noahbody

Are you sure it wasn't a couple? Or one?

How annoying is that going to be? After every "Oh God!" now I'm going to hear "You called?" or "That's my name don't wear it out," in the event God's a smart ass.

I don't know why Harper just doesn't ask Dion to help him trim $12 Billion from government spending. It might be the one part of the Green Shift he can salvage.

What I would like to see being taught is the idea that if you break our laws, out you go. Unfortunately, we can't even get the likes of Jackie Tran out of the country.

Quebec never signed the '82 Constitution.

Not much going on? We were in Afghanistan in year eight.

I'm guessing you're an NDP'er who is a devoted follower of Laytonism. Or maybe you're a Green Party supporter. Could you please elaborate on how the Conservative government is lining the pockets of their friends? Something more than banks and corporations are their friends because Jack said so.

Quebec is receiving $8 Billion through equalization. If the people of Quebec want arts, they can afford plenty.

How about some examples to support your accusation?

Maybe the government should put the naming rights up for bid. Viagra might be up for it.

He can cut through butter providing it's left out overnight on a warm stove.

The only type of bailout that would make sense to me would be to restructure business taxes so that vehicles could be written off faster. This might help to stimulate the new vehicle market and help joe the plumber too.

Were you witness to this or is it just hearsay?

I understood that. It's still a contradiction. I do understand you point of view. What I disagree with is the idea of taking specific special interests and claiming it was what they were fighting for. IMO it is more accurate to say they were fighting against losing freedom as they knew it. Agree?

Deleted double post.

She does come from Awesometon. It only makes sense.

Your argument for "Wrong." supports my argument, not yours. I'm sure you'll come back with "Wrong." Gee, you just said they fought for freedom and what it meant at the time. Now you're saying they fought for some undefined definition of freedom. Edit to fix typo

I would like to nominate "Avro Arrow" for the "2008 Thanks for coming out award'"

I agree. I disagree. Given the times, the last thing they would be fighting for would be 'to love freely.' I'm not personally against it, I just don't believe it's an accurate statement. Just like I don't think freedom meant the freedom to express extremest views such as the case was with Elmasry.

. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...gn-pledges.aspx Well, the above is why Conservatives and a Liberal Senator blame the Liberals for the current state of the military. Please elaborate on "throughout Canadian History" and explain how it has affected the status quo. I'm sure the Soviet Union would have been shaking in their Russian boots. Canada bringing a knife to a gun fight. With our defense budget we have to be cost-effective. Secondly, spending billions to bring back dated technology would be one of the dumbest things in history. Please don't ever run for office.

I assume you're referring to the world wars, neither of which were fought for the reasons you mentioned. They did fight out of duty, for freedom, for family, for neighbours, for you, for me and for Kengs. What Kengs fails to realize is that many of those who fought also voted for Trudeau, who changed Canada forever through multiculturalism. I don't totally disagree with Kengs. There are certain characteristics of Canada that would have most war veterans rolling over in their graves. We don't stand up against the Elmasrys and the Khadrs of Canada. Heck, we can't even get a non-Canadian gangster ordered deported four years ago out of the country. Instead we put him back on the street. Things like these endanger our freedoms, families, neighbours, you and me. We need to confront them with courage instead of hiding behind the Charter when it can only be considered cowardly.

Actually, it was just proven you were wrong to wildly speculate. Unless you have a cite for Harper's intentions to "pin all the blame on the Liberals."

This thread should be titled "No he wont. Oh yes he will." Judge Harper on what he does, not on wild speculation. Sure there are times to trust your feelings. For example, if you're tasked with blowing up a Death Star. But other times, try to be a little more rational.

From the article: When I look at the reason he gives, Lee should be an advocate for mandatory sentencing and no conditional sentences.

If I was Harper, I'd make Quebec exempt to the crime bills. The Bloc would then have no reason to oppose the legislation. This would also help Harper politically as it would show he recognizes Quebec as a distinct society.