scribblet

It is obvious, unless Harper takes a liberal anti U.S. stance he'll be accused of 'caving' etc. Nothing he does or tries to do with the U.S. will appease that crowd, unless he resorts to Bush bashing etc. its a non starter. Our relationship with the U.S. can only go up after the disastrous era of Chretien and Martin and - the press liked the similar jacket Martin wore one time. Scotty Greenwood of the Canadian-American Business Council noted it is politically difficult for the U.S. to single out only the southern border, since "if you are securing the homeland, you are for securing the homeland." Ms. Greenwood suggested it is the responsibility of everyone involved, including the PM, the Canadian embassy, and advocacy groups to deliver the message that the Mexican border is one of challenges and the northern border is one of opportunities (T. Harper: TStar A1 ).

I don't think either of this things had an effect. I think it's this: The defeat of the Martin Liberals meant that the radio jamming of 'scary conservatives' ended. The natural 'bump' a new leader gets after an election. The fact that Harper's qualities are actually very Canadian. He's reserved, soft-spoken and practical. Without the aforementioned radio jamming, he comes across quite well. I agree, people are starting to realize how much crap they were being fed, and how long have we waited for these words "if you do a serious crime, you will face serious time". They are also willing to give him a chance. Finally, a change for the better. But, in a minority situation, he's going to have a hard time passing it - you know how it goes. "oh the poor door, give him another chance' . 'Oh, he only mugged a little old lady, he can be rehabilitated'

I don't have a problem with needing a passport, neither should anyone else, and yes, it is partly Canad'a s fault for having such a porous border. However, it would be nice, if the Canadian gov't reduced the passport fees temporarily and opened some more offices to accomodate the increased demand. Time and cost is a factor for most people, especially for large families.

Mulroney had the best economic record http://www.mcgill.ca/files/economics/Press_Release.pdf Mulroney's numbers best in a half century in updated study by McGill professors In an updated study of Canadian Prime Ministers since the end of World War II, two McGill University professors conclude that Brian Mulroney has the best economic record in the last half century. In the original 1993 study, economist Tom Velk and historian A.R. Riggs, concluded that Mulroney's numbers were the best since Louis St. Laurent presided over the post-war economic boom, one of several reasons–including unavailable measurements and variations for those years–“why we discount to a degree, the St. Laurent ranking.” In any case, they note, “the difference between St. Laurent and Mulroney is small and the difference between either one of them and anyone else is significant.” Seven years later, they have updated their study to include the Chretien years. While Mr. Chretien is still in office and his record still incomplete, they conclude that “when all the numbers are examined, Mr. Chretien's accomplishments aren't enough. Mr. Mulroney remains the man to beat.” The researchers based their conclusions on a composite score of 18 components of the “misery index,” as devised by left-wing economist Arthur Okun, and later elaborated by right-wing economist Robert Barro. In its classic form, the misery index is the sum of two outcome rates, inflation and unemployment. Barro, Velk and Riggs add more variables, such as interest and exchange rates, taxes and deficits, income distribution, growth and productivity. In the post World War II era, the end of the Mackenzie King period is excluded, since not all relevant data for the expanded misery index are available, and the St. Laurent years are somewhat anomalous because of the post-war boom. For example: “Among PMs for whom there is a statistical record, only St. Laurent has significantly better inflation recuperation data than Mulroney, but his record is a consequence of the end of World War II, the recovery from which went on all over the world, without special help from Ottawa.” The two studies compare the economic records of six prime ministers in the post-war period, St. Laurent, John Diefenbaker, Lester B. Pearson, Pierre Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien. The studies do not include the prime ministerships of Joe Clark, John Turner and Kim Campbell, all of whom were in office for a period of months rather than years, and left no economic footprints. On the expanded misery index, a negative score is positive (showing a good over-all record) and a positive score is negative (a bad over-all record). The revised standing for prime ministers, going back to Pearson, benchmarked by the beginning of the fiscal year following their taking office: Misery Index Score Ranking among PMs Pearson: 2.56 2 Trudeau: 5.67* 3 Mulroney: -0.11 1 Chretien: 16.88 4 (*Mr. Trudeau's score is a blended average of his two FY tenures, 69-78, and 80-83) In commenting upon their work, the authors say that their “methodology may explain why Jean Chretien comes up short, in spite of the disappearing deficit and shrinking unemployment. Our benchmarking is based, in part, on how a Prime Minister does given a situation he inherited, on the direction of change during his term, how well he does in comparison with contemporaneous American leaders, and whether his successful policies mark a lasting departure from those of the past.” Mr. Chretien, they contend, “inherited an economy whose fundamentals were sound—low inflation, low interest rates, a shrinking government share of the overall economy, a relatively strong dollar and expanding trade.” One of the tests of economic leadership, Velk and Riggs write, is whether “a leader improves the situation he inherited from the previous government, and outperforms contemporaries in other nations.” On the key expanded misery index tests of inflation and interest rates, the authors note that “Mulroney presided over a general fall in interest rates that lasted more or less his entire time in office. Inflation took a beating during the Mulroney years, dropping to about 1.6% in his final year. Mr. Mulroney, unlike Mr. Chretien, inherited a troubled economy; interest rates and inflation were sky high.” The authors add: “Mulroney's record on unemployment reduction is good. The average level of joblessness during his time in office was two percentage points lower than during the last year of the Trudeau administration. Mulroney's performance on the growth indicator, however, is sub-par, mainly because of the 1990-91 worldwide recession.” When the study is updated to include the Chretien years, and taking into account the

Could you provide a link or source for that?

I agree, guess they have to hide the fact that our military isn't shooting flowers out of their guns, they really do use actual bullets. (well, when they have enough funds for them - )

My wife quit work to home to raise our kids until the last reached middle school. Then she went back. She chose to sacrifice a career working and the money she could have made over 15 years for the benefit of her kids. I dare ya to call her lazy to her face. My daughter and her husband dairy farm and are raising four kids. I dare ya to call her lazy to her face. Well, I don't see why a working parent should be punished once by paying taxes so that your wife could sit home and a second time by not staying home with his/her kids. Generally, I don't care what your wife or any other lazy parent thinks. Sitting on your butt at home is laziness any way you look at it. It does not produce goods or services or anything else, so it should not be rewarded at the expense of people who work for their money! There's nothing lazy about staying home and raising your own kids, rather than putting them in a State run day care facility. Maybe if more parents could afford to stay home and raise their kids there would be less crime and fewer problems. Saw a bumper sticker the other day - "if you can't feed em - don't breed em"

So far I like what I see with the new Tory party. Just read about Paul Martin taking his seat in Parliament, seems he avoided the press - my gosh - avoiding the press - whoda thunk it. LOL Canadians have high hopes for Parliament - http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ed...0b-d6b5af565928 The recent Ipsos Reid poll, conducted before today's opening of the 39th session of Parliament, which says the majority of Canadians want to give time to the Stephen Harper government to implement its main policies, is very important because it indicates the trust the minority government has earned since its victory in the last election. Also, the public is very disappointed with the behaviour of MPs during the last session of the Liberal minority government. The change in the attitude towards the Conservative party in general is perhaps directly related to two major political events in which Canada has been seen to be regaining its international stature. Prime Minister Harper's surprise visit to Afghanistan earned a special place in the hearts of many Canadians. And his recent meeting with President George Bush in Mexico showed he possesses the ability to deal with and solve complex problems with our southern neighbour. Moreover, the opposition parties realize that, if they topple this minority government, their motives will be critically evaluated. This time, the public will not tolerate a repetition of the ugly and uncivil scenes that have undermined our parliamentary democracy.

I'd like to see some proof of the antisemite accusation. As for the homosexuality thing, Douglas' statement that homosexuality was a mental illness was in the context of the criminalization of homosexuality, which he was arguing against. And he never said a thing about locking homosexuals in asylums. I was referring to this "I wouldn't put too much stock in a man who believed in Eugenics and race suicide theory" Tommy addressed the issue of homosexuality in a1968 debate where he said that being gay was a mental illness, and that like other mental illnesses its wrong to hurt people with them for having them, and that it should be cured in a caring manner. There is a link here to a video, about the 6 minute mark. http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-538-2674/p...y/omnibus/clip3 Don't forget T. Douglas was a Babtist minister in a time when most people where not exactly pro homosexuality. http://www.cbcwatch.ca/?q=node/view/1807 Applying good eugenics doctrine to his chosen land, the Scottish-born Douglas described at length and in painful detail his solution for Canada's economic problems. Canadians must be bred scientifically, he said. People of lesser intelligence or deficient morality – natives, criminals, adulterers are specifically designated – should be sterilized. Homosexuals who persist in their perverse conduct should be incarcerated in insane asylums. There are lots of other references if you do a search, but so far no link to the actual paper. Thats a tad off topic, I still believe that multicult. creates divisions and creates suspicions, it also breeds alienation causing groups to live apart and separate from the mainstream and mainstream opportunities. People from other cultures should accomodate to Canadian society and leave any hostilities and discriminations behind them.

I wouldn't because of internet security issues etc. Never a good idea to reveal anything personal about yourself on line. I might if it were private and not in googles cache or whatever. I belong to a private yahoo discussion group where real names and ridings are used, but membership has to be vetted and posts cannot be found doing an on line search.

Are you thinking J.S. Woodsworth, not Douglas? No, Tommy Douglas was an anti semite, he also wrote his thesis on Eugenics for his McMaster's degree in sociology. He published in 1933 and it read like something from Mein Kampf. He also said homosexuals should be incarcerated in asylums. To be fair, he wasn't out of step with many people at that time, and I do believe he recanted the eugenics theory after Hitler actually put those ideas into practice. I did have a link to it but I have a slow connection now and am using my laptop, so don't have the info. The CBC of course failed to mention any of that in its biography. There are many differences in cultures that we should not celebrate nor should we embrace, not all customs etc. are beneficial to Canada. e.g. poor treatment of women by some groups and intolerance of other religions.

In the US it's not the guest workers who are the problem it's the illegal immigrants. Other countries have guest worker programs, and it is a positive net benefit to the economy. It seems that your only objection is the enforcement of the program rules, not with the concept. Your right, the concept is okay as long as the rules are strictly enforced. Also, only if no Canadians want the jobs.

It's not unreasonable to put strings to foreign aid - in fact you hope that there are strings. Canada has already thrown the olive branch, "Mr Hamas, renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist and we will turn the money spiggot back on" Hamas has allready refused to renounce violence, and refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist. Until they agree to both conditions, there should be no aid. All foreign aid should have strings attached and stringent controls, why should our tax dollars go to line the pocket of the local despots? Palestine received billions in aid, what did they do with it - not much. Maybe if they used it to build up their infrastructure and economy instead of building bombs, they too would be able to 'make the desert bloom'

I wouldn't put too much stock in a man who believed in Eugenics and race suicide theory. link So did Tommy Douglas. Whenever someone wants a reasonable discussion of multicult., the race baiting liberals strike again ! Most Canadians abhor racial discrimination, but Official multicult. does just that; it divides people into different tribes, each with their own hearth. While we should recognize individual rights we need not recognize group rights. While we all should be tolerant and respectful of other beliefs, any Country needs universally shared values and norms to bind it together, without that, there isn't a Country. Today, multicult. in Canada (and in Europe) is challenging 'liberal norms', dividing countries and descending into violence. Promoting official multicult. only promotes division and racial divides, and encourages some groups to believe that they can impose their will on the host country.

Definitely not, they won't leave then we'll have as a big a problem as the U.S. They are at the core of the demonstrations and are now demanding that they stay because it's 'their' continent and the land was stolen from them.

I havn't seen anyone acknowledge such a thing, I do not believe he has anything to hide, didn't see anyone else saying such a thing either. I do believe he is doing this because they have been burned badly by a predominently liberal media, and until Parliament resumes, they are playing it safe and not giving them anything to misinterpret or spin.

Me too, they think because they are 'stars' their opinion counts more than others. I saw that clip on Hannity and Colmes, Baldwin did throw the first punch, don't think he expected Hannity to call in as he did. Mind you, Hannity can get a bit much sometimes, and Colmes isn't a strong enough debator to take him on.

Global warming is not proven to be a result of human action. For all we know its a natural cycle. True, and I happen to believe its part of earth's natural cycle, but pollution is just exacerbating it. I somehow doubt that man can do much of anything to stop it. Here's another theory. http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html A new theory to explain global warming was revealed at a meeting at the University of Leicester (UK) and is being considered for publication in the journal "Science First Hand". The controversial theory has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil. Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface. Shaidurov has used a detailed analysis of the mean temperature change by year for the last 140 years and explains that there was a slight decrease in temperature until the early twentieth century. This flies in the face of current global warming theories that blame a rise in temperature on rising carbon dioxide emissions since the start of the industrial revolution. Shaidurov, however, suggests that the rise, which began between 1906 and 1909, could have had a very different cause, which he believes was the massive Tunguska Event, which rocked a remote part of Siberia, northwest of Lake Baikal on the 30th June 1908. The Tunguska Event, sometimes known as the Tungus Meteorite is thought to have resulted from an asteroid or comet entering the earth's atmosphere and exploding. The event released as much energy as fifteen one-megaton atomic bombs. As well as blasting an enormous amount of dust into the atmosphere, felling 60 million trees over an area of more than 2000 square kilometres. Shaidurov suggests that this explosion would have caused "considerable stirring of the high layers of atmosphere and change its structure." Such meteoric disruption was the trigger for the subsequent rise in global temperatures.

Yeah, he eats babies for breakfast too you know LOL Considering Canada has been brainwashed by Trudopean propaganda, Harper's doing the CPC a favour by playing safe for a while and limiting the ability of the liberal media to do them any damage right off the bat. The media is the author of their own current 'problems', they created it. Harper knows full well that the liberal press will be all over him like a wet blanket, spinning and weaving if only one minister gets a loose lip. We've witnessed this over and over again so why would Harper fall into that trap now.

Imagine if we were still governed by the Martinites. We would be farting around forever on the issue. I like Harper's approach to foreign affairs. Decisive. Well it is easier when you get your direction from whatever GW is doing, it takes a lot less effort.... Can't wait till the TTC or something is attacked, I wonder what else we can do to make ourselves a target, I mean is Afghanistan really enough? Thats a crock about getting drections from GW, why can't people leave their hatred for Bush out of it? I certainly hope we are not a target, but we are on Bin Laden's To Do list, and I would hate to think that Canada would be afraid to stand up for freedom and against terrorism out of fear and blackmail from terrorists. Not to mention we have our own home grown terrorist wannabees. Maybe we shouldn't prosecute him for fear of upsetting AQ http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...04-f009b2698364 Ottawa man tried to arm model plane with bomb, court told Brother had a role in plot directed by senior al-Qaeda figure, informant testifies Momin Khawaja of Ottawa was devising a way to fit a remote-controlled model airplane with explosives, a London terrorism trial of seven Britons charged with plotting to bomb sites in Britain heard yesterday. What's more, the trial was told, a senior al-Qaeda figure in Pakistan wanted the men to unleash a simultaneous wave of bombings in Britain in 2004. Potential targets, court has heard, included a London nightclub, pubs, trains and a major mall east of the British capital. Yesterday's revelations from star prosecution witness Mohammed Babar are the first in which a witness has said the plot was directed and controlled by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network.

Ezra has my $$ on this one !!!

I'm more concerned about the destruction of my country. Good, in that case you should be Harper is now PM, and gaining in popularity

Note that Muslims are also suing Denmark. This is nothing but a blatant attempt to stop free speech, if they win this and other suits, the funamentalists an proponants of a theocratic Islamic society will win. http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2...rn_standar.html Earlier this month, the Western Standard was sued in human rights court for publishing the Danish cartoons. It's been ten years since I've graduated from law school, and I've never seen a more frivolous, vexatious, infantile suit than this. But that's the point -- this complaint is not about beating us in the law. Freedom of speech is still in our constitution; we'll win in the end. It's a nuisance suit, designed to grind us down, cost us money, and serve as a warning to other, more timid media. The hand-written scrawl and the spelling errors were what first disgusted me with the suit; but the arguments were what really got me. The complainant, Imam Syed Soharwardy, a former professor at an anti-Semitic university in Saudi Arabia, doesn't just argue that we shouldn't have published the cartoons. He argues that we shouldn't be able to defend our right to publish the cartoons. The bulk of his complaint was that we dared to try to justify it. He argues that advocating a free press should be a thought crime.

And rightly so, good for Harper. Its about time the western world stood up to these terrorists, how much aid did the people actually see before? Not much, it went into Arafat's pockets, any aid we send will likely go for buying bombs. There never was a 'palestine', but IMHO most people will accept a new state of Palestine as long as they agree to peace an accept Israel's right to exist.

Britain has been suffering from socialism for a long time, thats a big part of their problems, and a union stranglehold. France has a good mix and is successful, it was rated Nol 1 some time ago, don't know where it stands now. Just curious, but would you pay for private care for a loved one if it would save their life?