Catchme

Now, the CPC are down 7% in the west, and they have no ability to gain more seats in ON or PQ, as discussed and displayed prior in this forum. Also shown is the fact they will lose 3 seats if the 12% decline holds, with another potential loss of 2 seats in the Atlantic for a total of 5 seat losses, so far examined. Manitoba with a 7% decrease in CPC support: CharleswoodSt. JamesAssiniboia 10.6% It could be a close race if the Libs 5% increase and the CPCs 7% decrease is there Kildonan—St. Paul 9.7% It could be a close race and seriously up for contention if the Libs 5% increase and the CPCs 7% decrease is there Winnipeg South/Winnipeg-Sud 0,03% This seat will be lost if the 7% decline is there which most likely with that small of a spread it is in part. So 1 the CPC are looking at a 1 seat loss in Manitoba Saskatchewan here the CPC with there 7% decline are in contention with the NDP and their 1% increase in severals areas and with the Liberals in others. Palliser 9.9% This seat could be up for grabs and in contention with the NDP with a 7% CPC decrease and a 1% NDP increase. But still favours the CPC ReginaQu'Appelle 8.8% This seat could seriously be up for grabs and in contention with the NDP with a 7% CPC decrease and a 1% NDP increase. Particularily if Nystrom runs again. SaskatoonRosetownBiggar 6.6% This seat would be lost with a 7% CPC decline and a NDP 1% increcrease So the CPC would be looking at a 1seat loss in Saskatchewan with their 7% decline and a potential fight in 2 other ridings. Alberta Here the CPC are pretty solid so a 7% decrease would not be too hurtful other than: Edmonton Centre/Edmonton-Centre 6.3% This seat would be lost if the decline of 7% was here and the Liberals 5% western increase was as well. Edmonton—Strathcona 9.2% This seat could be up for grabs and in contention with the NDP, with a 7% CPC decrease and a 1% NDP increase. But still favours the CPC if Jaffer remains in favour that is. So, the CPC would lose 1 seat in AB and 1 more would be up for grabs with the NDP. BC Now here if the CPC have a 7% decline, the NDP a 1% increase and the Liberals a 5% increase there would be more changes in seats lost for the CPC Fleetwood—Port Kells 1.9% This seat would be lost to the CPC and would be a fight between the Libs and NDP KamloopsThompson—Cariboo 8.5% This seat would be up for serious contention with the NDP. NanaimoAlberni 9.1% This seat would be up for serious contention with the NDP. Pitt MeadowsMaple RidgeMission 5.2% This seat would be lost to the CPC with their 7% decline and the NDPs 1% increase. SaanichGulf Islands 10.6% This seat would be up for serious contention with the NDP. Particularly, if they do not believe the CPC are serious about the environment. Vancouver Kingsway This seat is already lost to the CPC. They voted Liberal and Emmerson walked. So, there is a 3 seat loss in BC to the NDP and a serious potential for 3 more losses 2 more loss to the NDP and another will go either NDP or Liberal. Overview of CPC seat losses across Canada: Atlantic - 3 seat losses for sure potential for 2 more seat losses West - 6 seat losses for sure and potential for 6 more seat losses. No CPC gains in ON or PQ. Total 9 seat losses for the CPC with serious potential for 8 more if we went into an election call shortly. This means the CPC would have at most 113 seats, with a realistic potential of having only 104 seats. Therefore the minority government would change hands to the Liberals as they have potential to at least pick up 5 seats across Canada excluding PQ, and the Liberals have potential to pick up at least 2 more seats in PQ. This SES poll does not bode well for the CPC's current course of actions.

Atlantic seats up for grabs or lost with the 12 % decline in CPC fortunes St. John's East/St. John's-Est 11.6% CPC lead and seat could be gone with 12% St. John's South—Mount Pearl/St. John's-Sud—Mount Pearl 11.7 CPC lead and seat could be lost with 12% decline Central Nova/Nova-Centre 7.8 MacKay would be gone for sure with that 12% decline South Shore—St. Margaret's 8.3% This seat would be gone Tobique—Mactaquac 0.09% This seat would more than be gone So, the CPC are looking at 3 seats for sure being gone in the Atlantic provinces and 2 other potential ones as well. Up next the west.

So I identified 7 possible wins with ~6% Liberal drop... and another 7 into play ridings with the Liberals losing that support. http://www.elections.ca/scripts/OVR2006/default.html No, actually you identified 4 as you conceded 2 were still safe to the Liberals and 1 Welland would go to the NDP. Thunder Bay Rainy River, would go NDP, as they are the closest contender to the Liberals, and the NDP has increased at Liberal expense NDP +3 in this area and the Liberals –3 would most certainly give the NDP the riding. No, London West, could change hands with a 6% Liberal decrease in this area. But remember it is the Greens and NDP who benefit from the Liberal bleed NOT the CPC. And the CPC did well because of whom they ran IMV. Now Huron Bruce could go CPC with a 1% spread between CPC and Liberals. However again, the CPC has made no gains in Ontario so there is no suggestion that this seat would change hands. London North Centre, will not go CPC either considering the resent by-election results, not much would change. Again the bleed off from the Liberals went to NDP and the Greens NOT the CPC Kitchner Centre - Excuse me but again there is a 11% spread between Libs and CPC here. This seat would most definitely remain Liberal. Kenora: Would either remain Liberal, or there would be a 3 way fight. It would NOT be an assured CPC win by any means. With the CPC remaining stagnant and a 3% NDP increase in this area the NDP could well be the contenders for this with the Liberals. However, there is still more than a 10% lead from the Liberals over the CPC in Kenora and there is only 400 votes separating the NDP and CPC. Guelph No change there is an 8% Liberal lead over the CPC. Brant - could be up for play if the NDP and Greens have gotten support from this area from the Liberals So, out of those you have noted, there could, at most, be 1 seat up for CPC grabs, if there was a 6% decline for the Liberals there, which is doubtful as the NDP and Greens were NON-contenders. The CPC has made NO gains in Ontario, so really this excerise of both yours and mine was fruitless. Because the CPC may well have declined in some areas while increased in others to stay at 36% or 1/3 population approval within Ontario. Next up the Atlantic CPC seats losses with a decline of 12%

geoffery, you are correct, the Liberals do show a decrease in ON of a 6% bleeding to the NDP and Greens, but not to the CPC. Which is the point I was making, there were NO CPC increases in ON. The CPC are not picking up steam any where. The Liberals have gained across Canada while the CPC have not. However, I am going to go back then and look at your ON breakdowns and give serious consideration of them as I do not believe the stat bleeds to the NDP and Greens can even be considered to be favourable to the CPC. If it even holds and does not return to the Liberals, the CPC have gained nothing.

No, I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that Harper 100% supports Israel in whatever action they take. He could've and should've given a rider to his support saying; " This government does not support the use of nuclear force against another nation and its peoples." He did not. He gave unequivical support only. Moreover, had he made a clear statement against the use of nukes perhaps he could have positioned Canada as a serious broker for dialogue and diplomacy in this esculating situation. Instead he has added fuel. If Israel uses nukes against Iran, the huge Iranian death toll, and world devastation, resulting will be upon the hands of Canadians, beacsue of Harper's failure to take a clear stand against the use of nukes.

Again, you never provided examples requested. Again people are choosing to see that voicing criticism of Israel's actions as anti-semitism, when it is not. Every country who has the current availability of nuclear should be indeed watched closely for actions and criticized when they are considering the use of nukes against another nation. Those Jews who are stepping forward and criticizing Israel, are not anti-semetic, they are concerned that their voices are being expropriated by Israel, wrongly. They understand and know that Israel is not faultless in all of this. And they know that saying such things are NOT anti-semetic but righteous comcern. Funny how some appear to be "pro-life" but expound upon the needed destruction of Muslims.

Wrong!!!! This is simply your bias and interpretation of support of Israel defending itself. Harper has never, ever said he would support nuclear war. I don't doubt that many leaders would secretly wish Israel luck in destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities though. All this talk about the U.S. attacking Iran is simply mischief and innuendo meant to stir it up and promote more hatred towards Bush and Israel. Personally I'm pleased that we finally have PM willing to take a stand against terrorism instead of the usual screaming that Hezbollah et are just poor defenseless, harmless terrorist organizations being being beat up by that big bad Israelis. And you know, poor Iran, they mean no harm No sadly, I am not wrong, perhaps some here do not have an understanding of what it means when a nation gives verbal carte blanche of support to another country. And I highly doubt that any world leaders who have a rational thought in their head would be supporting of Israel taking out, or trying to take out Irans nuclear plants considering what it entails. Moreover, comments made saying that the US and Israel attacking Iran is simply mischeif and innuendo, are highly suspect in the face of much evdience to the contrary. http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2010086,00.html Plus, all the other links provided in other Iran threads clearly point to action by the USA and Israel against Iran. Again where does Harper stand upon the use of nukes against other peoples? Apparently firmly behind Israel and the USA. I am going to add a poll to this thread.

Yeah it's not a moral issue, seriously Catchme, you have to start looking at thing's outside of your narrow view of the world. It grows wearisome, having to read and deal with personal comments that have absolutely no bearing on the topic at hand, and says much about the posters who do such things. It would seem they have NO knowledge or larger view to contribute. Those who say they know more about Rights freedoms, and self determination, than the SCC, are deluding themselves. They are working from personal opinion and nothing more. Morals have NO bearing upon this discussion or in fact upon the larger reality of the Right to self-determine, and Freedom of Conscience. In the case that Melanie puts forward regarding Down Syndrome and the mother being advised of such to choose what it is she wants to do. It is not wrong, it only broadens the framework for the women when considering her choices. So, that she can make a more fully informed choice based upon her individual rights and conscience. The fetus in any case, whether it has genetical problems or not, has NO rights until it is born. This is a fact and has nothing to do with any individuals opinions or beliefs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Those who argue for defunding, again are treading the slippery slope of having their self inflicted medical conditions defunded as well. Again our system is universal access to paid for health care. Moreover, as i pointed out in other thread, truthfully others are NOT paying for it. The paltry 500 dollars it costs are more than covered by individuals yearly tax payments and their subsidizing of health care insurance. People who try to use "payment" and not wanting to pay for it, are creating a red herring. Common sense denotes the fact they/others do not pay for it. They are just trying to create a talking point and nothing more.

No wilbur, it is you conflating the 2, and it has nothing at all to do with me. You are putting up a strawman argument and kicking it down with your sun setting analogy. The rendered Supreme Court Decisions, were based upon known facts and Laws pertaining to rights. The Supreme Court could not make a law saying the sun rose in the west, unless of course it started to. The is no basis in fact or laws for it to do so. It takes a real ego to say one knows more than; the SCC, science and the medical communities and Civil/Human Rights Lawyers.

Canadians do not tell the Canadian military where to go the military and government do. Occassionally, when a strong enough voice is heard, like that of our none participation in Iraq, there is compliance. If the Canadian voice was heard we would NOT have a military presence in Afghanistan either, right from the get go. The USA are behaving badly in Afghanistan, and it seems some of the Canadian military want to emmulate the USA's military. This is unfortunate and these Canadian military personal, like those Americans who are speaking out now, will have to live with their actions. But all Canadians are diminished when this type of thing occurs. Also, our military are turning prisoners over to the Afghan government, knowing they will be tortured. As such, Canadians are complicit in the torture of prisoners. Our military is abusing civilian Adfghan detainees, who are not even prisoners, can you imagine what the Afghans are doing to prisoners? Tis a terrible blight upon the face of Canada and Canadians.

An Iraq Interrogator's Nightmare http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7020801680.html

When one country gives formal total backing to whatever another country does, it means they are supporting them in whatever they do. That is carte blanche in a big way. From BC Chicks link above: Unless Harper, clearly speaks out, against any Israelis nuclear aggression, it means he is supportive of it. And indeed speaking out against it could actually slow things, but he has not done either, as of yet, and this is significant considering the USA military build up and anti-Iran rhetoric continuing to build. Moreover, in the face of this, his giving verbal support to all the Israel, at this particular time, does gives tacit approval of what Israel is planning and could accelerate it even.

It blows me away that someone could say there is no life until the first breath is drawn. I'm pro choice but I there is no way I could convince myself that is a certainty. It seems the height of arrogance to me to make that kind of assumption. Please follow along, I am not saying that Wilbur, I am reiterating what the LAW says in Canada. They made that decision, not I. Their deliberations were actually very dynamic and all encompassing. It is an interesting read actually. Their findings were based on science, the medical community input, human rights, and other Canadian laws in regards to Rights bestowed upon Canadians with; why, where, when and how taken into consideration. Not taken into consideration was; personal opinion, morality beliefs, or religious input. And correctly so.

Umm... the Liberals dropped 6%. Ummm, no the Liberals have not dropped at all according to th SES poll we are discussing. The SES poll stats are again listed above, and I had the results listed in the post you first responded to. In fact, you used the regional breakdown stats from that link. But now you are trying to say the SES polls shows Liberals down when it does not. So, of course you are using Legier's for your stated Liberal decrease, and the SES regional breakdown to try and support you analysis. So sorry, but the SES poll showo no Liberal decrease, it shows a gain, and the CPC down 1%. Moreover you cannot combine 2 polls and make a case. AS such, I won't even bother with your riding breakdown, as it is all based upon an erroneous premise that the Liberals have gone down in the polls while the CPC have gone up. Legier has shown NO accuracy at all in their polls, unlike SES who have been almost 99% accurate in the last 2 elections and the lead into them.

Did you look at the pic links, as it seems not? Too bad, as perhaps you could've had an on topic discussion. Like what do you think about the use of nukes against innocent peoples? Facts: Harper has just given formal verbal support to Israel, after MacKay gave them the news of it news when there, this is significant, and must be remembered by Canadians. Israel has threatened to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities with nukes. because maybe in 10 years theymay have nuclear capabilities. Yes, there is proof and I have already posted it in this forum, and you have even addressed it. So, now because Harper told Israel we stand behind them NO MATTER what, our Canadian hands will be awash with the blood and nuclear massacre of Iranians if indeed Israel does nuke Iran. The USA has 4 Battle groups in the Persian Gulf, to ensure that oil shipping safely proceeds, at the least, or at the most, to assist Israel with their "targeted" bombing. 3 US former military leaders have came out and told Bush not to go there as he has no reason to. Yes, the links to this are also found in this forum and you and I have discussed them. The US Congresss is warning Bush not to go there, and are busily making it illegal for Bush to do so, and not providing funding. They are not doing that for no reason. However, Bush will use what he has deployed in the ME, for Iraq, by trying to tie Iran to Iraq, the same way he did when he lied about Iraq links to Afghanistan. Again the links about this are in this forum and were discussed between you and I. IMV, the only thing now is how long it will take for it to happen. Again, I say by the end of next week, or before March and the very latest would be the end of March. By Harper's unconditional support of the USA, it means that he upholds all the lies the Bush admin made in both Iraq and Iran. And that he supports their actions of autrocities against these peoples and those they illegally detained, as well. As such, he is as much a liar as Bush et al.

What has the USA coming into the World Wars got do to with Harper's verbal support of Israel besides not a thing? Moreover, that Harper would signal support of Israel in the face of Jews around the world coming out against Israel, shows either that he is out of touch with reality, or he has another agenda, or both. BC Chick hits the nail on the head, about Harper's ridiculous remarks.

Here is some info on things occuring in Afghanistan, and our Canadian military people are now following the US style of actions in Afghanistan and indeed speaking as if the US Military is a wonderful thing in Afghanistan. http://www.acftv.com/news/article.asp?news_id=134

The differing opinions are already balanced. The Right of Conscience and self determination are the balance. There is NO life or rights until the first breath is drawn.

With the ramping up of rhetoric againgst Iran, with equally phoney Intell, like that of Iraq, having a good look at what is Iran is a must. How better to do it with pictures. Each link shows a different aspect of Iranian society. It has a young demographic of peoples, and these young people are sick of wars Wars that destoyed their families, they are without parents and grandparents, and they want a democracy. And it is coming, and will continue to develop as long as they are left alone. This young demographic wants western ways, they are NOT fundamentalists. The Mullahs are keeping a tenuous hold on them. Any action against them, particulariliy when it is so unwarranted would be wrong criminal and very damaging to their burgeoning democracy. http://images.google.ca/images?&q=tehran+snow http://images.google.ca/images?&q=tehran http://www.lucasgray.com/video/peacetrain.html http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=32 Now juxposition those pictures you have just viewed with the ones here: Hiroshima and Nagasaki]The results of a Nuclear Attack upon LIVING people That is what Iran and Iranians will look like in the advent of a nuclear strike that Bush seems to be egging on. Then think about what such an attack would do to the rest of the world?

Finally, things are surfacing and yes, it is 4 years too late for Iraq, but hopefully not too late to stop the nonsense in Afghanistan, and the current targeting of Iran by Bush et al. Phoney trumped up intelligence that has cost trillions of US citizen tax dollars and Canadian citizens billions. The response from the Senate is:

Now enters the Canadian connection that is of particular interest now when our government is busy issuing no bid contracts worth billions, and O'Connor is war mongering everywhere. http://mikewatkins.ca/categories/2006/Feb/13

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6532 And we can again here connections to those involved with Iraq with: Now here is another company making huge profits off of Iraq, Kellogg Root and Brown and it is a subsiduary of Halliburton. The Browns in this equation was also, Brown Bros Harriman, Prescott Bush's partners in financing Germany into WWII. http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/bio.aspx?act=pro&ddlC=31 And still more nasty stuff: Kellogg Brown and Root, also known as KBR Engineering & Construction, is a unit of the Halliburton Company which provides military support services. - Formerly known as Brown and Root Services, KBR was scrutinized in 2000 by the GAO for overcharging and providing unnecessary services in the Balkans. - Balkans Support Contract is the largest contract for services to U. S. forces, representing about $2 billion in contract costs spent in the Balkans since December 1995.[1] Brown & Root's open-ended logistics contracts from the Army and Navy --indeed much of the military privatization campaign -- are grounded in a 1992 study the company did for the Defense Department that several analysts said formed the template for privatization of logistics for a downsized U.S. military. Soon after the company delivered the classified study, which reportedly concluded that the Pentagon could save hundreds of billions of dollars by outsourcing, Brown & Root won its first competitively bid logistics contract. Vice President Dick Cheney was defense secretary when the first Brown & Root study was done, and he became chief executive of its parent company, Halliburton, when he retired. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title..._Brown_and_Root

I'm glad that you can finally agree that it is. No riverwind did not agree that it is. You are putting words where there were none in order to support your belief that is when "life" commences. It is NOT when life commences. Nor does biology definitively say that it does and indeed only suggests that is where the "potential" for life could begin. Again, look at the freezing of embryo's, you are repeatedly ignoring this very pertinent aspect, as it does not support your personal beliefs. If life was considered to occur at conception, by science/biology, there would be NO freezing of embryos. Moreover, you again refuse to look at the Law of when rights are confurred and why it is so.

No, actually it does not look good, and here is why: PQ we went over this riding by riding earlier in this thread, and what drops mean or gains mean. There are only 10 seats in PQ that are eligible to the CPC. There is no way they can get more without a 15%+ gain in polls. The ridings they have, yes, are in contest with the Bloq. Not the Liberals and not the NDP. There were 3 riding in the last set of polls, not SES, out, that showed the Bloq could take over if the CPC continued to fall in those ridings. The %'s were close enough where change could occur and there could be a 3 seat loss by the CPC. Now, it is fair to assume that the as the CPC has gained 8%, it is only in those 10 ridings, and perhaps only in 7 of those ridings, or they could have gained ground again in those 3 where %'s took the Bloq within striking distance. Either the %'s would only be applicable in those 10 ridings, or in the 3 ridings where there was bleeding, and not outside of them, as the CPC are no where near close enough to garner more seats in other PQ ridings. Plus the Liberals have gone up % points in PQ, thereby lessening the CPC's 8% gains by 2%. It appears 2% of the NDP went to the Greens in PQ and as such play no role. Therefore there is no net seat gains possible for the CPC in PQ. Then in Atlantic Canada the CPC have dropped 12% points, that is serious, and puts several ridings in contention and up for grabs with several potential losses for the CPC if that % holds. The CPC stayed the same in ON, there were NO gains, I do not know where you got that from even. So there are no seat gains possible there with no change in the polls. The fact they can make no gains says much. Again the seats are theirs to lose. Harper's throwing away Turner's riding because of his control issues has severely damaged the CPC in ON. A one seat loss is 1 too many. So, what is left is the west, and the CPC have dropped 7% points with the Liberals garnering 5% and the NDP garnering 2%. The CPC cannot gain any more seats in AB. They can only lose there. The same can be said for BC. A 7% decrease in BC will lose the CPC seats to both the Liberals and the NDP. You have noted this yourself. As you can see, this poll's regional breakdown suggests that the CPC would lose several seats if an election were held today. They would no longer have a functional minority. At this point, it is no longer is PQ and Ontario who are determining the federal government, it is the Atlantic and the West. They will be the ones where the battle will be fought for who sits in the PMO.

So then there would be a fine line between "demonizing" Israel and "criticizing" Israel. A line that people will subjectively use based upon their own person agenda.And NO all Jews DO NOT count Israel as their "homeland". I was talking about Israel, so maybe you could provide proof that Jewish Israelis do not consider Israel as their homeland. I am neither Jewish nor Muslim, I don't have an 'agenda' but I recognize an agenda of demonizing Israel which plays to the agenda of the left wing demonization of the U.S. This along with the romanization of the 'Palestinians' and continually presenting them as victims rather than perpetuators of terrorism is all part and parcel of the fine line of anti semitism. Then refer to them as Israelis as opposed to "Jews". There is no demonization by the" left" that I can observe, you will have to provide an example , or actually several please. Other than that it is just your subjective opinion, and nothing more. Please provide examples of the "lefts" romanticizing of Palestinians. As this again would be your personal opinion and nothing more.