daniel

My answer to the original question of this thread: Then: when the cartoons were first published "yes" it was based on freedom of the press and free speech. Now: Republishing after knowing the sentiments and sensitivity, it's not an argument for freedom anymore. Now, it's just plain provocation. And I agree this thread should be in the morals and ethics forum.

Just as often as conservative governments except the devastating left by conservatives extends beyond just finances. Gee I wonder what all that deficit fighting was all about? Don't tell me, Don Getty was really an NDPer. Alberta is waiting for a liberal government now to clean up 88 years of Conservative devastation, right? Well, it did take them so long to get rid of their own deficit.

Just as often as conservative governments except the devastating left by conservatives extends beyond just finances. Especially in Alberta right. Rich, best health care in the country (though still shit-ah), best education in the country, lowest unemployment in the country. Yup, conservatives are idiots!! These things are reprehensible!! Bring on the socialists!!!! Gee I wonder what all that deficit fighting was all about? Don't tell me, Don Getty was really an NDPer.

Just as often as conservative governments except the devastating left by conservatives extends beyond just finances.

This was one of the topics of discussion in the English Debate. Harper said he disclosed the sources but all three leaders deny seeing the list. The Conservative response to the attack ad are consistent with what has already been posted by Conservative & rightwing supporters on the various political discussion forum of the past few years. When the Commission on 911 stated there was no link between Iraq, 911 and Al Qaeda, and reminded of Bush's address to Congress, the Bush supporters stated Bush never linked Iraq to 911 & Al Qaeda. Conservatives currently state the Liberal attack ads have no basis of reality when in fact they are based exactly on Harper's speeches and documented positions on sending troops to Iraq, BMDs, and Canada's economic position including the Altlantic's reliance of the Welfare cycle, etc. Conservatives currently state the Liberal attack ads are personal attacks on Harper. None of the ads attack Harper personally. They attack what Harper went on record as saying previously. This does not compare with the PC's attack on the physical appearance of Jean Chretien. Again, I've seen these kinds of false accusations before in other threads and forums. And specifially, the ad about installing soldiers with guns in the cities which the Conservatives - deny? Not sure what to make of their response. Soldiers without guns - what an interesting concept. The last time I heard on this was in the movie "The Last Emperor". The only truth to the Conservative claim was the the Liberals are desparate - more to the truth, we are all desparate. What is not mentioned by the Liberals or the Conservatives are the Reform policies on: Bilingualism; Multiculturalism; Restriction of Immigration from non-European countries; immigration settlement services; the CBC; which services and departments will endure budget cuts; and recently the Alberta separation movement within the CPC

If the election results reflect the recent opinion polls, the rest of the world would think that Canadians are crazy too.

Just noticed something on the TV yesterday. It's not the about "aboot" . It's the pronounciation of "route".

Those are the same type of questions asked of Mike Harris when he started his Common Sense Revolution.

I'm from BC, so I say "abowt" but now live in Toronto (for the past 20 years) and I haven't ever heard the "aboot". Maybe it's what Americans hear just like the way Canadians hear Americans say "ruff","Irok" and "vee-H-icle". I'd be nice to hear an audio recording of you and your boyfriend say "out and about" and make the comparison. I'm guessing that I still won't be able the hear his "aboot" when you can. (Some English accent pronouce the letter "H" as the letter "Hache" with a really hard breath out instead of silent.)

It's appropriate that Harper won't talk values since he's throw away everything he's worked and stood for since 1987 only to adopt in the last six month some very NDPish policies.

This is exactly the whole point. Parents having choices...and not being dictated to by the government how to raise their children! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Some choice when one of the options isn't there. You can have any colour of Model-T as long as it's black.

Either he is becoming a Liberal, or he is not showing his true colours. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So I'm not the only one whose noticed Harper is turning more liberal than the Liberals. I'm sure the Harper of 1987 would have plenty to say about the policies of today's Harper. How credible is it that a person can throw away everything he's worked for and valued since 1987 only to make himself appear moderate in the last six months. Either he's turning his back on and alienating his grass-roots support or his core support knows something the rest of the swing voters don't.

He might as well be. Have you seen his published policies?

I read it three times already. To paraphrase a Conservative criticism "Somebody's sounding like a broken record." Or maybe their well has run dry.

Having struggled through the many childcare options without strong government regulatins and standards, I wouldn't wish it for anybody else. Hence, the long overdue national daycare program is finally addressing what many parents have been calling for for decades.

How credible is it that a person in the last six months can throw away everything he's stood for and built since 1987 only to be more liberal than the Liberals? In May 2005 he was saying the amended Budget funding for municipalities was a deal with the devil. Then in June he's proposing tax breaks for people who take public transit. And when the election was called, his policy a day is throwing money around that his party just two years earlier would be saying back to him "People need a hand up, not a hand out." Lucky for him it was the Liberals rehashed that beer-and-popcorn remark originated from Mike Harris about five years earlier.

Pardon my asking, but the last time anyone called himself an honest politician was Ontario's Mike Harris. Who were you referring to?

It's one thing to disagree that one form of childcare is not appropriate for one's own children. It's another to show utter hatred and contempt at another form of childcare that other's believe best for their children. I can't understand the rationale for this irrational hatred. It's like daycare were a plot by Osama Bin Laden.

Yes. I survived the good ole days when posters were really nasty and Greg having a helluva time moderating and in the process being accused of censorship.

How was it that he stood for Canada? He scrapped the Avro Arrow (probably under the pressure of the US Militaty) and he was opposed to Canada's new flag because it made no reference to Britain's Union Jack. The latest Conservative I recall standing up for Canada was John A MacDonald who had the CPR built to secure the west before the Americans could take it.

Chretien/Clinton - Canada/US Relations were fine Chretien/Bush - Canada/US Relations went sour. The only change I see was the change of US President. And it's Canada's fault?

So it seems that "aboot" is the American's bad attempt at duplicating our Canadian accent. So if I say "ruff" and "Irok" they might not hear the irregularity and continue to understand it as "roof" and "Iraq". If I mess up the attempt at trying to pronounce "ruff" and "Irok" that might be the parallel of American's trying to pronounce the Canadian "about" and having it come out as "aboot". So my final question is: Why do we accept it that we pronounce it as "aboot" when we don't (but only as the Americans hear it)? Are we too polite to tell them they are wrong?

To the Conservatives, it really doesn't matter. They will not get votes from people who know or have known better. They will get votes from their core supporters even if they do flip-flop on their policies. It's always been the swing voters or others who don't follow politics as closely as we do. So just a little change in perception might do the trick - even if the Conservatives have to say anything to get elected.

It seems as if it were not for the Sponsorship Scandal, there would be absolutely no reason - even for the Conservatives - to not support the Liberals. If it weren't for the Auditor General to discover this, of course we would have never known. So likewise, how is anybody to know before it would be discovered of any Conservative Government scandal? And you know it will eventually happen as it did so many times before with other Conservative governments. Yes, we would like to punish the Liberals but what does that mean? Only to replace them with somebody else who is just as likely to be corrupted? So the argument really is moot. As in philosophy 100, when all things are equal, flip a coin. But things aren't equal, we have to know with each party running, aside from their feel-good policy announcements that are just as easily broken and spoken, where their true interests lie.

So tell me, exactly which province, municipality or street in Canada pronounces "About" as "Aboot" that I hear so much about in the American media? I've never heard it in my life except in American TV (actually Canadian media reporting on American TV).