Jean_Poutine

I see, so it's the people that don't get involved in such stupidity that are responsible? And when you have self-inflicted health problems, they're also responsible for sharing the cost of health care.

And your answer is what, more social workers because the criminals are actually victims?

Interesting way of framing the question. She wasn't wrong. The people gave the Conservatives a large minority with virtually the same percentage of the vote that Chretien won a majority with in 1997. In 1926, Governor General Lord Byng gave power to the opposition, but it backfired in the election that followed when King argued that Byng had interfered in Canadian politics and came back with a majority. Of course, the vote of confidence was all about trying to gain power without an election. The past, and common sense, shows that this course of action is clearly a mistake and it would be even more so with the Bloc in the mix. However, the country just went through an election and nobody wanted another one -- especially the Liberals. It would have been amusing to see how the opposition would react if there was a no confidence vote and an election called -- careful what you wish for. However, neither of these options were really desirable. Once Parliament was prorogued, the Conservatives got down to business with the budget, and Liberals distanced themselves from the coalition. In the end, the GG was able to avoid the two undesirable options.

Lock'em up and throw away the key. The simple truth is that the world will be a better place without these idiots around.

Another post blaming the Canadian government for global economic circumstance.... Perhaps, you think it's better to do nothing, and, for example, lose Canada's share of the auto manufacturing market -- and about 10% of GDP in the process. The problem did not start in Canada; therefore, the Canadian government -- be it Conservative or Liberal -- is not responsible for it, but it is responsible for getting Canada through the difficult time. And no, the problem isn't so-called reckless spending before the economic downturn. I don't call paying nearly $40 billion on debt reckless spending.

Nope, China is falling short on its trade. In 2007, the US imported $321.5 billion worth of Chinese exports while only $65.2 billion worth of US exports went to China. With all the other economic problems, do you want that kind of trade deficit, too? Canada's population is tiny compared to China, yet Canada took in $248.9 billion worth of US exports while the US took in $313.1 billion worth of Canadian exports in the same year. Generally, Canada/US trade is pretty much balanced, but Canada has a surplus when the price of oil is up. http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statis...op/top0712.html I'm sure China would be interested in exporting more goods to Canada and importing Canadian resources, but that's probably the extent of it. And that leads to another question, do you want Canadian exports to be mainly resources? Personally I'd rather see Canadian energy resources used to drive the North American economy until cleaner sources of energy can be developed on a scale that makes them practical to use. Meanwhile, without being heavily in debt to China or reliant with regards to trade, Canada can speak freely on human rights issues.

Yet Michael Ignatieff's web site uses the nickname Iggy. The video section is called "Iggy Tube". Just because someone uses a nickname doesn't mean that they're being derogatory.

$primeMinister = Harper; $president = Obama; if ($primeMinister != $president) { echo 'Harper is Harper and Bush is no longer President. Time for you to get a new line, or better yet, stop dragging American politicians into Canadian politics.'; }

Yeah yeah, anyone that disagrees with you is extreme.... America is still a right of center country -- certainly right of Canadian politics. Obama got to where he is through his ability to talk -- something that he's better at than Iggy. Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but it's not the best way to show leadership. You're so certain that people will want a return to Liberal arrogance and sense of entitlement? Maybe Harper governs the way he does because proportionally, the Conservatives do have the most say. They have more seats than the Liberals and NDP combined. Given that they only need a dozen votes from the opposition, explain why you think the opposition should have influence that's out of proportion with that. In 1997, Chretien won a majority government with 38.5% of the vote, and in 2008, the Conservatives got 37.63% of the vote. So, less than 1% difference between a Liberal majority and a Conservative minority, yet it's ok for Chretien to do what he wanted with a low share of the vote, but Harper should cave in to every demand that the opposition has. Next, we are constantly told that the opposition is a "62% majority". First off, if you add up the share of votes for everyone other than the Conservatives that got elected, the total is 55.06%. Of course, the Green party is tossed in to inflate the numbers, but they don't have anyone elected, and it's kinda hard to be part of the opposition when you're not in Parliament. Meanwhile, if we tally up the share of votes for everyone other than Liberal that got elected in 1997, the total is 61.5%. It's ok when your guy is in office, but not when someone else is. That's called hypocrisy. Like the stupid comments about Americans that came out of Chretien's Liberal government? I see Conservatives speaking all the time. Baird can be quite vocal, and I see him speaking to the media. When you only see what you want to see, I guess it's not to difficult.

Red Tories are confused Liberals.

I said a while ago that I think Layton's acting like an idiot and he'll pay a price for it. It's simply stating the obvious really, but if you want proof, look at this Toronto Star article and the reactions to it: http://www.thestar.com/article/573610 There are 129 comments about it, and almost all are against what Layton is doing. Moreover, the vast majority of the votes on comments are in agreement with comments made against Layton or in disagreement with comments supporting the NDP/coalition. The Toronto Star is hardly conservative, and it's his home town paper. Me thinks that if Layton keeps going down this path, he'll be looking for a new job after the next election.

It's funny, Obama and Harper have quite a bit of common interest, yet people on the left like to act like Obama is a saint and Harper is the devil. Stop me if this sounds familiar: "families are tightening their belts, and so should washington." -- Barack Obama (talking about freezing pay for staff) source: CBC National Where have I heard something like that before? Wait, I know: "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end." -- Barack Obama (Inauguration Speech) I've heard something like this before too. *scratches chin* Ah, here we go: And don't forget that Obama wants to expand the war in Afghanistan that people on the left have constantly criticized Harper for -- even though it was Paul Martin that sent Canadian troops to the most dangerous part of the country. Harper has consistently said he wants better relations with the US since before he became Prime Minister, and now that the US has a president that you like so much, you ought not to complain.

"I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind." -- John Diefenbaker I'll say what I think, and stand for what I think right, and I really don't give a damn about people that say that I can't. As for immigration, I saw a show on PBS about the recovery of the Grizzly bear population in which one man said, "It's easy to be for Grizzly recovery when you live in Fort Lauderdale, but when the Grizzly is on your porch, it's a challenge." I think that line can be applied to a lot of arguments that people make. It's easy to be for something when it doesn't effect you directly. If you live out in a rural area, immigration doesn't really effect you, but if you live in a city where the population has increased by 25% or more in 5 years, it's a different story. It's a different story when most of the new comers barely speak english. It's a different story when infrastructure doesn't keep up with the population growth. It's a different story when you have people on the road that don't seem to know what traffic laws are. It's also a different story when they bring beliefs that aren't compatible with life in Canada. Take for example Shariah law. In countries that use Shariah law, women can be stoned to death for having the audacity to want to choose their own husband. I once watched a documentary in which a Muslim man defended the record on womens rights in the Muslim world by saying that they treat them better than we do. He argued that in the west, we dress women like whores. I thought, this epitomized the problem. In the west, women are free to live their lives as they choose -- regardless of whether or not someone else disagrees with it. If a woman chooses to dress in a way he does not approve of, it's HER choice NOT someone elses. So does this mean that we should not accept immigrants from such countries? We cannot generalize of course. When Muslims pushed for Shariah law in Ontario, some of the most vocal critics that spoke against it were women that moved here from Iran to get away from it. We should welcome those people, but at the same time we should also be cautious about those that seek to export such problems to Canada, and herein lies the problem. How does the board of immigration determine what a person's intent is? Do they believe that their religion trumps our laws? Do they have the same respect for an individuals rights that we do? The answers to such questions are fundamental if you want to know whether or not an individual will fit into our society. With regards to the argument that we need immigrants to fix a shortage of skilled workers, I'm not convinced. Why is it that as soon as there's a problem, some neglect to look closer to home for the solution first? While there is a shortage of skilled workers in some areas, there's also a growing number of unemployed in this country already. Why not train them to do the sort of work for which there is a shortage and kill two birds with one stone? Likewise with the argument that we need immigrants for population growth. Anyone stop to ask themselves why population growth is so low? The US doesn't have the same problem with population growth. Why is that? Could it be that taxes, cost of living, etc makes it harder to raise a family? Shouldn't the first step towards fixing a problem be to determine what the cause is?

Second sentence in the article that the link leads to: Look familiar? First thing I found with a google search: Source: Canadian Jewish News

The Conservatives cut taxes and paid down a substantial amount of the debt, and it's only now that we're going into the red. Paul Martin believed in having a small contingency fund of about $3 billion to ensure a balanced budget each year. However, does anyone really believe that that would be sufficient to deal with the current global economic crisis? That wouldn't even cover the auto sector. Given the severity of the problem, we would be in the red regardless. Quebec should not receive special treatment, but I do agree with increased spending on the military.