Keepitsimple

I guess there must be some truth to what you're saying because the polls still give Liberals decent support. It's interesting though - the points you raised: 1) The environment....it's been said over and over - Liberals did nothing - at least Conservatives are being active on the international stage - trying to get the big polluters to the table. And they DO have a plan - whether it's good enough is neither here nor there - it's much, much more than what the Liberals did in all the years they were in power. So again, a knowledgeable person shouldn't be supporting the Liberals on that file. At worst, it's a wash. 2) On Daycare you have a point but again, people shouldn't be "afraid" of the Conservatives on this file. They are not doing anything major on Institutional Daycare so it's really the status quo. Daycare is really Early Learning - that's Education - and that's a Provincial responsibility. But the fact is, there's nothing scary there - just nothing happening. 3) Afghanistan - what can one say. We're one of over 20 NATO countries trying to do what's right for that country......so if people are scared that the Conservatives are war mongerers, their minds are not going to be changed. But mark my words - if the Liberals got back into power, they would find a way to keep many of our troops in harm's way - they'd just spin it differently. So back to my original point - I really can't see why people would vote Liberal at this point in time. I guess it boils down to having voted Liberal for so many years, it's just hard to change.

It just boggles my mind to understand how any knowledgeable person could consider voting for the Liberals at this point in time. It's not just Dion. It's not just the feuding leadership remnants. It's not just the corruption. It's not just the lack on coherant policies - both domestic and foreign. It's not just their continued heavy-handed centralized approach in Quebec. It's everything! This party has truly lost its way. They don't stand for anything. They are a bunch of elected MP's who are looking for strong leadership, a guiding set of principles, and easily understood policies. All they portray is anti-conservative and anti americanism. What the Liberals really need is a sound trouncing in the opinion polls and any subsequent election - it's the only way that they will confront their demons. Although I lean right, this country needs at least two strong parties to maintain our traditional middle-of-the-road governance. Some people may be concerned with a Harper majority - but the Liberal Party, as currently constituted, is unfit even for the Official Opposition. In reality, there is little to fear from a Conservative majority. Harper is not in politics for a short-term one majority rule - he's in it to make the Conservatives the "Natural Governing Party". In order to do that, he has to be moderate - otherwise, he'll be out the door. Voters - wake up.

Jack Layton and Stephane Dion babble on about sending "Peacekeepers" to Darfur - getting back to what Canada "has traditionally done". What these gentlemen fail to realize is that you cannot be a Peacekeeper if there is no peace to keep. Here's the latest from Darfur: Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/070930/...sudan_darfur_dc

Most politicos would have the view that Trudeau put Canada on the verge of bankruptcy and it was Chretien and Martin who "Slew the Deficit"......but what of the man in between? Here's an article from Licia Corbella that sheds some light. Since the article quotes Mulroney himself, it could be construed as self-serving....but I choose to believe that facts are facts and the general thrust of the article appears to be indisputable.....thus the sub-title - Three Sides to Every Story. Link: http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Cor...pf-4532679.html

A perfect example of this is the double and triple credits for time served before sentencing. This is not a law - it is a precedent established by judges. It stems from prisoners being held in the Don Jail in Toronto, an institution dating back to 1850. At one time in the late 90's, it was so over-crowded and the conditions were so unsanitary that a judge gave several prisoners double credit for time served. This is now common practice even though the conditions that almost all prisoners face meet reasonable standards.

Let's not forget that we also have Statutory Release where by law, most prisoners must be released after serving two-thirds of their sentence. I think we should immediately do away with Statutory Release and institute a version of three-strikes for parole eligibility. For an offender's first violent crime. they are eligible for parole after serving one-third of their sentence. For their second crime, two-thirds. If they commit a third crime, they are not eligible for parole and must serve their full sentence. This parole "three strikes" would be aimed at violent criminals who do physical harm to others. Link: http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/infocntr/parolec/contribe.htm

This is a very interesting video for those who support or oppose Harper. The video is about an hour and while I would encourage you to watch the whole thing if you can spare the time, the Q & A prtion starts at about 22 minutes. It's refreshing to hear questions that go beyond the narrow Canadian journalist views. After you view it, I'd be curious to know if it has any effect at all - good or bad - on your perception of the man. Link: http://www.cfr.org/publication/14255/cfr_live_webcast.html

You picked a very poor story to stress your dislike for NATO and what we are trying to do to help Afghanistan. While this report is from a single, excitable correspondent, I do not see the word "indiscriminately" used in the article. If three suicide bombers attacked you and then a fire truck rammed into you, do you not think that there would be a connection? And maybe when the dust settles, we'll find out that there was. Sounds like a very scary series of events. Lets hope the end result wasn't too bad. War is a dirty thing - especially when you have homicide bombers who have no respect for any human life, including their own.

If this poll has any accuracy at all, it is very good news for the Conservatives. The 34% who voted for "strict adherence to the Kyoto Protocol" is a worst case scenario (the highest it could be). Many of these respondents do not know what our Kyoto commitment actually is. Not only do they not understand the actual target, but they would think that the target must be met by 2012....and that is simply not true. Kyoto commits us to meeting our target, on average, for the years 2008-2012. That means we have to reduce our emissions by 30% in 2008! If we don't, we have to reduce them even more in 2009/10/11/12 to make up for it. So to comply, we would have to reduce emissions by 10% in 2008, 20% in 2009, 30% in 2010, 40% in 2011, and 50% in 2012 - that would allow us to average our required 30%. If the 34% (the strict adherents) understood this, common sense would have all but a few zealots picking another option. From Wikipedia: Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

Here we go again....it's not inaccurate to say that Israel got off their butts and made something good happen. The Israel/Palestinian situation is not that different from the India/Pakistan partition - which after initial bloodshed, has resulted in two democracies. In 1947, Britain granted independence to India and at the same time, created the countries of India and Pakistan. "Partition" to accommodate religious sectors had been brewing for years. somewhat clumsily guided by the League of Nations. The ensuing displacement of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims was massive - as was the violence....but it abated to a large degree. India and Pakistan accepted partition and the pain of displacement and evolved to democratic countries. Arab countries did not accept partition at all - in fact, they stole the ability of Palestinians to determine their own future by attacking Israel.....and here we are today, 60 years later. Here's the link to the creation of Independent India and Pakistan - I've positioned the link on the Population Exchanges because that will show the similarity to what could have happened in the Middle East - but there is an interesting historical context to partitioning....so you might want to scroll back up to the beginning. Partintion of India/Pakistan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

In my opinion, the Conservatives stand for something more than strong leadership. They stand for Open Federalism. As provinces have matured over the past 40 years or so, the Liberal Party has stubbornly clung to a paternalistic view of the provinces. This brought us to the brink of losing Quebec and increasing friction with Western provinces. The Conservatives have introduced a refreshing respect for Provincial juristiction. The Conservative approach has been so popular in Quebec that we are witnessing an acceptance of federalism that is nothing short of amazing. It goes beyond the rejection of Liberal corruption - it embraces a newly-found optimism for Conservative-style Federalism.

We've all seen Mr. McGuinty in commercials and in interviews - wringing his hands and saying that raising taxes was the toughest decision he ever had to make - but he had no choice because he was faced with a "surprise deficit" of over $5 billion. Read the attached CTV news article and see what you think of Mr. McGuinty's integrity. He quite clearly knew about the deficit and how large it was. Many people refuse to accept this as fact. Yes, leaders often have to make "tough" decisions that force them to change directions - and it can result in a broken promise...but when you make a promise with absolutely no intention of keeping it, then I think you'd have to call it something else. Link: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...064243608889_5/

The news report and a similar one that I read in the Star this morning, was confusing and mis-leading. The last half of the article puts things in a little better perspective - and at least explains why this report was produced. In short, Bill C-288 calls on the government to put a plan in place to meet Kyoto targets - that means reducing our greenhouse gases by at least 30% starting in 2008 and attaining at least that average by 2012. Well DUH, we all know that can't be done - so of course the Conservative plan is inadequate in that respect - which puts back into the same views that have been so clearly evident - blindly pay homage to a flawed Kyoto Plan which long ago passed its "best before" date - or come up with a plan that balances economic growth with a meaningful plan for emission reductions. So this quote from the article should carry some weight: I'm afraid we are all doomed to continue this polarized debate for many years to come......but it should be obvious to even the most fervent supporters - Kyoto Phase One is dead.

The thing about Dalton's broken promises, at least the big ones that got him elected. is that he knew he wasn't going to keep them when he made them. Governments sometimes have to make tough decisions that result in a broken promise - but when you make promises that you have absolutely no intention of keeping - that makes you a liar. 1) Health Premium - he says it's because he inherited a surprise deficit. Crap. There were several reports months before the election that projected a deficit of anywhere from two to six billion. He was even asked - "what if there's a deficit?" and he still said he wouldn't raise taxes. There was no "surprise" deficit. 2) Closing the coal plants. Please. They were told over and over that it couldn't be done. But he promised anyway - because he said people were dying. Then he set another date and he broke that promise as well. Two for the price of one. 3) Autistic Children - he promised additional funding - and now he's fighting them in court!

Ditto.

It was inevitable that the debate would be one of attacking and defending. As Kim Campbell said - "An election is no time to talk about policies".....but I thought that Tory brought up a very important point that has not yet been discussed. Ontario has historically been the "driver" of the Canadian economy and we should have decisive and true leadership when sitting around the table with the other provinces. The Council of the Federation is an tremendously influential body that can have a significant impact on Federal policy. It might be OK for McGuinty to be the front man for Sorbara in Ontario but you need substance, vision and leadership to sit with other premiers and drive consensus. To me, the debate clearly and emphatically showed Tory to have these kinds of leadership traits, traits that are sorely lacking in Mr. McGuinty.

Quebec gives all faith-based schools about 60 per cent of the funding public schools receive. Alberta allows faith-based schools to be fully funded as part of public boards. It also provides 60 per cent of public-school funding to private schools, including faith-based ones. Tory has suggested that Ontario only fund boards who follow the Ontario Carriculum and hire certified teachers - that seems pretty benign to me. I'm not aware of the imminent destruction of Alberta or Quebec's Public Systems nor do I hear any compalints about segregation. McGuinty is just hanging on to what he thinks is a divisive issue - but the more people understand how inclusive faith-based funding can be, the more it will begin to blow back in MsGuinty's face. Before election day, McGuinty will be seen not only as a fibber, but as an opportunistic, hypocritical manipulator. The leader's debate tomrrow night will be interesting.

Much was said about Australia and the UK negotiating a release of their citizens from Gitmo....and Canada supposedly doing nothing. The fact is however, that Khadr was the only one accused of murder. The Australian, David Hicks, was accused of providing material support to the Taliban - he pleaded guilty and was allowed to return to Australia to serve his sentence. Several Brits were accused of being Illegal Combatants.....but Khadr was the only one who was actually accused of killing an American. That makes his case materially different than the others. Having said that, I agree with other posters - Dion and the Liberals are taking a mis-guided photo-op to try and play their cynical "Champion of Rights" card.

A couple of questions: 1) Michael Ignatieff is 60 years old, Bob Rae is 59. If an election is held next year and the Liberals lose, it's probable that there will be a leadership review and a resulting convention. That would likely take us into 2009 where Ignatieff will be 62 and Rae, 61. If the Conservatives win a majority, that will add another 4 years to their age. Might it be wiser to start thinking about someone other than these two as the new face of the Liberals? And who might that be? 2) A lot has been said about the great integrity and honesty of Stepahane Dion. What has he done to earn these accolades? Until he came from nowhere to win the leadership race, he flew under everyone's radar. As such, he never had to be accountable for any positions that he held or decisions that he made. He was viewed as an academic nerd. Since he has been leader, his positions on just about anything have been wishy-washy, at best, and almost always take a very simplistic "against the Conservatives" slant. Integrity? Honesty? Do you think he's earned such a high profile in these values. 3) Dion has been accused of "Trudeau Federalism" - a strong central government with a paternalistic, if not subserviant view of the provinces. Duceppe refers to this as "Father knows Best". I believe that his view of Federalism is a large contributing factor to his dislike in Quebec. Paternalistic federalism is dead with the possible exception of the Maritimes. We are entering an era of open, cooperative, respectful Federalism. Do you agree in general that the "style" of our Federal government has to change (as it has with the Conservatives) to better reflect "maturing" of the provinces and their ability to service their citizens?

Interesting article and a response is certainly out of my comfort zone - but hey, that's what's good about these anonymous boards. The article doesn't say what specific cases would be considered - nor does it say how many were actually approved. I have a hunch that it may amount to 1 or 2 or 3 amongst thousands. I guess I could see a circumstance where a woman wants to devote her life to the military but being flat as a board has her being treated literally as one of the boys and perhaps embarrassed in the womens' shower. We "men" usually think of implants in terms of Dolly Parton or Pamela Anderson but I'm pretty certain that if a woman has absolutely no chest, in some cases it can affect one's confidence and ability to be decisive. Trying to avoid being too crude, I remember one fellow in High School who was endowed with something much less than the ideal appendage - and it was plain that it affected him. So in summary, I can see where a policy like the Australians have - would make a lot of sense in very rigid circumstances. I think the prime factor in paying for it would be a proven devotion to the Military - in other words, it's an investment in the person.

The term "thug" came from the article's use of the word "thuggish" but Conservative-leaning though I am, I took your comment to heart and changed the sub-title from "Liberal thugs" to "Back room Thugs". The tight scripters are in all parties but it seems that McGuinty allows himself to be more tightly scripted than the other leaders......and I guess it's no wonder. Here's a video of him answering some questions on crime. This is obviously a partisan video but these are the kinds of McGuinty Moments that rarely show up in news footage. McGuinty quizzed on Crime: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=443...h&plindex=5

Back to the original topic of the UN declaration.....now that the emotion has been drained and common sense has had a chance to prevail, even the Toronto Star supports the decision to vote against the declaration - yes - even the Toronto Star! Their reasoning is clear - as it should be to anyone who takes the time to actually read the declaration. Link: http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/256867

More than scripting, I was trying to point out the bullies that can emerge from a campaign as reflected by this quote from the article:

Saw this article in the National Post. The McGuinty campaign is being tightly scripted. If he doesn't have a scripted answer, it appears that Mr. McGuinty doesn't know how to provide an answer. He's a puppet for the back-room boys. Link: http://www.canada.com/components/print.asp...13-0e186bb9917c

How dare Phil Fontaine say that the UN vote is a stain on Canada's image! The stain is on him. The Conservative government wants to bring First Nations under the protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Bill C-44 repeals Sec. 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA), a 30 year-old exemption which states that no part of the act affects the Indian Act. The bill would extend the reach of the Canadian Human Rights Commission over claims of discrimination that have been shielded because the Indian Act is outside the human rights code. The Canadian Human Rights Act outlaws discrimination in employment and services on such grounds as sex, race, ethnic origin and marital status. The exemption, initially implemented as a supposed temporary measure, has been condemned over the years in Canada and the United Nations. Mr. Fontaine, perplexingly supported by the Liberals and NDP, has responded to the Bill by stating that First Nations need another year or two of “consultations” to determine the “impact” of providing Human Rights protection to his own people. This impact primarily deals with the fact that First Nations women have virtually no marital rights. Aboriginal women do not have the same rights as other women in Canada nor as Aboriginal men. The current law treats Aboriginal women differently from Aboriginal men when it comes to passing on Indian status and reserve membership to their children and grandchildren. Aboriginal women in Canada also face unconstitutional discrimination when it comes to a breakup of a marriage. Other Canadians have a right to a fair share of the marital property. Not Aboriginal women on reserve. For them, leaving the family home often means leaving their community and trying to start over in a non-Aboriginal environment. Incredibly, Aboriginal women cannot complain to the Human Rights Commission about this situation, because they are not protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act. Phil Fontaine has been Chief of the Assembly of First Nations since 1997 and a Grand Chief of Manitoba First Nations for 6 years prior. If Mr. Fontaine truly believed in Human Rights as it applies to both men and women, why was he not demanding changes to the Indian Act and laying the groundwork to accommodate Human Rights for his own people? And once again - where the the Liberals all this time with their majority governments? Thirty years of being outside the protection of Canadian Human Rights is enough. Governments come and go and as such, the urgency ebbs and flows. Sure there will be issues - mainly because there is such a big issue with Human Rights on the reserves - but delaying and stalling will not fix it. Implementation and action will. It’s time for Mr. Fontaine and his Band Chiefs to show some leadership and some genuine concern for Human Rights.