a red tory was one who was not socially conservative, more to the left of the party. Actually I have thought that Harper and his gov't policies are more liberal lite than anything. Didn't David Orchard have his own left wing group to fight free trade at one time, and I believe his motives where always in question when he joined the conservatives.

What does any of this have to do with David Orchard? Nothing, he's trolling - don't fall for his baiting its not cool.