Catchme

No? Really you thought Stephens words were empty rhetoric? He spoke very nastily about Canada, about what the PM does and indeed about Canadians, reading the whole speech is harsh. No actually he was in direct alliance with the US government. I have never called another person a traitor other than Stephen's partner in crime so really do not know where you get the "everyone" from. And IMO taking lying adds out in US newpapers and speaking lies on Fox TV about Canada and Canadians, is traitorous. Maybe your threshhold is different and more tolerant than mine. Mine is based on # 1 definition. traitor One entry found for traitor. Main Entry: trai·tor Pronunciation: 'trA-t&r Function: noun Etymology: Middle English traytour, from Anglo-French traitre, from Latin traditor, from tradere to hand over, deliver, betray, from trans-, tra- trans- + dare to give -- more at DATE 1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty 2 : one who commits treason http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/traitor Maybe in some cases your right, but when a majority population feels a particular way in a democracy it pretty well means that majority is the majority of values, but of course it cannot claim to encompass all values. Diversity in a pluralistic society does not afford that narrow of a viewpoint. On the other hand a minority has not right to impose its ideals upon the majority either.

Yep, I found one long time ago - $10 billion worth of cutbacks. Make OAS income-tested and wealth-tested. Start clawing it back at $20K and eliminate at $30K. If assets exceed $500K, nix it. Enough free-rides in Florida on the backs of the working idiots at home. Well, I think those are high thresh holds, I think it should be the same threshholds as welfare recipients, or lower, as welfare recipients are usually single parent families, and thereby require more living costs than do seniors. And IMO, if you out of the country for more than 2 weeks, or a month for special circumstance, or even have a rated circumstances for time limits out of country, OAS payments should stop. OAS checks are directly depsoited its not like they have to be picked up and deposited. So the OAS delivery system should be tied to the border and customs crossing the same as EI, Welfare and WCB systems are. Those out of country over limit need not be getting paid, by working Canadians, to live elsewhere. Those billions of dollars would go well in our own economy too. I would say there would be more than 10 billion in cutbacks, and more money staying at home if their OAS was hinged upon it. It could/would be double plus for Canada and Canadians.

And the all reported the same thing, NOTHING was pertinent to Canada. Pardon me? Why do I find that hard to believe? Nothing at a WTO meeting that was pertinent to Canada? Theer are agendas sent out for these types of things, they should've been able to see if there was something there of interest or pertinent before they ALL went. And is everything so perfect in our trade world that we have nothing before the WTO? I know, the hypocrisy of it all. CPC = Liberal At least the Liberals were slightly in tune with the majority of Canadians on social issues and foreign policy.

All human life must be respected, unless that human life is living off a placenta. Hold on, every wealthy, white, heterosexual, middle aged male, have the exact some politicial view's. I never knew that, thank's for your insight. If I were to say every middle aged native held the exact same view's I have a feeling you would call me racist. Point taken, I should have aged it from 18 -80.

How is it filling this niche with a ridiculous comedy program? I think Comedy television does a good job of providing laughs, what is CBC doing that isn't done in the private sector? It is a niche because it deals with minority issues and stereotypes, as well as cultural norm ones. It's content is that which main stream TV stations and/or productions companies do not want to do. They are doing a show that is a satirical depiction of: cross cultural stereotypes, misinformations, misunderstandings and cultural gaps. Getting upset about this really means one is taking oneself too seriously. People can chuck around Newfie jokes, blonde jokes, women jokes, lawyer jokes, but goodness make satiral comments about white anglo saxon males and their priviledge, the world is falling apart.

They do really need to stop killing each other. It's terrorist bombings of civilians that are the problem, not American's parading around slaughtering people. So it's okay for the Americans to parade around slaughtering people? Terrorists bombings? I suppose the retalition that is simmering and about to explode in Sunnis areas of Iraq, because Saddam was hung is going to be terrorists too?

There is the rub, you see CBC's mandate is to fill the niche that private television won't or does not do, it is their actual mandate. There is no agenda they are pushing, it is their mandate to fill in the minority needs that populist TV won't. The trails that I have previewed were equally as mocking of Muslems, and Canadians. I saw no uneven ethnic or cultural bias in portrayals, just a mocking of stereo types. And that is the point I think of the show, to mock, or satarize, the stereo types that are part of societal perceptions.

If your combined income is over $19727.99 you don't get GIS. If your combined income is over $10K, you don't get welfare. And you get GIS regardless of the amount of assets you are sitting on (GIS is income tested but not wealth tested). If you are worth $500, you don't get welfare. OAS is free, unearned money that people get based on age and nothing else. It costs 5-10 times as much as welfare (which is based on need). You can split hairs all you want but the fact that people scream about welfare and say nothing about OAS is just that - poor-bashing. Fine point Saturn, OAS is a huge expense that is received by those who do not need it in the 100's of thousands. And they take it out of the country to spend too. For example, my inlaws, both over 65, get OAS and spend every red cent of it in Yuma, AZ for 6 months out of the year. How many snowbirds are there? Okay found that 80k belong to the Canadians Snowbird Association: and they say: http://www.snowbirds.org/html/about.html Well I agree its a good thing they defend the rights and priviledges Canadians have earned, I would imagine that is their OAS. Having said that, those that bash those on welfare, and yet take OAS and think it is a right with greater moral value than that of welfare monies would be wrong. They are having fun in the sun on my money.

Interesting development, regarding our not so progressive feminist Elizabeth May. Green Party Italy has picked up on the leader of the Green Party in Canada's descent from favour and noted strongly why. Green World Press Review If I've got a pay check, and no rights to do, or be, anything else at all, I am a pretty poor person am I not?

This isn't adscam. This is their own scam; the CPC name is new but the players are old. Organizers either were aware of the existing rules and thought they could get away with it or they were completely incompetent by not doing their research. And I love the rationale for all things CPC ... the Liberals. I may be corrupt but not as corrupt as "the Liberals." Is corrupt not corrupt because it wasn't as corrupt? Is being a little dishonest not really dishonest because you believe someone was more dishonest? I know I do love the IRrational too, it is 100% on the entertainment scale. The twisting defies belief. I remember all the discussion regarding the delegates wanting their receipts from the convention and being told no and how they were going to Elections Canada to report the failure and to demand them from the CPC. I find even more intesting is the repeated avoidance of mentioning the corporate sponsorship of the convention that was not reported either. 3.5 million worth of scams so far. Someone should create a metered web site to keep track.

Canada never had a Deputy PM before 1977. So you are alarmed about the history of the country for 110 years. Lawrence Cannon has a long and distinguished record in the private sector and with the party. He has done an admirable job as minister of transportation. Harper reached out to Quebec with the appointment of Cannon. What legal lines are you talking about? Never heard of him, and private sector does not = governing a country. What has he done as the Minister of Transpotation? The Lines of Precedence as they are set out by Order of Governance. So designating Cannon as his number two is a sign of Harper's control issues. Yes, in part I am sure, Harper governs too much along the Machivelli lines dictates, and we ALL know Stephen has control issues. Thank you I thought so too No, actually I do not. That I feel they are doing a less than stellar job of governing Canada is quite clear, and correct. They do not have the mandate to do the things they have been doing and they thereby are not being responsive, and responsible, to those who pay the bills and make Canada what it is, Canadians. Acting against what 70% of Canadians believe in and have fought to create is something to dislike though, and I do.

I'll remember to jump all over you the next typo I see. Totally lame. You think a person has to be perfect gramatically to have a valid idea or point of view. Get Real! I'm not speaking of a typo. Typos are quite understandable in a forum such as this. I'm speaking of a consistent pattern of confused and fragmented sentences, lack of punctuation and silly word choices. All of which indicates, to the casual reader who does not know the author, a lack of education. Perhaps this is untrue, but it is the impression you leave. Pardon me? Those that do not have university grammer and punctuation have no right to have a say, you say? And one's choice of words, as opposed to anothers, is never something that should be discussed. This type of commentary is simple deflection away from topic, plus it is extremely condescending and an attempt at belittling those who may not be grammeriffic. Indeed it could discourage people from posting out of fear of being ridiculed. I suggest that discerning people will just ignore those that use these types silencing and propaganda tools. Those that belittle others deserve no consideration. I know I refuse to be silenced because I am not grammeriffic. Or perhaps on the other hand some people just find long rationals thoughts confusing. The bottom line of this topic is the CPC tried to scam convention fees, even though there was a history, in all parties that now comprise the CPC, of conventions fees being donations to the party. Main Entry: 1scam Pronunciation: 'skam Function: noun Etymology: origin unknown : a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/scam

Niche programs? I have encountered many people from Alberata who have children with disabilities that have set up home in BC. That is until they and their children have passed term limits and requirements to access programs. They get their child into the programs, usually independant community living programs, and then they move back to Alberta. The BC income assistance program pays for them. What % of the population do you considered to be the "lazy" ones? Prove this please, you make these wild statements then never provide proof. I.e. the federal government involvement in social programs is unconstitutional, the employment is higher in conservative governed provinces as opposed to other, both of which you were wrong about. Prove this please, as above Please provide examples of qualifying standards. I see you have lots of charitable organizations feeding people, and running shelters, if your government was doing its job, and getting the largest bang for its bucks there should be no homelessness in AB, or those requiring food banks and church breakfast and lunch programs. Absolutely not, work training programs and "stuff" like that have always been federal responsibility. It matters NOT what you insist, what matters is the fact and the truth of what is and has been. No, I am saying I do not see Alberta's low unemployment rates as being a relevant example Alberta as a successful province based upon party governing, nor an indicator that it is. And if people just cared about economic success, and unemployment rates he would still be there no? Ok throw up the links and stats to total emplyment rates, and we will see, I am sure that it will show almost exactly what the unemployment stats show, parity between the 3. Morover, NFLD people are moving to AB you should see how many are moving in, as Stats Canada shows, at the rate that those from the maritimes are moving in BC and indeed AB, we might have a change in politics, in some areas. Moving away from family and friends across the country takes money, and is hard. Belittling people because perhaps they cannot affod too, is mean spirited, and so is telling a father to move away from his family because he cannot afford to move wife and children out with him, as is judging him because he chooses to stay with his family on income asssistance hoping to get a job or training. Look at the difference in age demographics to start with. And people do all the time just check out Stats Canada migration flows within Canada, however, it is also hard to move away from your family, and sometimes impossible, perhaps moving packages would be a good thing to assist migration?

The Vietnam Conflict was just as illiget before it happened, as after it happened, look up Bay of Tokin history. And funnily enough the same names were involved then as now! That's doubtful in todays world? They might like to think so. After all, many regular folks around the world KNEW Iraq was going to be a mess. Apparently, the number does not help, nor be of any significance. ]Actually we do, especially in a minority government, all we have to do is be vocal, very vocal with our MP's and elsewhere in the public realm. And there is no doubt we should have more, I would like our governments to be run on the strict platform and actions they campaign on. As truly, that is the only thing they have a mandate to do.

Yes, Roy and others supporting this unjust action might want to consider those deaths what are they now close to 700k? Then of course there are all those to die until the occupation stops, and those who will continue to die from the depleted uranium shells the US uses, and from landmines etc. You are correct, there is NO DOUBT the Iraqis were better off with Saddam in power, than they are with what is currently going on there. Will at some point their future be better as a result of this occupation of their country and the subsequent removal of Saddam? That is unknown, the only thing known is it will be a good long while before their lives resume anything close to normal living. They have lost antiquities on a permanent basis. Their schools (all levels), museums, galleries and zoos are destroyed. Their utilities infrastructure is working less often than it did under Saddam, and they have constant war fare 24/7. They are being constantlyridiculed, derided and mocked by the occupiers, autrocities committed by the occupiers are the norm. But Saddam is now dead and will soon be the martyre they rally around. People wanting Saddam dead and ickily watching the video, are those that drive to accidents to see the horror, combined with unacknowledged guilt for supporting the Iraq illegal invasion.

Yes, and your cheerleading for the Liberals is telling. Sorry, was not cheerleading was a straight up observation, I know of no organization that does not have a designated second in command to act and speak on behalf of that which it represents. The title usually reflects that designation. That Canada, as a organization so to speak, does not have a qualified 2nd in command, let alone and a designation for one, I find alarming. This is not part of the discussion, this part of the discussion was 2nd in command, the topic is the second highest cabinet position. Or who would next poweful to Harper. I can't imagine anyone seeing Cannon, as next powerful to Harper. Most Canadians probably do not even know who he is, let alone understand why Harper would give him 2nd in command rights. Even in Liberal goverment Ministers went to that conference which fit their portfolio, it is not a "new CPC" concept or anything! Moot point the CPC in both its forms had MPs that were in opposition who are still there. To have someone designated to be 2nd in command to actually have some governmental experience, Cannon HAS NONE as NONE, no time even practising as opposition, newly elected and all that. Harper, in his chosen line of succession, ignoring the legal lines, skipped over many who do. And that in itself is telling. He is not willing to do what is best for Canada, he is only willing to do what is best for himself! No need to get someone from across the floor for government experience, Harper had many CPC MP"s to choose from, when deignating 2nd in command should something happen to him, that did/do have opposition experience at least. Cannon, I say again has NONE. So in Stephens mind, Cannon is non-threatening to his desire for total control and his need to hold absolute power. This means should something happen to Stephen, Canada is left in the hands of a newly elected MP whose portfolio is the Ministry of Transportation.

Full Text of Stephen Harper's 1997 speech. OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I'd heard bits and pieces of that speech, but I disregarded it as anti-Harper propaganda. That's truly disturbing..... and insulting..... and infuriating. There are reasons why people are anti-Harper and none of them are propaganda. Guess Harper should not have been talking so disrespectfully of the what the PM of Canada does, cause we now know what he is doing for sure. From his 1997 speech: "Of our two legislative houses, the Senate, our upper house, is appointed, also by the Prime Minister, where he puts buddies, fundraisers and the like. So the Senate also is not very important in our political system. And we have a Supreme Court, like yours, which, since we put a charter of rights in our constitution in 1982, is becoming increasingly arbitrary and important. It is also appointed by the Prime Minister. Unlike your Supreme Court, we have no ratification process. So if you sort of remove three of the four elements, what you see is a system of checks and balances which quickly becomes a system that's described as unpaid checks and political imbalances. What we have is the House of Commons. The House of Commons, the bastion of the Prime Minister's power, the body that selects the Prime Minister, is an elected body.

There never was a formal position of "deputy prime minister". That is a fictional "honourary" position created by the Liberals. The parliamentary system never really had any need for such a position. But it certainly went well with the Liberals' "style over substance" way of governing. ..if something serious happened to Harper, the Tory caucus would simply elect another leader. I'm not sure if their party constitution would then require confirmation from the rank and file membership or not. In Canada, unlike in the United States, our PM is not directly elected. Whomever can command a majority of the support in the House is prime minister. If enough Conservative MPs deserted the party and joined the NDP then Layton would become PM. I know that the PM is not directly elected that it is the leader of the party who becomes PM! I simply never knew that there was not a number 2 position that was institutionalized for short term/time needs. Smart thinking on the part of the Liberals to designate a number 2 position, as on the the world stage, optics are everything. I mean, after all, why would the world at large want to hear the Minister of Transport, or the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs speak as "thee" representative of Canada, as our PM is not available. And why would us Canadians want these lower caucus members speak on our behalf? My fictional newscaster post stands as a reason why a number 2 spot truly is needed, if only made clear in lines of official succession. Let's discuss this no line of succession, that happens anyway, but has no title in the Harper government, but does within a Liberal government. The order of succession/precedence according to our governmental rules state in order of recent governing political experience, do they not? As we can assume order of precedence is not just for "ceremonial" purposes, as someone suggested earlier. So what statute is it that deliniates the actual order of succession our ruling government is supposed to adhere to, until a leader can be elected from the caucus? Or is it supposed to be an immediate elected leader of the caucus? I did not look for the actual law/statute, I thought someone may know it? If so, could you post it. Plus, there must be official short term and long tern guidlines written into our constitution. As truly, it should not be just whatever the governing party of the day wants to do. That sets a dangerous preceedence over Canadians laws one would think. Where the PM of the day decides what they personally want to do for lines of succession. I do not care what party is in power they should be following lines of succession as our parliament sets out. For example, having looked over thelist, I see Harper, in his personal choice skipped rigth over anyone that had actual governing experience and went straight down the list to someone who has none. Is this a wise thing to do on behalf of Canadians? Having a Minister of Transport, with no experience.

Oh come now, we Canadians, are not silly enough to believe that Harper does not have a back up Prime Minister for Canada, should something happen to him, because he wants to save us a couple hundred thousand. He couldn't give a damn about 200k, but he does not share limelight/title, or power. We know the CPC is top down, not grassroots. How embarassing for us on the world stage, should something happen in the world major happen, and Harper is out of touch, but Canada or Canadians are part of it. I can just hear it from BBC, CNN or even Fox News announcers: "Now on behalf of Canada we have the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, Jim Prentice? Mr Prentice, where is your Prime Minister, or Deputy Prime Minister that they can't speak on this very serious threat to canadians and Canada?" What you do not know where the Prime Minsiter is and you have no second in command?" "Well Mr Prentice in the days coming, just who will be giving signals to other world leaders on what is transpiring, or what directing Canada and Canadians on what they are going to do?" :angry: My goodness he has turned us into a Banana Republic has he not?

Apparently, Harper does not agree with that fact that the environment is an economic issue, nor did the Liberals, because both have given token notice to it. No, we dealt with it because it was an inequality in rights. The lobby against people's equal rights was the waste of time money and energy. As I said you speak from a position of priviledge, you notion of frivolous, is not the majority of others notion. The number 1 what of the world? Perhaps the Majority Canadians would rather be number 1 in others ways than "economic growth"? Oh, you have more rights, you just do not allow your position of priviledge in society see that you do. Equality rights are NEVER over extended. No one has said we have a right to free health care, most Canadians are fully aware that we pay for our health care through taxation. It is our money no matter which way it gets paid. The most powerful lobby in Ottawa is BIG BUSINESS. I am one of those people who believe equality and human rights come before economic right to extreme profits. The Greens have no economic policy, and yes, the NDP's has been very consice and well thought out in both minority governments.

No switching social programs to welfare, I wa s speaking of back to work programs and employment programs, and such like that were cut by the CPC, NOT welfare. And you said good about time etc. followed up with unconstitutional. So now you have back tracked and admited employment issues are Federal responsibility. Newfoundland Labrador are experiencing issues with the Federal government over this, their oil industry cannot be compared to AB's. So Saskatchewan refuses to destroy its environment for a pittance in royalities and the oil companies can make greater profits off the backs of AB's in the present and future so they chose AB, again as I said, location location location. We were already in recovery mode when Gordo stepped in. His selling off BC Rail made it look oh so good, for a bit. But we are losing large money on that one to CN. And Bernard is hardly a Harper/Klien conservative. And 1 province does not make the Maritimes. Uh, that would be a No, not enough said, not hardly even. Nor is your compare solid or obvious. Let's do apples to apples and compare the 3 prairie provinces. Manitoba 4.3% unemployment Nov 2006 No Oil Gov NDP Alberta 3.4% unemployment oil Nov 2006 Gov Conservative Sask 3.5% unemployment some oil. Nov 2006 Gov NDP All three are lower than the national average.

http://www.counterpunch.org/tariq12302006.html http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php Peter Galbraith has done losts of coverage of USA involvement with Saddam leading up to the first Gulf War. Google him and you will find out more than enough evidence and links to evidence, of the USA support, sometimes overt, sometimes tacit approval given, to Saddam and assist with his war crimes.

No much, nor much to bash those who are on the front lines trying to do something about it. There needs not be "new" "fresh" approaches, there needs to be consistent steady development towards reducing poverty by fixing the causes of it. The problem is lack of consistent funding of approaches that work, and that do bring people out of the hell of poverty. BTW Geoffry you have some questions left unanswered on page 5, where you make the outrageous claim that government involvement in social programs is unconstitutional etc. I asked for proof of this and other things, that would give future and present credibility to your words.

And why was that again, that we do not have a Deputy Prime Minister? Oh, that's right, Stephen doesn't like to share, in particular power in Canada, he is a what in essence? Besides being a consumate micro manager, because the rest of his MP's don't know nothing about nothing, that is.

Yeah, all the while in U.S. custody, tried for crimes against humanity which should have taken place in the Hague. The Iraqis that killed him only had him for a few minutes prior to his execution. Capital punishment is wrong, and is NOT what Canada in the majority is about. Harper can't afford to lose anymore voters from his base so he dares say nothing, while knowing he risks losing votes of those who were against Iraq but went CPC to punish the Liberals. His silence means he feels he would lose more by speaking out against it. Not that Canada, or rather Canadians in the majority, in anyway support either the Iraq War or Saddams and his families murder by hanging. If Saddam had it coming so did those who allowed him to do it, and that would be George Herbert Bush Jesse Jackson spoke truth to power when he said this today! Moreover, we are in Afghanistan to free up the USA in Iraq, of course we have a say in it. Notwithstanding is the fact we are not a capital punishment country and always speak out against its use, until now that is. An black eye for Canada on the world stage because of Harper. What is irritating me in all of this though, is the oppositions silence on it! Harper's silence you expect, he is a weak kneed USA sychophant that was a traitor to Canadians before he took office. This was when he and Stockwell took ads out in the NY Times and spoke on Fox TV saying Canadians were in favour of the Iraq invasion, and wanted to go, when indeed we were not in favour, and did not want to move outside UN sanctions.