scribblet

I think the Harper bashing is desperation from those who can no longer use the 'scary scary' theme; people are now aware that it doesn't cut any ice these days - the sky isn't falling in, so they have to try another tack. Mind you, I doubt that much anything will change the anti-Harper - If Harper did it - it must be bad syndrome. What is reprehensible and despicable is the not so covert accusations that Harper is a homophobe, that he approves of gay bashing including killing of gays. This over the top hypobole (could it be 'hate speech') is designed to pervert the actual reasons for voting against C-250 . There is a big difference between critique of policies/parties and smear campaigns which distort and pervert intent and actions.

Canada has never been a peacekeeping nation, we will engage in peacekeeping from time to time but that is not our main overall objective. We have been involved in combat mission's in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Korea, Europe, etc. In some cases peacekeeping has proven to be a failure [Rwanda]. The CF is in place to defend Canadian interests, at home and abroad. If you hear any politician refer to our proud peacekeeping heritage, be reminded he is full of BS. While we have preformed admirably with the UN, we have done just as many roles with NATO, and have constantly shown that we have a well disciplined fighting force. Who is Shrub? Why is Shrub worshipping Bush? Weird isn't it - guess we are not going to get an answer to that one. As Peter Worthington said: As the nation pays homage to those who served and died in past wars and in peacekeeping missions since Suez, 1956, the anti-military crowd predictably turn out -- ostensibly to oppose war, but inadvertently to ignorantly denigrate all who wear their country's uniform.

Your right that the pacifist movement was a religious one, Quakers today for instance would still be pacifist, but these days it is not the same thing. Most anti war demonstrators today are coming from a pernicious reflexive anti Americanism and this year of course, it projects itself onto Harper as they view him as a friend of Bush. Anti-war protests generally play to the enemy and give them moral support and more impetous, the recent audio confirms that. This is not to say that we shouldn't be looking for a way to get out of both Afghanistan (and Iraq) as soon as possible and work towards peace, but keeping in mind that a large part of the world wants us dead, including the protesters. We have to watch our backs.

Not necessarily, in fact most Canadians including myself don't want war, and I don't support going into Iraq. I do however support Nato and our committments. It is the same with the M.E. really, those who side with the terrorists against Israel are manifesting an anti U.S. position also; just as the objections to some of the CPC policies are based strictly on idealogy and a hatred of Harper - why - mainly because some see him as being too pro Bush. Blind hatred doesn't make for balanced arguments and is extremely corrosive to relationships with our largest trading partner.

Maybe not, but we have to start somewhere.

You don't know that, most probably they would not have won it, and would continue incurring massive lawyers fees etc. Again childish name calling doesn't add anything to the debate.

So, shouldn't they be out looking for another job which does pay them what they think they are worth? If they don't find one, isn't that a clue that their worth has diminished over time? Partly, but I think Firestone is losing money, its either pay less or go out of business alltogether. Not sure about it but I think they allready laid off a lot of workers. I remember years ago at the Toronto Telegram, the union didn't want to believe that the Telegram couldn't meet union demands and would go under if the union didn't agree to some changes. The union didn't - the Telegram closed.

Too funny, another example of extremist anti American simplistic rhetoric manifesting itself into a hatred of Harper (who we know beat out Stockwell Day don't we Hiti the reason for the blind hatred). Not to mention simple minded name calling - Bush shrub whatever doesn't lend any credibility to your argument. Health care: Bush opposes medicare. Harper supports it. Abortion: Bush is anti-abortion. Harper has promised not to try to recriminalize abortion during this Parliament. <A Same-sex marriage: Bush opposes same-sex marriage and backed a failed constitutional amendment to ban it. Harper opposes same-sex marriage and has pledged a free Commons vote on whether the law legalizing it should be reopened. But Harper also supports civil unions — the same position Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry had in the 2004 election. Supreme Court appointments: Bush recently appointed two conservatives to the U.S. high court. Harper named his first appointee from a list of three originally chosen by Paul Martin. Death penalty: Bush supports it. Harper has no plans to re-introduce it. War on terror: Bush sent U.S. troops to Iraq. Harper has said he won’t send Canadian troops to Iraq. Ballistic Missile Defence: Bush wants Canada to sign the BMD treaty. Harper says he won’t sign it at this time, although he understands U.S. concerns. Of course, Harper and Bush agree on some things... Kyoto: Both say the global warming treaty sets unrealistic targets for cutting greenhouse gases and have refused to endorse it. Mideast: Both are strong supporters of Israel. Defence: Both believe in a robust military. But Harper also supports many positions Canadian Liberals held until recently. A few years ago, most Liberals, including Martin, voted to defend the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. (Then they changed their minds.) Even some Liberals attacked Martin, when he was PM for his ever-changing positions on Iraq, Kyoto and BMD, arguing he at first supported the Iraq war and BMD and was anti-Kyoto, before flip-flopping on all of them. As for our military mission in Kandahar, the Grits chose that. Today, Liberals and NDPers claim the only thing keeping Harper from imposing his right-wing “hidden agenda” is his lack of a Parliamentary majority and that if he gets one, the “real” Harper will come out — privatizing medicare, banning abortions, restoring the death penalty, sending homosexuals back into the closet, etc. More silly rhetoric. Fact is, Canada’s mainstream political culture is more liberal than that of the U.S., something any Conservative leader must accept if he or she wants to be PM. Best to look at the facts instead of fearmongering and smear tactics.

Right on !!!

Agreed, something has to be done and this is a start.

Huh ! Shrub and his worhip of the Bush....what on earth does that mean. Who is Shrub and who on earth worships Bush?

The Canadian peace movement today is really just another manifestation of anti Americanism.

The fabrication is your repeated smears saying Harper is advocating that homosexuals be killed, that he advocates gay bashing and genocide because he voted against adding sexual orientation to the act. Flat out lies. C-250 is bill that makes "hate speech" against an identifiable group illegal but is not applied evenly or equally. e.g. the bigot Carolyn Parrish said "Damn Americans-I hate those bastards." According to Merriam-Webster "ethnic" refers to "large groups or people classified according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background." This is clearly a case of hate speechprosecutable under C-250 but we can't stifle U.S. bashing can we. You have been told repeatedly that the reason for objecting to the amendments is because sexual orientation is not defined; that it is a reprehensible restriction of free speech and is nothing more than a gag law. It was brought in specifically to muzzle opponents of SSM - but I guess if you repeat something often enough you'll believe it, or hope others will - but maybe you'd like to see 'political orientation' added to the list too. Lenin would be proud.

Perhaps your drive by smears are in your imagination.

Of course Harper never voted to kill gays. Has anyone said he did? You said: close enough.There where a number of Liberals who opposed it and SSM, are they gay bashers too. Messrs. Chretien and Cauchon did not equivocate on the issue a few yearsa go: "On June 8, 1999, duly elected Canadian Parliamentarians, including the current Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister, voted 216-55 in favour of an Opposition motion that, 'It is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.'" There is really no justification to require the amendment to C-250 in that particular section. Murder in all cases is tragic for ALL victims; and is unacceptable in our society. It is allready against the law - you know, the one that says its murder and assault. The Criminal Code already punishes people who commit those crimes, and rightly so, but this amendment goes further. Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code says 'A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: (a) a sentence should be increased if there is evidence that the offence was motivated by bias or the person's sexual orientation. (abbreviated here) The Criminal Code already provides that people can get an increased sentence if their motivation in beating someone up or killing them was because the person was a homosexual. In addition to the fact that the Criminal Code already provides penalties, it also provides increased penalties and as such there was no point in reinventing the wheel. This law is not about hate speech nor hate crimes, it is a gag law. I don't hate homosexuals nor condone gay bashing, neither does Harper; to say he does because he voted against C-250 is a gross unsupported smear.

Nope, don't do drugs of any kind - well I do take a pill for arthritis. It was a typo which cannot be corrected in the title.

Southercomfort. You forgot to mention that Darrel Reid has replaced Gurmant Grewal in Normie's big book of loathing. Guess small-minded loathing with no consideration or openness to discussion can only focus it's venom on two people at a time You guys are too much your cracking me up. I sure didn't figure out the hate-on-for-Grewal replacement - good catch. Talk about pot - kettle - black thing; nc chastises southerncomfort for 'cleverly atacking old liberal leaders' when he slides all kinds of drive by smears in about Harper on a regular basis.

They didn't specifically mention the democrats they said: November 11, 2006 http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...7-23109,00.html AL-QAEDA'S Iraq chief threatened overnight in an audio message posted on the Internet that the terror network will "blow up the White House". "We announce today the end of a phase of the jihad (holy war) and the start of a new one... to usher in the project of an Islamic caliphate and restore Islam's glory," Abu Hamza al-Muhajer said. "We swear we will not rest from our jihad... before blowing up the filthiest house, dubbed the White House," in the course of establishing the caliphate which began with the proclamation of an Islamic state in Iraq, he said. The authenticity of the message could not be independently confirmed. "The location chosen by your mujahedeen brethren to set up their state... is but a stepping stone for the leap," Muhajer said, referring to the "Islamic state of Iraq" proclaimed last month. An alliance of Sunni insurgents headed by the Iraq branch of Al-Qaeda announced the creation of an independent Islamic emirate in Iraq in a video posted on the Internet on October 15, after parliament in Baghdad approved a federal constitution for the war-ravaged country. In Friday's message, Muhajer said he had mobilized 12,000 fighters for the Islamic state and was grooming 10,000 more. "I tell the commander of the faithful, the honourable Sheikh Abu Omar al-Baghdadi: I have put 12,000 Al-Qaeda fighters at the disposal of the Islamic state of Iraq," Muhajer said, pledging allegiance to the state's emir. The Al-Qaeda chief appealed to major Iraqi Sunni insurgent groups, notably the Army of Ansar al-Sunna, the Islamic Army of Iraq and the Mujahedeen's Army, to endorse the self-styled state and pledge allegiance to its emir. Muhajer slammed US President George W. Bush, gloated over his Republican party's defeat in mid-term elections widely attributed to US involvement in Iraq, and said US forces occupying the country were preparing to cut and run. "The enemy is now teetering under the blows of the mujahedeen... and preparing to pack up and flee," he said. "I thank the most stupid and worst president America - the country of slaves and drugs - has ever had for giving us this great historic opportunity," said the voice. "The American people have taken the first step on the right path in order to get out of their impasse and have started to realise the treachery of their president and his subordination to Israel, voting for a measure of reason in the latest elections," Muhajer said. "I tell (Bush): don't hurry to flee like your defence minister (Donald Rumsfeld, who resigned on Wednesday). We have still not quenched our thirst for your blood."

You can get it on satellite and cable, you have to pay for it, it's not with the basic packages. I find that you hear more on Fox news that CBC would never tell you about. The left is bitching because they don't want people to hear all sides and don't have the media completely sewn up.

I agree with that. So, if the 'cons' think its their idea, is that the reason Liberals are rejecting it, and I guess it would be perfectly OK if the Liberals had acted on it, and not the CPC? Because if it is the Liberal plan than partisan politics and idealogy are the only reasons for objecting to it.

I believe the majority of canucks are pro-choice with limits, this is confirmed here. I support freedom of choice but have reservations about late term abortions, personally I would restrict abortions in the last 4 months for health of the mother issues. New Poll: Two Thirds of Canadians Want Abortion Restrictions Results Have Remained Consistent over Five Years of Polling http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06110908.html OTTAWA, November 9, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The fifth annual poll on Canadians' opinions on abortion has found that almost two-thirds of the 2,021 people surveyed by Environics Research Group support laws to protect human life before birth. Only three in ten support the current Canadian policy in which there is no legal protection for human beings at any stage of development before birth. The poll was commissioned by LifeCanada, the national educational pro-life group, and includes questions on parental consent for abortion, informed consent and views on tax-funding of abortion. .... http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006_docs/Life...aEnvironics20...

Hmm, I'm not really up on the economics of this, but on the face of it, I can't see this being good for consumers, only the banks. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National Would allow bank mergers, Kennedy says CAMPBELL CLARK OTTAWA -- Liberal leadership candidate Gerard Kennedy called yesterday for Canada to allow its banks to merge, as he carved out a set of business-friendly policies that he said would energize a complacent Canadian economy. Although bank mergers are not usually considered a big vote winner with the Liberal rank and file, Mr. Kennedy said Canada has to shed old practices that handcuff the economy. That includes deregulating the "protected" telecommunications industry to reduce costs for telephone and other telecom services, and action on an issue that has been controversial with Canadians: allowing big chartered banks to merge with each other and perhaps with insurance companies. Mr. Kennedy said current restrictions have not led to more choice for consumers, but they have made Canadian banks less competitive. "We need to allow banks to decide if they're going to become larger," he told business students at Ryerson University in Toronto.

Kudos, its about time we did something about Driving While Drugged http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...0/TPStory/Front PM to unwrap drug-driving bill today GLORIA GALLOWAY Drivers who get behind the wheel while stoned on drugs will be targeted in new legislation to be announced today by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, sources have told The Globe and Mail. Mr. Harper will unveil the legal changes in Kitchener, Ont., where he will be accompanied by Senator Marjorie LeBreton, whose daughter Linda LeBreton-Holmes and her 12-year-old son Brian were killed more than 10 years ago by a drunk driver. Mr. Harper will announce that the Criminal Code will be amended to allow police to apprehend and test drug-impaired drivers, something that previous Liberal governments had tried unsuccessfully to enact, government sources said. That is the very least that the Conservative government plans to do, said Andrew Murie, the chief executive officer of Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada.

[quote name='KrustyKidd' date='Nov 9 2006, 11:38 PM' post='152796' And to make sure that no group such as the Taliban can support terror again. That argument might wash with the crowd who see evil in government but doesn't with those who know what happened on 911 - the day the world woke up. .... Good post Krusty...

LOL As I said, it is not democracy as we know it, but one heck of a big improvement over what they had, golly gee, didn't they actually vote on something a while ago - even the women. Maybe some people think the Afghanis are , you know, not equal to us and really - that vote they had a while ago doesn't count. Maybe some folks think its better that the women live under the previous regime, do we have to post pictures to show what that was like, and how their situation has improved.