daniel

I remember that. Chretien's response was "It's true I do talk from one side of my mouth. But the Conservatives talk from both sides of their mouths." Which we have seen is true and repeated by Harper. First he was blue, then green, and most recently shades of pink.

So you do realize that as soon as the government implements conservative policies, they'll fall out of favour again. Feels good to know that to have good government, they have to be Liberals, huh?

Well, you know. These attack ads would have appeared no matter who the Liberal leader was. And admit it, except for a select few, most of us at one time or another was demographically a target of Conservative attacks anyways.

The party that currently calls itself the Conservatives might as well go through another in their many name changes. This time they should call themselves the Liberals. After all, having governed most of the 2006 enacting their own doctrines, they've only found out on December 3rd to reverse their declining popularity they have to ditch their own postitions and adopt Liberal policies instead. And it's worked. They've now: collaborated with the NDP turned green and turned pro-Kyoto; thrown money at Quebec; thrown money at the cities; thrown money at the farmers; Questioned bank fees; What's left to do is to re-instate the following: the Kelowna Accord; the Liberal Universal Daycare Program say anything to get elected. Wonder how it feels to be a conservative these days. To gain acceptance you have to deny your true identity. Mike Harris and Tony Clement must be spinning in their graves.

Hey haven't you noticed? Left wing guy sends money to foreign country and rightwingers are unhappy. Right wing guy sends aide to a foreign country and they are unhappy. But it's the Right wing guys who criticize "throwing money at problems", who preach efficiency, do more with less, hand-up not a hand-out. So the rightwing guys have recently been acting like the left wing guys they used to criticize.

It's no surprise the Tories' popularity has increased since December 3rd, since that's the day they discovered to gain support they to have appear to ditch Conservative policies in favour of Liberal policies instead. So the election issue should be "who's more Liberal, the Conservative or the Liberals?"

Per the insistance of the right-wing community including the Reform/Canadian Alliance/ Conservative Party and their scaremongering that Canada will become a 3rd world nation, the Liberals brought the budget into surplus territory. Any discussion or effort for environmentalism was criticized by Manning, Klein, Harper and their gang with catch phrases such as "made-in-Canada Solution". The biggest achievement was in-fact done by Dion in only one night. On December 3, 2006 he single-handedly converted Harper into an environmental Prime Minister despite his opinions of the past 20years.

You have your leaders confused. That would be Harper of the Conservative Party.

Bottom line is: Who's near the top? Dixie Chicks. Who's near the bottom? Bush. and we haven't heard from those Liberal-haters in a while: Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, etc.

We are an open society that welcomes people and opinions from far away lands. We believe in the right of free speech provided that ones rights respect and do not infringe against rights of others.

And running for the Republicans: Cheney/Perle

Adaptation? "creeping normalcy"? disinclination to change? That kind of thinking is already discribed here. http://www.cameronsmith.ca/content/view/386/2/

Strawman in action.

Hey August, I see you're still digging up the old tactics once used to denigrate the anti-Iraq War/WMD activists. It's the same method used by the Creationists (who evolved into the Intelligence Designers). Get on with it. Some of your points have long been disputed. Have you heard the latest news? Harper and Bush have both accepted the science that global warming is a fact attributable to human activity. Get on the band-wagon. You know, you people have always religiously backed Harper and Bush even when they were wrong and shown to be wrong. Is Harper and Bush going to lose your political support now? Or do you know something about their new-found position the rest of us don't? It can't be that Harper will say anything just to get elected now can it? Please tell us.

What Section, Article, Clause or Amendment of the Constitution has Bush violated? I've read our Constitution, as well as your Charter of Wrongs and No Rights. Have you? This is exactly the kind of discussion that will surely arise if Arar were permitted back in, so the Bush Government would rather avoid the whole thing by keeping Arar on the watch list. You're telling me that Arer is a major factor in Bush's ability to hold office? You have to be kidding. Who said anything about "Bush's ability to hold office?" Not me. We are discussing why Arar is still on the watch list. The intelligence that the RCMP gave to the US was faulty. As faulty as the evidence that lead to the invasion of Iraq. Again, Arar would represent all that was faulty of the Bush government policy since 911. So the easy way to avoid it is simply to keep Arar out of the country. You can also say "You have got to be kidding" if the US government tried to deport a musician but nevertheless, Richard Nixon tried it on John Lennon.

What Section, Article, Clause or Amendment of the Constitution has Bush violated? I've read our Constitution, as well as your Charter of Wrongs and No Rights. Have you? This is exactly the kind of discussion that will surely arise if Arar were permitted back in, so the Bush Government would rather avoid the whole thing by keeping Arar on the watch list.

In the context of the Patriot Act and the premise of the Iraq War, who needs truth, facts, and evidence?

Gonzales never attempted to mentioned this when questioned by Lehey. If this were true, surely Gonzales would be defending their decisions using this kind of argument as evidence. The reason now is totally political. If Arar were to arrive in the United States, he would be recognized by the media and all of Bush's opponents as a symbol representing the worst mistakes of Bush's uncostitutional policies.

Remember the one about Iraq and the WMDs? How about the one about Al-Qaeda and Iraq? Or the one involving the statement "In and out, not a moment longer?"

Ironic. Opinions of the original poster do come from the dark ages.

Jeremy Rifkin's book "The End of Work" describes how the standard work hours had been reduced from 18hr per day back in the industrial revolution to the current standard 40hr per week. Along with each wave of mechanization replacing manual labour, long range trend had shown workers with reduce hours in expanding work environments. In meetings with top CEOs and politicians, he found that they generally agreed that reducing the workweek would increase employment, productivity, and also keep costs under control. Unforturnately, again the political will, due to the short sighted corporate lobby, isn't there to enact it. Only a fanatical rightwinger would tag anybody who wants to work less than 60hr/week lazy.

Wrong! Their reason d'etre is to ... There are two factors which make up a government deficit or a surplus: The amount the government spends and the amount the government collects. If it deems (correctly) that it is spending too much, it shoudl cut, independ of how much it collects, and hence independant of if there is a surplus or deficit. Conservatives think that all spending is too much. Oops - except corporate welfare and the military. As I have experienced in the past thirty years, they will haphazardly cut-cut-cut regardless of surplus, deficit or tax rate. Surplus situation: Requires tax cuts which leads to spending cuts which leads to surpluses (maybe) leading to tax cuts. Deficit situation: Requires spending cuts until we have the above situation. This endless cycle will continue until John Kenneth Galbraith's prophecy is met: "If the Right had their way, nobody would be working."

Equally valued work is obviously equally paid. An employer shows their intrepretation of value by how much you get paid. Anything else is BS. You should have a good argument with BBM who is in favour of this. Women have traditionally made only 60% (maybe more now) of what men make for the same work position. Anything else is... Or people should deal with their own problems. Do you think the government should tie your shoes in the morning too? That's really being in touch with the populace isn't it? Let them eat cake. So you think education is a bad thing? You think the welfare snitch line was bad?? For a government who promised less government, they've been the most intrusive in Ontario history. That's comparable to Communist China during the Cultural Revolution. You don’t think that's bad? I suppose you didn’t think anything was wrong with GWBush wiretapping US citizens. Mmm... corporate welfare. The favourite thing of socialist parties. And what has conservative governments done about corporate welfare? This was also Harris' platform - but another broken promise. . Interesting how Harper’s government cut $2billion out of budgets but left the oil subsidies alone. Guess it’s not called corporate welfare when you receive it, huh? Because they weren't economically viable. Lame excuse. Where there's a will, there's a way. Industries from automotive to food have always resisted any type of restriction and regulation until it's been legislated. Then, surprise, surprise, it can be done. Are you that lazy? Sheesh. 60hrs(??) In the words of Francois Mitterand "Is he for real?" LOL. A response just for the sake of a response. No substance. Privatization... hmm... what out of privatization has hurt anyone? 407, health insurance, auto insurance, Air Canada, airport security, etc... That's really being in touch with the populace isn't it? Let them eat cake. A response just for the sake of a response. No substance. You think nurses are useless, huh? Harris later tried to hire some back and then lied with a claim his government increased health care spending. Harris never did admit to his failures. He just let his people take the blame. That's Harris all over. You'll never hear an "I take full responsibility" speech out of him.

deleted due to formats.

One created that cash cow, Hwy 407, but wasn't invited to the grand opening. The other was at the grand opening and soon gave away control of it along with all the potential income. One introduced equal pay for work of equal value. The other one cancelled it. One introduced the study for early childhood education. The other cut funding to education and told parents to dump their kids on their neighbours and elderly parents. One introduced JobsOntario to help train out-of-work people to get back into the workforce. The other introduced the welfare snitch line and historically failed workfare programs into Ontario. One saved Algoma and DeHavilland. The other couldn't have cared less, but showed up for the unveiling of the Global Express, anyways. One put a ban on exporting municipal waste out of municipal boundaries. The other cancelled the ban, which set in place the garbage fiasco of Kirkland Lake, Michigan, and now Greenlane. The cancellation set aggressive recycling and waste management programs back eight years. One was studying the 35hr work week. The other introduced the 60hr work week. One inherited a recession and set forth programs and spending to get Ontario back out. The other inherited an economic boom but lost major revenue due to tax cuts so ended up privatizing and wholesale selling of crown property which in turn resulted in further reduction in revenue. One tried to control government spending by having government employees one day a month without pay while maintaining their job security. The other said they were going the way of the hula-hoop and laid them off. One answered, on being asked about honest politicians, reflecting public perception "C'mon, give me a break." The other stated he was "the only honest politician around here."