Cameron

You know, this is what gets me....The Cons. have been in power since Jan, not even a year. Everyone wants them to pull a miracle out of their ass. The Libs were in for 14 years and accomplish some things, and didn't accomplish others. All of a sudden the Cons. are in power and everyone wants the country to change overnight. Policy takes time. And it's even more difficult working with a slim minority. If you want the Cons. to show some results, give them a four year term. I don't care who runs the Liberals, it's still filled with bad apples. They need to sit out the next few.

On top of that Normie, if the deal was "so bad", why did the Provinces sign on...hmmm....

It's amazing watching a conversation by two agreeing people....

On a more broader note, yes Halifax is a city of cowards. We are represented by the NDP afterall. *I know, I know...it was a cheap shot*

Can you clarify on an incident? Or is this just ramblings?

I wonder what type of quality controls they have in place for getting the drugs to market?

1,026 Canadians, wow....that's a lot. Wonder if they called a bunch of Liberals. I take polls with a grain of salt. Even if they are for Conservatives.

Source Article Thanks for the info Norman.

Ugh...that's a loaded issue...

Cheers Army Guy....thanks for kicking some ass on our behalf.

That was a sarcastic remark. I was hoping you would post some links, etc....

And we want to make sure those with short memories don't forget the corruption of the Liberals... Very true. And for those pundits that will come out of the wood work now that we've talked about corruption. Please prove that Mulroney was corrupt. (Ya gotta get the jump on them Ricki)

Often they are. Sinking income trust investors, arming border guards at a cost of a billion dollars to protect us from America, planning an obviously unconstitutional move on SSM, caving on softwood lumber, luring Emerson after criticising Belinda, carrying on in Afghanistan without a plan, agrandizing a senator after crapping on the senate ... not much good there. And what has he done on the positive side? I can't think of anything-- no, wait... adding to the military budget, increasing Arctic sovereignty patrols, telling Bush where to get off once or twice -- those were alright. It's funny that every time Harper is criticised tory supporters ask 'were the Liberals any better', or something like that. It's as Conservatives have totally internalized the concept of Liberals as the measure of everything. Quite paradoxical, really. And that is your basis for all that is bad about Conservatives. It's weak. 1) Until you show me your qualification on Income Trusts and the recent changes, you nor I have the authority to make a decision on weather it was a bad more or good move. 2) Arming border guards is not something that should be looked at as a waste of money. We have police that are armed, so it should be a reasonable assumption that the people that protect our borders should be armed as well. And I don't know what this "Protect us for America" bit was about, but it sounds typical of the standard liberal generalization about America. Arming border guards is about them being able to protect themselves if they encounter someone who is threatening. Also to add to this point, what good are border guards if they walk away from their posts when they are threatened. 3)The unconstitutional move on SSM started with Paul Martin when he whipped his cabinet to vote on the side of the government. I see NO objection to bringing it back to the house for a vote. I will accept what the outcome is either way. 4) Tell me how they caved in. I will go back to my point about income trusts. Show me you are qualified to make comments on the deal and I will discuss them with you. 5) The floor crossing by Emerson. Yes, a shot in the foot. It wasn't in good taste. But it was different than Belinda's departure. 6) Afghanistan is a NATO run mission. Canada has a limited role in guiding the troops. Should we have a clear plan outlined by OUR government, yes, and I hope that plan come to light in the coming months. But so far I like the way things are progressing in Afghanistan. The mission security that our troops are trying to provide is an important piece to rebuilding Afghanistan. 7) I haven't heard about the Senator issue. If you can provide a link, it would be much appreciated. 1i) And the reason we like to compare, is because the Liberal government was the only government for the past 14 years. They carry a lot of baggage with them.

And you did a study on this or something?

OK you friigin idiot. It is a university somewhere between the BC and Saskatchewan border that has been designed to blend in with the friggin landscape. Does that help you, you friggin idiot? Higgly...stop it.

Betsy, you are an ignorant bigot. Why don't you and Argus get together? Otherwise, I would have to tell the two of you to go f*ck yourselves. Calm down Higgly. Save the street talk for the street or PMs.

No. The internmenship of Muslims won't do anything but cause more problems. If there is an "Islamofacist" attack on Canada from extremists then we should seek out how they committed the attack and prevent future ones. In regards to Muslims and the fact there is a sect of their religion that is coming out and performing these attacks, we should consult with the major Muslim leads and emphasise that they need to help is in any way possible. I am not opposed to putting pressure on the major Muslim leader to take a stand against terrorism. The argument should be made that if they preach peace as the basis of their religion then they should be practicing it on the ground. This can be done in the form of help to authorities in capturing terrorists, if knowledge about their actions or future actions is known to some members of a congregation. This can be expanded with new information that may arise from such an attack if it were to occur in the future.

and now that's changed to Gerry, the first argument was in regards to the comment you posted in THIS post. The second in regards to other posts. Gerry, I appreciate you comments on my comments. I will not ignore your posts in the future, but I will make rebuttals to them, and I'm sure there will be a lot. But the fact that we are having a civilized discussion without personal attacks or threats is something that we should applaud. Some people don't get this chance.

Yes Gerry I am a supporter of Harper, the CPC, and its policies. I was a supporter when I joined this forum over three years ago and I still am to this day. Gerry. I want you to REALLY look at Harper and the Conservatives. Are they REALL that bad? Are they making irrational decisions on policy? And can you say for a fact that the past Liberal government were of any good? Harper and the CPC are doing a good job in this country with the little power they have. I think that a more constructive look at their policies and practices is what you need to undertake. As a fellow forum member said before, attack the play not the ball (Think that's how it went). The constant attacking of Steven Harper will get you nowhere but put in the group of disenchanted Liberals that don't take light to the fact that governing the country is no longer their responsibility. Remember, argue the argument, not the person. Take those points Gerry and you might garner some respect for other forum members. You have mine somewhat, but it's razor thin only because I have faith that you will forget about this personal attacking on Harper and begin to tackle the arguments. Have a good Sunday Gerry.

I wouldn't say that Gery is attacking Steven Harper, just merely making light of the fact that he doesn't like our glorious leader. The fact of the matter is Gerry, I've noticed that your posts tend to be anti-conservative. Now I have not read all of your post, and to be honest with you, I tend to ignore you posts when I see them. You can continue to keep posting here, I won't object. But do you think posts like this are really beneficial to the forum. There is nothing really here to discuss. It's more of a post to poke at Harper more. Gerry, if you want some respect I suggest you think your posts out more. Try making some real arguments instead of just throwing stuff out there that is against Harper or the Conservatives. That's my two cents.

Craig Read had an interesting point of view. He was a conservative that's for sure. You can see that in his web page. He did have a tendency to be abusive to other members when there was a discussion going on, and that was the reason why he was banned. It's an unfortunate consequence but he didn't abide by the rules. But above and beyond that he has an interesting point of view, one that I enjoyed. Black Dog, if you didn't like his page you didn't have to visit. Making posts like this just shows that you are chauvinistic and pompous, a person merely looking for attention. If you don't like it, don't read it or at leased try and make an intelligent post.

It's not about just protecting Canada off the shores of the country. This war in Afghanistan is about protecting Canadian interests as well as protecting our right to protect ourselves by making places around the world less inhabited by god-willing-killing terrorists. Having boots on the ground in Afgh. means that we are willing to go to the front door of the terrorists and knock. This mission is one of utmost importance, and must be completed. Some food for thought. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sud-IdjIV-o

Craig Read, by far the person I miss the most from this forum. He was posting back when there was 250 members and this place was like Club54...a neat little group. Unfortunantly he had kind of a hot head and Greg had to let him go. I fought for him. He still lives on from his webpage http://www.craigread.com/

I personally like the Leopard line more than the Abrams line. The Abrams are fuel pigs. I've heard good things about the Leopards, mind you this was from a show on Dico channel, so I would have to get an opinion of a military specialist to make an educated argument.

Cheers to that brother.