noahbody

Williams earned my respect when he first came into office and personally confronted the picketing union members (can't recall which) to explain why his offer, contrary to what the union bosses were saying, was fair and reasonable. Since that time, however, he's taken on the role as the union boss, crying foul at every opportunity, playing it up in front of the cameras for his loyal followers. Considering all offshore oil revenue is constitutionally owned by the federal govt, maybe Newfoundlanders could be thankful for their good fortune.

I think you made that point thoughout your post. You have no idea what dithering means.

This is the best example ever that polls are worthless. If you think Albertans are going to vote for Dion and his commitment to meet 1990 levels at any expense, you're dreaming, as usual.

I doubt Dion will be liberal leader in October 2009.

This is Harper's fault. These bullish women should have cabinet posts.

This is an interesting defence. To me, it does try to equate the teaching of extremism to child abuse. If it were successful, would it open the door for children of extremists to be removed from their parents for such teachings?

Sorry, but you're wrong: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/Canad...1383329-cp.html

Who exactly did jeff tietz get this story from Khadr or Red X?

That's how religion works. Parents raise their children in their religion. If you wish to interfere with the religious upbringing of a child, you are acting against the concept of freedom of religion.

Oil companies, other emitters and their shareholders are not going to take a hit. They'll just pass on the cost to the consumer. So it's your pockets the government is protecting.

Are you saying the teaching of religious beliefs is child abuse? Should Canada move away from the broad promise of freedom of religion that encourages such abuse and only permit religious institutions that are in line with Canadian values?

The difference is the Conservatives made the gst reduction part of their platform before Martin dropped income tax rate, not after.

Government tends to waste millions on things they don't need to advertise. They also advertise where they don't need to for political reasons (i.e. advertise in both city papers though demographically one might be all that is necessary). In this case, sending out the gst forms to registrants a month earlier would have given all that needed to know, notice. I remember the government had a campaign out after 911 telling everyone not to pack liquids etc in their carry-on. Even if someone didn't own a tv and radio and never read a newspaper, they would have received this message at the airport. Still they felt the need to advertise.

I doubt Harper will be funneling taxpayer dollars to the Liberal party any time soon.

I wonder if he thanked them for his fossil award.

Once again: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/12/11/dion-climate.html

Your leader acknowledges that the government has a plan: Dion is like the driver who drove for miles the wrong direction, then sits in the back seat and blames the next driver for being late. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/12/11/dion-climate.html Edited to add link.

You'd be saving $600 from what you'd pay with 7% GST. Is that really such a bad thing?

Amendments eh? I think that was the "let's give away 10 to 20 billion clause." Would you have voted for this? And if so, explain all of the good it would have done. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...nair_act_070327

Funny, I could have sworn a post earlier you said "The 69% number is the total amount of people who say they don't care if the government implements Kyoto," so no Kyoto isn't the be all end all. That's nice. Harper has hinted tough domestic targets are coming. I would think this will satisfy those who want something meaningful done.

Maybe they can ship it to Ohio.

It is amazing isn't it. Let me try to help you one more time. Here's why you're confused: there are two 69 percents. One you've mentioned above. The other is the percentage of those who don't believe kyoto is the best solution (100 - 31 = 69). But as far as making his statements irrelevant, either stat will do. What he could say that would be accurate is that 31% will be upset.

If 31% believe it is the best solution, how many do not believe it is the best solution? a) 59% 69% c) 8008

This sounds like the basis of many land claims.

Neither is incest.