scribblet

I wondered how long it would be before the 'gay bashing' thing would raise its head, but I'm not aware of any 'gay bashing' legislation. If he is referring to Bill C-250 there was legitimate reason for voting against it due to the lack of protection for religious institutions and freedom of speech; there is a big difference between 'gay bashing' and voicing an opinion against SSM, which is the crux of the matter IMO. Being against redefining SSM, while giving civil unions with full and equal protections under the law is not 'gay bashing' nor is it homophobic, whatever that is supposed to mean these days. Canadians don't have the free speech protection enjoyed in the U.S. but IMHO, the continual references to gay bashing etc. and the scary scary Harper 'theocon' smears are wearing thin. Daryl Reid has as much right as an atheist to be involved in politics, I thought all groups were entitled to participate in democracy, but evidently freedom of speech and democracy is only for some people, not all.

It doesn't suit the agenda to acknowledge that, although they are not a democracy as we know, but a lot better than under the Taliban. At least women can go to school and even run for public office Even the Toronto Star thinks progress is being made http://www.thestar.com/ NATO making a difference in Afghanistan Five years after the ousting of the Taliban, the country is making progress in democracy, education, health care and equality, writes NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer Nov. 10, 2006. 01:00 AM On Nov. 13, 2001, coalition and Northern Alliance forces took Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan. The Taliban was ousted from power, and Al Qaeda lost its safe haven. It was an important day for the people of Afghanistan, who were liberated from a terrible oppressor. It was also important for the international community, which began a major effort to help build a new Afghanistan: democratic, at peace, and no longer a threat to the world. Five years later, what has been the result? Are we making a difference? Have the lives of the Afghans gotten better — and are we, in the international community, safer than we were? The answer is a clear "yes." It is sometimes difficult, as we read media accounts of suicide attacks and roadside bombs, to step back and look at the big picture. But anniversaries are the opportunity to do just that. And the big picture — the story of Afghanistan five years after the fall of the Taliban — should encourage all of us who believe in what we are helping to build there. # Democracy: Five years ago, there was no national government and no democracy. Today, Afghanistan has held a series of successful elections, and now has a constitution, an elected president and parliament. # Equality: Women, banished from society under the Taliban, are now in government. Eighty-seven women, 25 per cent of the total number of MPs, sit in the National Assembly. Almost four in 10 Afghan children in school are girls — from around zero five years ago. # Health care: 80 per cent of the population now has access to health care, up 10 times from 2001. For a country at Afghanistan's stage of development, this is extremely high. # Education: Almost 6 million Afghan children are in school, six times more than 2001. Enrolment in higher education is up 10 times, to more than 40,000. And despite a big increase this year in attacks by the Taliban, killing teachers and burning down schools, more than 1,000 schools have been built or opened so far this year. # Economy: The Afghan economy has tripled in value in the past five years and per capita income has doubled. People simply have more money in their pocket.

I thought this was a pretty good article, JOHN IBBITSON Stephen Harper, a neo-conservative ideologue, has suffered a crippling blow. His fellow traveller in the White House got "thumped" in the midterm elections. American voters repudiated the bellicose, socially conservative and militarist agenda of George W. Bush, signalling a centrist shift in the American consensus, leaving the Canadian Conservative Prime Minister isolated, discredited and facing his own, inevitable comeuppance. That's the story you're going to hear. Now let's look at reality. -snip- First, Mr. Harper is no Bush clone. There does not exist, in this country, a single hard-line conservative leading a major political party. Mr. Harper supports a publicly funded health-care system, a publicly funded postsecondary education system, a national welfare system, federal support for child care, and the rights of homosexuals to full civil unions with all of the benefits (though not the name) of marriage. This puts Mr. Harper on the left of the Democratic Party, the same place where Ralph Klein, Mike Harris, Stockwell Day and even Preston Manning would have found themselves had they been transplanted south of the border. -snip- But that doesn't make Stephen Harper a George W. Bush clone, any more than the Prime Minister's tendency to say "God Bless Canada" at the end of his speeches makes him a raving theo-con. And it will always be in Canada's interest to seek new markets and other geopolitical partners, both in Asia and in Europe. All of us expect this Prime Minister to pursue that mission. -snip- http://tinyurl.com/yc5de3 Globe and Mail

None of them mean much until the actual election. Two or three days ago there was a poll that came up with - 60% of Canadians feel the Liberals are not yet ready to govern again. At the same time the latest Ipsos poll came out that says nothing has changed much since election day. they had the Conservatives at 37% (up 1% since the election), the Liberals at 29% (down 1%), the NDP at 19% (up 1%), the BQ at 9% (down 1%) and the so-called Greens at 4% (unchanged) I don't have the links, might have been Ipsos Reid and no time right no to look.

Pretty much both which served neither country's best interests. There's a big difference between acting like a lapdog and having a working relationship to our benefit. You can continue with the hate U.S./bashing rhetoric but it serves no good purpose in the end and no one wins.

LOL some them had to know, there were ridings in Quebec which benefited from adscam money in their campaigns. Don't forget back in 2002 Paul Martin was urged by a senior Liberal party official to ook into rumours that federal money was being improperly funnelled through the government's sponsorship program for "partisan purposes," according to the National Post at that time. Paul Martin was sent a letter around February, 2002, asking him to "prepare a fact-based reply" to "the growing rumours that funds from the sponsorship programme are being diverted" through advertising firms closely linked to the Liberals. Sure a lot of them knew, or were aware there was something scammy going on.

They would tell you that SAF operates in Afghanistan under a UN mandate and will continue to operate according to current and future UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. ISAF’s mission was initially limited to Kabul. Resolution 1510 passed by the UNSC on 13 October 2003 opened the way to a wider role for ISAF to support the Government of Afghanistan beyond Kabul.

It seems that way lately, funny thing is if Harper hadn't acted on the trusts for instance, they would be bitching about corporations getting a tax vacation and Harper being a corporate whore, while establishing a cordial working relationship with our largest trading partner isn't acceptable to the U.S. haters. Too bad idealogy gets in the way of reason and clouds judgements . As for the environment and Kytoto even Chretien verbalized to the press that Kyoto was unattainable and he had no intention of keeping the commitment. The Liberals for 13 years antagonized the U.S. , Chretien practically ignored them and we now have a different direction in which we are more open to a working relationship while not cowtowing to them e.g. we are firmly establishing our Arctic sov. Obviously one catches more flies with honey than they do with vinegar There is a difference between constructive critique and partisian attacks - the latter appears to be increasing, misplaced anger maybe because the Liberals are no longer the 'natural governing party' and all the scary doom and gloom prophecies have not materialized. Oh well, this is getting to be a bit repetitious, same old same old...

Very similar situation to the liberals here. If the dems want to win the next election they have to come up with clear policy, particularly on Iraq, so far it is strictly opposition but no solutions offered.

Would you rather have that money staying in Canada or given to US lumber producers? Definitely. What is interesting is that the Canadian media and others continue to pretend that the American position on Softwood lumber is a 'violation' of NAFTA. If memory serves, softwood was specifically excluded from the original NAFTA Agreement precisely because we disagree with them as to whether our low stumpage fees amount to government subsidy. If so then their 'ignoring' the NAFTA rulings makes sense - in other words Canada's entire strategy on Softwood has been to persecute the Americans under trade rules that we specifically excluded softwood from, for fear that they would use those rules to prosecute us for our stumpage fees. However,, we should welcome stability to the softwood industry, which has been in and out of courts, WTO and NAFTA panels for years, during which we lost millions. I suppose for those who wouldn't like the deal no matter what simply because it was a deal struck by Harper, they would prefer we continue to bleed millions and never settle anything.

Here's a list of ballot initiatve results, interesting. I wish we had something similar, that we could vote on major issues. Arizona voted for English as the Official language. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/res...allot.measures/

It looks like this will pass, good work. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...379&k=70444 Tories' gun bill gets green light from opposition OTTAWA -- Liberal and New Democrat MPs suggested Tuesday they are prepared to vote for the Conservatives' bill to impose stiffer jail terms for gun crimes, apparently clearing the way for its passage in the Commons with some minor tinkering but no major overhaul. Opposition members of the all-party justice committee, with the exception of the Bloc Quebecois, gave Justice Minister Vic Toews an easy ride as he appeared to defend the bill, which he said is designed to reduce the "scourge of gun violence that plagues our country." Both the Liberals and the NDP, mainly in response to an increase in gun violence in Toronto and other major cities, promised during the election campaign earlier this year to increase minimum mandatory jail terms, but their remedies did not go as far as the Conservative plan for minimum sentences of 10 years for the most extreme, repeat offences.

I think I would vote Democrat if I were in the U.S. The democrats are closer to our conservatives, although it would depend on the candidate too. Now that people are celebrating the rise of the democrats can we assume that we will see and end to all the foolish overseas fighting and negotiate with the reasonable elements of the Taliban and AlQaeda; in fact if they hurry they may be able to overturn Saddam's guilty plea. Last night's win has assured "PEACE IN OUR TIME".

Having said that I do believe the Dems. have a protectionist attitude, which makes it even more fortunate that we have the lumber deal. It could be a political gridlock until the next elections.

Actually I'd be interested in knowing how many individuals the income trust business actually hurt, especially low to middle income seniors. I'm guessing not very many, most including myself had probably never heard of them until a year or so ago and which time some may have rushed out and gambled their money on them. Besides, no one has lost anything unless they actually cashed them in, its all on paper. There's no magic bullet when investing and no guarrantees, anyone who dumped everything or most in one pot were not informed fully on the issue.

Not worth it.

[quote[True but it often depends on the existing governments view on using anti Americanism as a political tool. Exactly! Blind hatred for Bush and for some reason hatred of Harper clouds their judgement. As I said somewhere else (so many of the same type of threads) I recognized that what Harper has done is best for the country, the softwood lumber deal included. Under previous gov'ts we were bleeding money and no negotiated settlement in sight, the lawyers fees etc. were astronomical. Now we have a settlement, not a 100% acceptable to all, but infinitely better than what we had. An acceptable end to which the Liberals were not able to manage. All of these complaints seem to be rooted in ideology and extreme anger at the loss of power (or inability to gain power as in NDP) rather than what is best for Canada and I suspect, the fact that all of the scare mongering about Harper has proven to be just that - hot air. Canadians have seen through that and won't buy into it again.

ROTFLMAO now I've heard everything talk about a vocal minority !

Where did I say that? He'll have an amicable working relationship with whoever is in power, it only makes sense - as for Ontario, you can't please all of the provinces all of the time. Just some of them some of the time...

Maybe the lefties are having a bad hair day - BTW this has been the 52nd coolest October on record (1895-2006).

Rae Days who can forget that....Ontario won't The loss of power for Bush will have no effect on Harper, thats just hypobele, a knee jerk reaction to liberal losses. Bush is in his last two years and a lame duck president anyway, two years from now I anticipate a democratic win and withdrawal from Iraq. Afghanistan is a little different, depends on NATO, and neither is it likely that the liberals would pull out completely, they would likely honour the committment as they put them there in the first place.

Me too....although I would have liked to see Dianne Ablonsky have a crack at the leadership. It's almost surreal how liberals can't get over their loss of power, it seems to be clouding their judgement .

Personally I don't care what anyone's G.d' says, I don't agree with changing the defintion of marriage. A civil union or whatever, does not deprive individuals of fundamental rights that marriage normally confers - they are entitled to all benefits etc. SSM is not a fundamental human right. The UN Commission on Human Rights upheld a New Zealand court decision that same sex marriage is not a basic universal human right. No national or international court or human rights tribunal has ever ruled that same sex marriage is a human right. However, thats off topic and been rehashed umpteen times. The reason the gay escort spoke out was because of political considerations, a chance to sway voters and change the vote.

Dream on.

Maybe because they really don't have anything else to chastize her on. Talk about shallow and petty, they've gone down a notch in my estimation. BTW, by 2010 China will have exceeded the U.S. on pollution - and under Kyoto we would be buying credits from China....go figure